[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Issue]
[Pages 19053-19184]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 19053]]
VOLUME 157--PART 14
SENATE--Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Senate met at 11:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New York.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
O mighty God, our hope for years to come, thank You for giving us
this day to use for Your glory. From the morning Sun until the going
down of the same, Your blessings provide us with confidence that our
future is brighter than our past.
Today, as we remember Pearl Harbor and a day of infamy, we praise You
for giving so generously to this Nation. Lord, You shower us with
blessings without regard to our worthiness or importance. As we respond
to Your blessings, infuse our lawmakers with a spirit of hope and
purpose that they may do Your will in these challenging times. May Your
spirit sustain them as they labor so that justice will roll down like
waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New
York, 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. Inouye).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, December 7, 2011.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New York,
to perform the duties of the Chair.
Daniel K. Inouye,
President pro tempore.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will
be in a period of morning business, with Republicans controlling the
first 30 minutes and the majority the second 30 minutes.
As a reminder to all Senators, cloture has been filed on the Cordray
nomination. That vote is expected tomorrow morning.
____________________
PEARL HARBOR
Mr. REID. Madam President, 70 years ago today the attack on Pearl
Harbor changed our country forever. It also hardened our resolve to
become a better, stronger nation, and that we have become.
An example is the USS Nevada, a great battleship that epitomizes the
resiliency of our country. While in the port of Oahu on December 7,
1941, the battleship Nevada was hit by many bombs and a torpedo. Sixty
American sailors died. Less than a year later, that great battleship
returned to service and served valiantly for our country during World
War II.
Today we honor the living Pearl Harbor veterans for their courage and
sacrifice. Here in the Senate we refer to our Medal of Honor winner Dan
Inouye, and Senator Akaka, and Frank Lautenberg. All three served in
World War II.
We also remember the nearly 2,400 Americans who lost their lives that
day and the hundreds of thousands more who made the ultimate sacrifice
during World War II. These servicemembers are heroes. They set a fine
example for the men and women who protect our freedoms today, and none
of us will ever forget their courage.
____________________
PAYROLL TAX CUT
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Republicans like to claim they are the
party of the tax cuts, but as Democrats propose more tax relief--we
propose it every day for working families--Republicans every day are
showing their true colors. They only support tax cuts that benefit the
rich.
Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell say they agree with Democrats,
that we should prevent a $1,000 tax hike on middle-class families. A
person running for President, Mitt Romney, agrees that we should extend
the payroll tax cut. The former Speaker who is running for President,
Newt Gingrich, says we should extend the payroll tax cut. But it has
become clear that the caucus, led by the Speaker and by the Republican
leader--that those they lead don't seem to be following them. Tea party
Republicans oppose our plan to cut taxes for nearly every American
family. But Republican leaders recognize that taking $1,000 out of
middle-class pockets during these hard times is political suicide.
There are papers all over the country, but take this one as an
example. ``GOP Is Split On Payroll Tax Cut. Objections To Surtax On
Rich.'' Remember, the surtax is on the second million dollars that
people make. On the first million dollars, not a penny. On the second
million dollars, the bill that we are going to vote on--probably Friday
here, maybe Thursday--has a surtax for people's second million dollars
of income of less than 2 percent.
The headlines go on to say ``Opposition Could Give Obama a 2012
Issue.'' Obama doesn't need a 2012 issue. Middle-class Americans do not
need a tax increase. That is what this is all about.
[[Page 19054]]
It is very clear that there is a bitter division in the House with
House Republicans. As you know, they were supposed to send us a bill
today--or was it yesterday? They finally acknowledged late yesterday
they could not send us anything. They cannot get an agreement even
among the Republicans. They don't reach out to the Democrats at all.
They want to do it with a majority of the majority, and they cannot get
anything done.
So it seems to me, faced with this rebellion in the two caucuses,
Republican leaders have two options: They can work with us to forge a
compromise that will pass or they can move even further to the right to
appease the tea party, because that is what this is all about. As we
have seen before, when faced with a choice between the middle class and
the tea party, Republicans will choose the tea party every time. We
have seen before, when faced with a choice between the middle class and
the richest of the rich, the Republicans choose the richest of the
rich.
____________________
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
Mr. REID. Madam President, tomorrow the Senate will vote on whether
to move forward with confirmation of Richard Cordray, the nominee to
head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is part of the
Dodd-Frank bill.
The one thing that came out of that legislation--and certainly we
understood with the financial meltdown that took place on Wall Street--
is the banks need more control, not less. We also learned during that
long debate that the American consumer had no protection whatsoever.
The legislation we passed created the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
My Republican colleagues have signaled they are going to block
Cordray's nomination but not because he is unqualified. You would think
that if someone wanted to vote against him, it would be because he is
too liberal, he is too conservative, he is too rich, he is too poor, he
doesn't have the proper education, whatever you could come up with to
find justification for voting against this man. That is not what they
have done. For the first time I can ever remember--and my staff did
research on this last night--for the first time in Senate history the
Republicans are poised to block a qualified nominee solely because they
don't like the Federal agency he will lead.
The Senate Republicans have no problem with Mr. Cordray. He has
bipartisan support and a long history of fighting unfair practices by
financial predators. Instead, Republicans are trying to cripple the new
consumer agency altogether by depriving it of a director. Their
attempts to hamstring the consumer watchdog will leave Americans
vulnerable to scams and rip-offs that are going on as we speak and have
gone on in the past. It is shameful that Republicans would leave
consumers in the dark about the risk they face when making financial
decisions, and they are doing it only to try to change a law that is
the law of this land.
____________________
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Mr. REID. Finally, my first elected job, many years ago, was to an
organization called the Southern Nevada Memorial Hospital. It was the
largest hospital in the State. It was the largest hospital district.
People ran at-large from Clark County, the Las Vegas area, and I was
elected to that. It was my first elected job. When I took that job,
there was no Medicare. In that hospital, when someone came who was old
and did not have money, someone had to sign for them--a husband, a
wife, father, mother, brother, sister, neighbor; someone signed. If
that person did not pay after agreeing to pay, we had a large
collection agency and we would go after those people. It was very
difficult sometimes to collect that money, difficult in the sense it
was hard to do, but, more importantly, it was difficult to do because
you hated to go after people to pay these large hospital and doctor
bills.
Medicare came into being before I left my job. It changed. Prior to
Medicare, 40 percent of the seniors who came into that hospital had no
insurance, and that is where they had to look to their friends and
neighbors and relatives to take care of that bill. Today, after
Medicare is the law of the land, virtually every senior citizen has the
ability to go into a hospital anyplace in America.
For all of these many years, going on five decades, Medicare has been
improving and extending the lives of seniors. The Affordable Care Act,
legislation that my Republican colleagues tend to denigrate,
Obamacare--let's talk a little bit about Obamacare today, the
Affordable Care Act.
One thing that bill did is it extended the life of Medicare for 12
years. Medicare would stay strong for future generations and for
retirees. That is one reason we passed that legislation.
Health care reform today is helping seniors by beginning to close the
doughnut hole, the infamous doughnut hole for prescription drugs for
seniors. This year; that is, 2011, because of the legislation we
passed, Obamacare, more than 2.5 million Medicare recipients, including
thousands of Nevadans, saved about $600 each on prescription drugs.
That amounts to about $1.6 billion, thanks to this legislation. For
some seniors on fixed incomes, those savings prevented difficult
choices between literally food and medicine.
We also had a provision in that legislation that people could get
wellness checks, screenings, and a checkup. More than 24 million
seniors this year got free physicals because of health care reform.
That is progress of which America can be proud.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
PEARL HARBOR
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as the majority leader has noted,
today is the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I
have certainly had the opportunity, and many Members of the Senate may
have as well, of visiting World War II era veterans when they come to
Washington on what are called the honor flights, where veterans groups
raise the funds to get these World War II vets up here to see the World
War II Memorial. It is a great inspiration to see these members of the
``greatest generation'' who, indeed, saved America during World War II.
I remember in particular talking to an elderly gentleman--obviously
they are all elderly at this point--who was at Pearl Harbor that day,
and his describing the horror of the experience. So whether these World
War II veterans served in Pearl Harbor or in Europe or in the Pacific
theatre, we certainly remember their extraordinary contribution to
saving this country, and today in particular.
For our parents' generation, they always remembered exactly where
they were when they heard about the attack. For most of us, we remember
exactly where we were when we heard about the Kennedy assassination,
that moment that is seared in your memory of some extraordinary event;
and, of course, for younger people, the 9/11 attack. Everybody
remembers exactly where they were, and millions of Americans saw the
second plane go into the second building in real time. But today we
remember the attack, and we express our admiration and respect for the
``greatest generation.''
____________________
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today the President welcomes Canadian
Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the White House, and I would like to
take the opportunity to say that I hope the Prime Minister is able to
convince President Obama to reverse his recent decision to delay the
Keystone XL Pipeline.
The President has said repeatedly that jobs are his top priority. He
says he wakes up every morning thinking about how he can create jobs.
Yet here
[[Page 19055]]
is the single greatest shovel-ready project in America ready to go, and
for some reason he is suddenly not interested.
I have a question: How is it that when it comes to taxpayer-
subsidized jobs that may or may not materialize, the President tells us
we can't wait, we have to do it tomorrow, but when it comes to private
sector jobs that are ready to go immediately, he is in no rush? It
doesn't make any sense, particularly when we look at some of the
President's past statements.
Here are a couple of examples. President Obama said earlier this
year:
For those--just to give a background to folks, there are
these tar sands in Canada that can produce oil. There is talk
about building a pipeline into the United States to import
that oil.
This is the President. He said:
I will make this general point, which is that, first of
all, importing oil from countries that are stable and
friendly is a good thing.
That is the President, and I agree with him.
The President also said earlier this year--a statement of the
obvious:
We're still going to have to import some oil.
Boy, are we.
And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations,
obviously we've got to look at neighbors like Canada and
Mexico that are stable and steady and reliable sources.
That was the President earlier this year.
So the President has correctly said, in my view, that he favors
importing oil from allies and neighbors. Here is a project that would
enable us to do that and do a lot more of it and create thousands of
jobs in the process. What is the problem?
Last Friday, Americans woke up to the news that for the 34th month in
a row, the unemployment rate in this country has stood above 8
percent--a period of joblessness not seen since the Great Depression.
The least they can expect from Washington is that we will not stand in
the way of people who want to hire. Yet that is exactly what they are
getting from this President when it comes to this pipeline. This
project has been under review for years--3 years--including two
exhaustive environmental evaluations. By all accounts, the State
Department was ready to give it the green light by the end of this
year--this month.
What happened? Well, it appears Presidential politics got in the way.
The President started getting heat from the environmental activists he
is counting on to stuff envelopes next year, so he conveniently put off
the decision until right after next year's election.
So if this episode tells us anything, it is that the President is
clearly more concerned about getting himself reelected next year than
getting somebody in Montana or Kansas or South Dakota or Missouri a job
today. He is so determined to keep his liberal base happy, he is even
willing to go against the labor unions that, by the way, are
enthusiastically in favor of beginning this project right now.
What have they had to say about it? Well, the Teamsters put it this
way:
The Keystone Pipeline project will offer working men and
women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their
families in this difficult economic climate.
That is Jimmy Hoffa.
The AFL-CIO:
For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any
discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with
one word: JOBS.
The AFL-CIO further said:
As many as 500,000 indirect jobs via a strong economic
multiplier effect . . . without one single dollar of
government assistance.
Isn't this what we are looking for? It doesn't cost the government
anything. It creates jobs immediately. This is what we are looking for.
The Brotherhood of Electrical Workers:
At a time when jobs are the top global priority, the
Keystone project will put thousands back to work and have
ripple benefits throughout the North American economy.
Laborers' International Union of North America had this to say: This
is ``not just a pipeline, but is a lifeline''--not just a pipeline, but
a lifeline--``for thousands of desperate working men and women.''
So what do we have here? We have a privately funded project that
labor leaders are saying their members want up and running. But the
President says this one can wait. Despite what he has said about
importing oil from allies, despite what the labor unions say, the
President wants to delay these jobs until after his election.
It is not just the unions and the Republicans who are asking for this
project to move forward. Let's take a look at what some of the
Democrats in Congress have said about it. There was a letter from 22
House Democrats to President Obama on October 19 of this year, and I
will just read a few excerpts: ``America truly cannot afford to say
no.''
Further in the letter:
Mr. President, America needs the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Further in the letter:
The Department of State's Final Environmental Impact
Statement reaffirmed the findings of the two previous
environmental impact statements, namely, that the Keystone XL
Pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.
Further in this letter from the 22 Democrats to the President they
said:
This represents a true shovel-ready project that would
directly create 20,000 high quality domestic manufacturing
and construction jobs for Americans who are desperately
seeking employment.
That is 22,000 directly working for the pipeline. I have already
described the spin-off benefits--the other jobs that would be created
as a result of it.
Senator Baucus--right here in the Senate--Senator Baucus said:
We need to put Montanans back to work and cannot afford
further delays to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Senator Tester said:
It should not have to wait 14 months for an up-or-down
decision.
The Montana Senators have it right. Americans can't wait for the next
election. They want their jobs now--right now.
So it is my hope that Prime Minister Harper is able to convince the
President to change his mind.
Congressional Republicans and Democrats stand ready to move forward
on this project. We are prepared to do all within our means to get the
Keystone XL Pipeline approved. There is literally no time for delay.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I ask that we now move to morning business.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first hour equally
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with
the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority
controlling the next 30 minutes.
____________________
MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 251,
S. 1944.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 1944) to create jobs by
providing payroll tax relief for middle class families and
businesses, and for other purposes.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page 19056]]
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 251, S. 1944, a bill to create jobs
by providing payroll tax relief for middle class families and
businesses, and for other purposes:
Harry Reid, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Richard J. Durbin,
Charles E. Schumer, Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Kent
Conrad, Joseph I. Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Jeff
Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, John F. Kerry,
Max Baucus, Daniel K. Akaka, Richard Blumenthal,
Kirsten E. Gillibrand.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under
rule XXII be waived.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that we resume morning business
under the previous order; further, that morning business be extended
until 6 p.m. this evening with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10
minutes each.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with my Republican colleagues during our morning business
time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY ACT
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise this morning to discuss the North
American Energy Security Act in a colloquy with my colleagues. Joining
me will be our leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Senator Johnny Isakson from the great State
of Georgia, Senator Mike Johanns from Nebraska, and Senator Jim Inhofe
of Oklahoma. We are here to discuss a very solutions-oriented piece of
legislation. It is about creating jobs. It is about creating energy
security for our Nation. It is about good environmental stewardship. It
is about all of these things and more.
We want to take this opportunity to discuss the legislation and
encourage--to urge--our fellow colleagues to join with us to create
jobs and opportunity for the American people. In a nutshell, this
legislation clears the way for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is a
1,700-mile pipeline that will run from Alberta, Canada, all the way
down to the gulf coast region of the country, down to the refineries in
the United States.
This blue line shows the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This red
line shows an existing pipeline, the Keystone Pipeline, which was built
very recently by TransCanada. It provides almost 600,000 barrels a day
of crude to the United States. The Keystone XL Pipeline would provide
more than 700,000 barrels a day of crude oil to our refineries. In
addition, it will also haul domestic crude from States such as North
Dakota and Montana.
It will put 100,000 barrels a day of our own light, sweet, domestic
crude into the pipeline to bring it down for our needs in the country.
It will also bring oil from places such as Cushing, OK, where we
currently have backlogs to the refineries, as well. So it is also about
moving oil within our country as well as bringing Canadian crude to the
United States and to our refineries.
I mentioned it is a job creation bill. As our leader said just a
minute ago, just the construction alone will put 20,000 workers on the
job--20,000 workers on the job--just constructing the pipeline. The
Perryman Group out of Waco, TX, has indicated more than 250,000 jobs.
It is a huge job creator.
I yield to our leader, Senator McConnell.
Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield on that point, it is my
understanding, and is it not correct, that these are not jobs sometime
in the future but these are, in fact, jobs that just as soon as the
President would sign off on this, this project is ready to go. We don't
have to borrow any--the government doesn't have to borrow any money and
they don't have to try to stimulate anything. This is a project, as I
understand it, I would ask my friend from North Dakota, that is
literally shovel ready and will not cost the government a penny?
Mr. HOEVEN. This is a project that is absolutely ready to go and will
not cost the Federal Government one penny. It puts 20,000 workers on
the job right away.
The hurdle was the route through Nebraska, but we have now worked
with the State of Nebraska. They have had a special session. They have
set up a process to clear that part of the route. Our legislation says
within 60 days after passage of this bill the route is deemed approved.
That is after 3 years of process through the EPA.
So we are ready to go. We have addressed the issues. We can put these
people on the job now if we can get the Presidential approval.
Mr. McCONNELL. In fact, I would say to my friend, the Senator from
Nebraska is on the Senate floor with us right now. He could further
underscore that the people of Nebraska, having now satisfied the
concern they had earlier about location, seem to be ready to go.
Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond
to the leader's comment and his question. The leader is absolutely
right. The people of Nebraska, through their elected officials, have
worked with the company building this pipeline in that they have
resolved their differences.
The reason I support this legislation and have decided to be a
cosponsor of the legislation is that this legislation respects the
Nebraska process. It says there will be a process in Nebraska where we
will site the pipeline in the best place. This legislation says that is
fine. But what this legislation also acknowledges is, on the entire
rest of the pipeline outside of the State of Nebraska, this is ready to
be built today.
The President of the United States has had 3 years of background
study and extensive environmental study, as the leader has pointed out,
and nothing is going to change outside of the State of Nebraska. So
work can begin today. There is just one person holding up that work.
That is the President of the United States. With the stroke of a pen,
he can turn this project loose. It will respect what is going on in
Nebraska. Workers can be hired, the pipeline can be built, and those
jobs can be literally provided today.
So I support this legislation. I am proud to be here this morning to
say that and to thank the Senator from North Dakota, the minority
leader, and all others who have worked with us to solve this problem.
The problem is solved. We are ready to create the jobs. It is my hope
the President will announce that he is ready to proceed to create these
jobs for American workers.
Mr. McCONNELL. Could I ask one further question of either or both of
the Senators--and Senator Isakson as well.
I understand there is a suggestion that there may be political
concerns on the President's part, and we all know that most
environmental groups are very much on the Democratic side. But is it
not the case that there are a number of unions in the country--most of
which, certainly, do not support Republicans anywhere I know--that also
feel passionately about this issue and would like to get to work? Is
that not the case?
Mr. HOEVEN. I ask Senator Johanns, would he like to respond?
Mr. JOHANNS. I have worked on this issue for a number of months--
actually, a couple of years. Here is the situation: Unions are ready to
go to work. I talk to the locals in Nebraska on a regular basis, and
they talk about unemployment numbers that are staggering, in the
double-digits, which, in our State, is remarkable because we have an
unemployment rate of 4.2 percent.
The unions are ready to go to work, bringing their skills and their
talents to bear. The leader's observation is absolutely right.
[[Page 19057]]
For the environmentalists, on the other hand, it is not the pipeline,
it is not the location, it is that they do not want the tar sands
development to occur. So the President is on the horns of a dilemma.
Part of his base, the unions, are saying: Create the jobs. There is
already a pipeline. Let's go out there and do this in the most
environmentally sensitive way we possibly can.
On the other hand, the environmentalists are saying: No, Mr.
President. They have circled the White House. They have done all of
these things. Well, the President solved this dilemma he finds himself
in, in my judgment, by announcing he would just delay this until after
the election.
Mr. McCONNELL. Could I ask the Senator from Nebraska a further
question?
It strikes me--correct me if I am wrong--that America not going
forward does not prevent this from happening, just in another country.
And a good option for the Canadians might well be to just ship this
product to China. Is that not correct?
Mr. JOHANNS. Well, in response to the leader's question, the Canadian
Government has already indicated that if the United States is not a
reliable purchaser and transporter of this commodity, they will have to
look to other parts of the world, for example, China, to sell this
product.
This will not stop the development in that area. In fact, it will
push the development to a part of the world where the refinery process
might take place with fewer environmental standards and, therefore,
cause more environmental problems than if we build this pipeline and
solve it. That is why from the very beginning I have said: Look, I am
not opposed to the tar sands development. I am not even opposed to the
pipeline in our State, now that we have solved the problem.
As I said, there is one person who can create these jobs today. That
is the President of the United States. With the Prime Minister with the
President, it would be a perfect opportunity to say: We do not have to
wait until after the election. Let's create these jobs today. Let's put
Americans to work.
Mr. McCONNELL. Just one final observation, and then I am going to
leave the colloquy to all the rest of my colleagues. But it strikes
me--and I wonder if my colleagues agree--this is about as close to a
no-brainer as we will ever run into in America. There is no government
money.
Mr. HOEVEN. I would ask Senator Isakson to join us at this point. He
is here specifically to talk a little bit about the issue with oil
sands development and China. So Senator Isakson, and then certainly
Senator Hutchison as well.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank Senator Hoeven for the recognition, and I thank
the leader for his remarks.
I just want to confirm what the leader just said by quoting from two
recent articles. The first is from an article about Minister Oliver,
who is Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, on his trip to Shanghai.
Here is his quote:
My mission to China is clear. I have come to raise
awareness of the strength of Canada's natural resource
sectors--as both an outstanding source of quality products
and an attractive destination for investment.
Let me read one other quote that occurred shortly after that speech
was made by the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources:
A unit of China Petrochemical Corp., [known as] Sinopec,
agreed to buy Daylight Energy Ltd., a Canadian oil and
natural-gas producer, for 2.2 billion Canadian dollars . .
.--China's second [purchase and second] foray into Canada's
oil patch in [the last year].
So to confirm what the leader has said, and to confirm what Senator
Hoeven has acknowledged, this is not something we might fear happening
later on. This is something happening now. If we default on the
Keystone XL Pipeline now, we are giving a wide open year for the
Chinese to come back to Canada, make those investments, tie down that
oil, and encourage that pipeline to go--not to Houston, TX--but to
Vancouver, Canada, and then on ships to China.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of both of these articles
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Natural Resources Canada, Nov. 9, 2011]
Minister Oliver Promotes Canadian Energy in China
``My mission to China is clear. I have come to raise
awareness of the strength of Canada's natural resource
sectors--as both an outstanding source of quality products
and an attractive destination for investment,'' said the
Honourable Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister of Natural
Resources, while speaking today at the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce in Shanghai.
The Minister has been in Beijing and Shanghai this week
meeting with senior government officials and leaders of
Chinese companies.
Minister Oliver met with Vice Premier Li Keqiang and
discussed the role of investment and trade in energy and
mineral resources in contributing to Canada's long-term
strategic partnership with China. He also signed an agreement
with the President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Professor Bai Chunli, to expand cooperation on science and
technology in earth sciences and natural resources.
Over the last few days, Minister Oliver has held meetings
with major Chinese energy companies including Sinopec, China
National Offshore Oil Corporation and Petrochina to discuss
Canada's enormous energy resources and attractive investment
climate.
``As reaffirmed today in the International Energy Agency's
2011 World Outlook, global energy demand is expected to
increase by one third from 2010 to 2035,'' said Minister
Oliver. ``Given that Canada is also projected to be an ever-
increasing contributor to global energy supply, our Chinese
investors recognize the importance of getting into the
Canadian energy market right now.''
The Minister discussed the Government of Canada's key
strategic policy of diversifying Canadian energy markets and
participated in a joint Canada-B.C. event with Canadian and
Chinese industry officials to promote exports to China.
Minister Oliver met with Vice Chair Zhang Xiaoqiang of the
National Development and Reform Commission on strengthening
Canada's long-term strategic partnership with China through
two-way trade and investment in energy and natural resources.
While in Shanghai, the Minister also toured the Jinqiao
Wood Townhouse Demonstration Project, where he underlined the
many benefits of Canadian wood-frame construction expertise
for China.
This demonstration project is one of several in China
funded by the Government of Canada to showcase the low-
carbon, environmentally friendly and energy-efficient
properties of wood-frame construction, and to assist China in
meeting its national goals of reducing carbon emissions in
new housing projects.
Minister Oliver continued to highlight the phenomenal
growth in exports of wood products when he met with Vice
Minister Qiu Baoxing, Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural
Development, as well as with British Columbia Premier Christy
Clark and Pat Bell, BC Minister of Jobs, Tourism and
Innovation, to discuss trilateral cooperation on wood-frame
housing in China.
Minister Oliver will now continue on to Tokyo and Sendai,
Japan.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 10, 2011]
Sinopec Deepens China's Push Into Canadian Oil Patch
(By Edward Welsch)
A unit of China Petrochemical Corp., or Sinopec, agreed to
buy Daylight Energy Ltd., a Canadian oil and natural-gas
producer, for 2.2 billion) Canadian dollars (US$2.12
billion)--China's second big foray into Canada's oil patch in
recent months.
In July, Cnooc Ltd. agreed to pay just over $2 billion for
bankrupt OPTI Canada Inc., in a rare move by a Chinese
company to swoop in and swallow an entire company instead of
tiptoeing in with a minority stake.
In the North American energy sector, in particular, Chinese
companies have been wary of political fallout if they are
seen as acting too aggressively in a sector that many
consider to be strategic.
But the two recent moves suggest sensitivities in Beijing
may be easing somewhat--at least regarding business in
Canada. The federal government in Ottawa and its
semiautonomous provincial counterparts have long welcomed
foreign investment in the Canadian oil patch, which includes
vast conventional oil and natural-gas reserves, but also the
much more capital-intensive, oil-sands developments of
northern Alberta.
Canadian companies, with relatively small domestic capital
markets to fall back on, have relied on foreign investment--
including from China--though more often that has come in the
form of minority stakes in companies, or joint ventures in
certain capital-intensive projects.
Last year, for instance, Sinopec bought ConocoPhillips' 9
percent stake in its large Syncrude oil-sands project in
northeastern Alberta for $4.65 billion.
Recently, some Canadian politicians and businessmen have
expressed new wariness over big foreign deals.
[[Page 19058]]
Ottawa rejected Australia-based BHP Billiton Ltd.'s $39
billion attempt to buy Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. last
year. The Canadian government said the deal wouldn't bring
enough economic benefit. However, a campaign against the
takeover launched by the local government of Saskatchewan
generated significant support from regional politicians and
the public.
The Sinopec-Daylight deal will face the same sort of
government review that other significant foreign deals
undergo, including a federal sign-off. But it isn't expected
to garner the same sort of scrutiny as the BHP-Potash bid.
Potash holds a significant chunk of the world's reserves of
potash, a critical raw material in fertilizer. Critics used
that market dominance to argue that Potash was a strategic
asset that should remain in Canadian hands.
Daylight, meanwhile, is a relatively small energy
competitor--one of scores of Canadian companies that hold
just a thin slice of the country's overall petroleum
reserves.
Daylight produces light oil and natural gas from properties
in northeast British Columbia and northwestern Alberta. The
company produced just 37,000 barrels of oil equivalents in
the second quarter. But Daylight has accumulated a
significant undeveloped land position in the emerging
liquids-rich Duvernay shale-gas play in Alberta.
Sinopec is laying down a sizable premium for the deal. In a
statement Sunday, Daylight, based in Calgary, said that
Sinopec had agreed to buy the company for C$10.08 a share,
representing a premium of 43.6 percent over the 60-day
weighted average price of the stock ending Oct 7.
``We believe this transaction with [Sinopec] recognizes the
highly attractive asset portfolio and exceptional team that
we have assembled,'' said Anthony Lambert, the president and
chief executive of Daylight, in the statement
Barclays Capital advised Sinopec on the transaction.
Canaccord Genuity Corp. advised Daylight.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Isakson and ask the Senator if he has any
more he wants to add. I know the Senator has to leave and is on a tight
timetable.
Mr. ISAKSON. Just to thank the Senator for his leadership; the
Senator's leadership on this issue has been outstanding.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Isakson and thank him for being here.
I will turn to Senator Hutchison from Texas.
We have actually 40 Senators already on this legislation--40
Senators. It is bipartisan. This is something we absolutely need to
move on. I spoke with the Canadian Ambassador today, Ambassador Doer.
He talked about how they are already looking at Western routes to send
this oil to China.
So this oil is going to be produced. It is going to be produced. The
question is, Does it come to the United States and help us reduce our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Does it come here and create
thousands of jobs or do we send it to China where there will actually
be more emissions because it will be refined in refineries that produce
higher emissions?
We will also have the emissions of shipping product all around the
world, not only shipping this oil to China but then we are going to
continue to have to ship oil from places such as the Middle East and
Venezuela. So we actually increase CO2 emissions without
this project.
Now, in Texas, of course, we have refineries, and Senator Hutchison
is here to talk about just how important it is we bring this product
down to our refineries in the gulf coast region.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota because Senator
Hoeven has been a leader on this issue, knowing how important this find
is, and how much more capacity we will have for affordable energy in
our country if we can extend the pipeline.
This is a pipeline that is not just starting from Canada into the
United States. The Keystone Pipeline was started in 2008. The initial
line moves 590,000 barrels of oil per day from northern Alberta to
points in Cushing, OK, and Patoka, IL. The XL extension--which is what
we are talking about that is being held up by the State Department--is
currently under review. It would expand the system by 700,000 barrels
per day--so more than double what we are getting already--and bring the
line further south to Texas.
Well, now, why is that important? It is because 25 percent of the
refinery capacity in America is in Texas. It is in the gulf coast of
Texas. That is where the refiners are. We are talking about producing
now more affordable energy for all the consumers in our country by
bringing it straight down and having it refined and sent back out to
all points in America. Otherwise, what my colleagues have just been
talking about--Senator Isakson and Senator Hoeven--is that we will see
Canada export this to other countries, whether it be China or other
countries, and eventually it is going to be coming back into the United
States much more expensively to be refined in Texas and sent out.
So specifically for Texas, it would put our State's 26 refineries
into probably 24 hours' of business, which means lots of jobs in Texas.
That 25 percent of U.S. production is approximately 5 percent of
worldwide capacity. So we are talking about lowering the price of
energy throughout our country and the world.
It would produce an estimated $2.3 billion in new spending and
generate more than $48 million in new tax revenue for my state alone.
It would result in 700,000 barrels of oil a day, as I have said. We
know the Canadian find--the sands that have been found there--is the
third largest capacity, next to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, in
recoverable oil in the world. So we have the third largest reserve in
Canada and we know we have the ability to bring that oil down, have it
refined, and go out to the United States because dependence on the
Middle East and North Africa has certainly led to price spikes.
Venezuela is certainly not a reliable partner right now and supply
interruptions threaten our economy and our national security.
So the Keystone XL Pipeline would certainly be a boom to Texas and
Texas jobs. But more than that, it is going to benefit every consumer
of energy in America. It will more than double what we can buy from
Canada, and think of the reliability of our Canadian relationship. The
reliability of our trade and our relationship with our neighbor to the
north, Canada, is among the most solid we have in all of the globe.
It is essential we build this pipeline. As the leader said earlier,
this is a no-brainer--as close as you can get to a no-brainer for
building our economy, creating jobs, and creating more tax revenue that
will bring down the deficit we have heard so much talk about on the
other side--but this would do it the old-fashioned way: by giving
people the ability to provide for their families and contribute to the
economy of our country.
That is the way we want to see increased revenue in this country:
with more jobs and paying taxes, not collecting benefits because they
cannot find work. It is right here, and it does not cost the government
a dime because it is private investment that will bring this oil to the
refineries and put it back out to the United States.
I urge the President of the United States to go to the State
Department and say: Let this go. In lieu of urging the President, we
have a bill that was started by Senator Hoeven, with 40 sponsors, that
will tell the President: Now is the time--it is long past due time--for
us to create the jobs in this country that are not going to be taxpayer
funded, that are going to be privately funded. They are going to create
cleaner, better, cheaper, more efficient energy; and they are going to
create jobs which people want in this holiday season and on into the
future years.
So I thank my colleague from North Dakota for giving us this chance
to tell the American people we have an answer to jobs and to bringing
down the deficit and increasing revenue the way people want to: by
providing for their families and paying taxes with the money they are
earning. It is a win for everyone. I thank the Senator from North
Dakota for leading this effort.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator from Texas. Senator Hutchison is, as
usual, not only eloquent but has hit the nail on the head. Looking
across our country from North Dakota to Texas to Oklahoma, across our
country we need these jobs. This is the way to get them, and we can get
them now. We need our President to act.
This legislation is a solutions-oriented bill.
[[Page 19059]]
It is about job creation. It is about energy independence. It is
about good environmental stewardship. We need to do it. I would like to
now turn to my esteemed colleague from the State of Oklahoma, Senator
Inhofe, who is the ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He
has a tremendous background in energy, as does Senator Hutchison. I
would turn to Senator Inhofe for his comments.
Mr. INHOFE. I do appreciate that. Sometimes we stand on the floor and
we talk about jobs. But here is the evidence, Oklahoma has a big dog in
this fight. Not only do we have Cushing--when the Senator from North
Dakota talked about Cushing, that is Cushing, OK, right there on his
map. That is kind of a choke point in this pipeline. They all kind of
converge. There is no way of getting down to Texas without getting
through what we have in Oklahoma.
But more so, if you do not think this is a jobs bill, you have a very
famous Oklahoman working in your State. I would say Harold Hamm is
probably the No. 1 producer out there today. I have talked to him. Do
you know what his biggest problem is in North Dakota? His biggest
problem is he cannot find anyone to work. They are full employed up
there. What better evidence is there that this solves the problem--that
this is a jobs bill--than the jobs in North Dakota?
I think there is something sadly lacking in this debate, though; that
is, that this is just an extension of what this administration has been
trying to do. They have been trying to kill fossil fuels from the very
beginning. Let me quote Alan Kruger, who is chair of the President's
Council of Economic Advisers. He says: ``The administration believes
that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by
finding more fossil fuels.'' He wants to kill fossil fuels.
Steven Chu, the Energy Secretary said: ``Somehow we are going to have
to figure out how to increase the price of oil to be equal to that in
Central Europe.'' That is $8 a gallon. He is trying to wean us off
fossil fuels. We cannot run this machine called America without it.
I only wanted to mention that, and I appreciate the Senator from
North Dakota talking about the Environment and Public Works Committee.
It has been an effort of this administration through the backdoor,
through regulation, to do away with fossil fuels. The boiler MACT--
MACT, by the way, means Maximum Achievable Controlled Technology.
By increasing the emission requirements on boilers and on utilities,
we are talking about around $83 billion a year of cost. Compare that to
the cap and trade. Cap and trade right now is--and we have gone through
this on the floor with all these bills trying to have cap and trade and
the greenhouse gases and all that. The cost of that is between $300 and
$400 billion a year. That is more than all the other regulations
combined.
It is all aimed at one thing. What is that one thing? To stop fossil
fuels. Of course, when we talk about my State of Oklahoma being kind of
the choke point, as the Senator has pointed out in his chart over
there, I say to my good friend from North Dakota, we have done an
analysis of jobs just in my State of Oklahoma. By the construction of
the Keystone XL, that would be 14,000 new jobs just in Oklahoma--just
in my State--and an increase of personal income by $847 million.
So this is a huge thing that we have in my State of Oklahoma. Cushing
just happens to be the crossroads. That is where they all come
together. They are clogged up now. As the Senator pointed out, they
cannot do anything. Their hands are tied because they are in total
capacity right now.
It should be a no-brainer. But the problem is there is one man, as
the Senator from Nebraska said, one man can make this a reality, the
President of the United States. He has made it very clear he does not
want to do anything to help fossil fuels in America. It is a political
problem we have.
Mr. HOEVEN. If I may, I would like to ask the esteemed Senator from
Oklahoma to talk for a minute on the subject of how we create that
environment that gets job creation going. I think this project is a
perfect example of what we are talking about. We have to create an
environment--a legal, tax and regulatory environment--that empowers
private investment, not government spending but private investment, to
get job creation going.
Here we have a regulatory issue, where we just--TransCanada has
worked for 3 years to meet the environmental process. Most recently,
the problem was in Nebraska, the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the
Ogallala aquifer. But now we have come up with a solution to make sure
we deal with that issue. So we have cleared that process.
That means this project is ready to go as we have just described.
Leader McConnell just a minute ago talked about how the labor unions
strongly support this project. I can go through that whole list as
well. In addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says: Let's go. We
support this project. So we have 40 Senators, bipartisan, labor unions,
Chamber of Commerce.
Here is an another interesting statistic. This example is such a good
example of what we are talking about. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma
to maybe expand on the point. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last
year released a study identifying 351 stalled energy projects
nationwide costing the American economy $1.1 trillion in lost income
impact, and nearly 2 million jobs annually.
My point is this: We have to find a way to empower private investment
to get job creation going. The esteemed Senator from Oklahoma is
ranking member on Environment and Public Works. He sees this every day.
But without more government spending, the secret to unlocking jobs in
this country is to empower the investment. I would ask if the Senator
from Oklahoma can address that for just a minute because I think this
project is such a perfect example of what we are talking about.
Mr. INHOFE. It is, and this is something that is understood. The term
a ``no-brainer'' has been used several times because we do not have to
think this through. One of the problems I have had--back when
Republicans were a majority, I chaired the Environment and Public Works
Committee. That has jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection
Agency, which has been making every effort to overregulate, to the
extent--we know everybody knows of the spending crisis we have, the
deficit and the debt and all that. They do not understand the
overregulation actually costs us more than all these fiscal issues
combined.
I mentioned just a few of those. I can recall, before the Senator
from North Dakota was in this body, back during the Kyoto treaty--in
the Kyoto treaty, they were trying to get this through to have a type
of cap and trade, something that they said somehow greenhouse gases
were going to cause catastrophic global warming and all that. That went
down the tubes. Then they started introducing legislation to do the
same thing. Then we had--and I appreciate the honesty of Lisa Jackson,
who is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, when
she came out and said: No, if we were to have this strictly in the
United States, it is not going to reduce the emissions.
This is kind of a long way around. The point I am trying to make is,
it is very difficult for people to understand. Just the cap and trade
this administration is trying to do through regulations, because they
could not do it through legislation, is going to end up having the same
effect: kill fossil fuels. That is what they are trying to do.
But the point the Senator from North Dakota is making is that is kind
of complicated. That is hard to understand. This is not. This is
already out there. As I mentioned, just in my State of Oklahoma alone,
14,000 new jobs. Who would be against it? The only ones against it are
people who do not want to keep this machine running in America because
they know they cannot do it without fossil fuels.
Maybe someday that will be different. It is not different today. The
[[Page 19060]]
way to get it down, to bring it down, is through this pipeline. I am
very selfish. It is not just the country; I have 20 kids and grandkids
right there in Oklahoma who are depending on us doing what we are
supposed to be doing.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma. He is so
right. That is what it is all about. It is about putting people back to
work. It is about American ingenuity, private investment. It is about
getting this economy going.
We have to find ways to save dollars, to reduce the spending that has
gotten out of control. But a big part of getting out of the deficit and
the debt is getting people back to work and getting this economy
rolling. We are talking about a project that will create 20,000
construction jobs right upfront, 250,000 permanent jobs, $600 million
in State and local tax revenues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HOEVEN. This is a project that reduces our dependence on oil from
the Middle East. This is a project that provides better environmental
stewardship, as we have described. This is a project where we need to
move forward. This body needs to be about solutions. This is a
solution. We need to act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
____________________
RICHARD CORDRAY NOMINATION
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President I come to the floor to speak in support
of President Obama's nomination of Richard Cordray, from Ohio, to be
the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He is a
former attorney general, former solicitor general, and former State
treasurer of Ohio.
He is unquestionably well qualified to take on the position for which
he has been nominated. Unfortunately, we are stuck in a Republican
filibuster of Mr. Cordray's nomination. Sometimes there is a hidden
ulterior motive around here. In this case, there is a stated ulterior
motive: to weaken the new agency's power to protect consumers.
Republican obstruction of Mr. Cordray's nomination has nothing to do
with Mr. Cordray himself. Former Republican Senator and current Ohio
attorney general Mike DeWine has called Mr. Cordray very well qualified
for this job. Just last month, eight Republican attorneys general
colleagues of his joined 29 Democratic attorneys general in writing to
Leaders Reid and McConnell with their support for Mr. Cordray's
nomination.
Mr. Cordray has been endorsed by groups as varied as the AFL-CIO, the
Credit Union National Association, the National Fraternal Order of
Police, and the AARP. But notwithstanding widespread bipartisan support
on Main Street, Senate Republicans are seeking to prevent Mr. Cordray
from taking office as a service to Wall Street.
As one Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee said: ``My
colleagues and I stand by our pledge that no nominee to head the CFPB
will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate regardless of party affiliation
without basic changes to the Bureau's structure.''
What are these basic changes? The basic changes the Republicans have
demanded include: making the agency subject to the budgetary influences
of Congress, which given the way Congress is behaving is a way of
allowing the influences of Wall Street to come through and control it,
and also replacing the Director's position with a board that would
ensure that Wall Street is represented.
These are not constructive changes. These are an attempt to weaken a
regulator designed to protect consumers. I hope my Republican
colleagues will reevaluate their filibuster of Mr. Cordray's
nomination. But in the event they do not, let's take a moment to review
the consequences for the American people.
As many of our constituents know, in Rhode Island and in Minnesota,
we established the CFPB in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act as a new agency to protect American consumers from
misleading and potentially ruinous financial products. After the
subprime mortgage catastrophe, the logic behind that is pretty clear.
We designed this new agency to be for mortgages, credit cards, student
loans, debt collection, credit reporting--what the Consumer Product
Safety Commission is for toaster ovens, toys, baby strollers,
batteries, and swimming pools.
Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren first proposed such an agency,
and I was very proud to cosponsor Senator Durbin's original Financial
Product Safety Act of 2009, which was the first bill to bring Professor
Warren's idea to the Senate.
We designed the CFPB to investigate consumer financial products and
gave it the power to make rules ensuring that financial products are
transparent and fair, including, for the first time, providing Federal
oversight of previously unregulated loans and financial services from
nonbank financial institutions. Those institutions are often the ones
that get regular Americans in deep and unexpected trouble because of
tricks and traps in those contracts.
When you look at the length and the amount of fine print in consumer
contracts and when you look at the extent to which different traps and
tricks get hidden in all that fine print in order to catch consumers in
things they weren't aware of and would not accept if they had been
aware of them, the reason for this oversight is obvious to most
Americans. Indeed, it is my contention that Americans in today's
society are the most bedeviled group of humans in history by fine
print. Everywhere you go, you find fine print filled with tricks and
traps that fool you, that kick up your interest rate or give away
rights that you have. So what we want is a little bit of a fair shot
and a straight deal for the American consumer.
Under the temporary direction of the Treasure Secretary, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau is actually already up and running. It is
now regulating the largest banks in the country--those with over $10
billion in assets--as well as credit unions. Unfortunately, its
authority to protect consumers from these other financial products will
be unclear until there is a Director, which may be another motive for
blocking a Director.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is already out there looking
out for American consumers to make sure big banks and credit unions are
playing by fair rules, but it has not yet been able to regulate the
nonbank companies, such as mortgage services, the private student loan
lenders, debt collectors, payday lenders, and credit reporting
agencies. While the Senate Republicans filibuster this nominee--a very
qualified nominee, an indisputably qualified nominee--some of the worst
financial actors in the country remain unaccountable for their
deceptive and harmful practices. Predatory lenders near military bases
continue to charge our servicemembers effective interest rates of up to
800 percent. Private student lenders continue to withhold clear
information about repayment terms from young students taking out these
loans. Debt collectors continue to bully and harass those who are on
the edge of bankruptcy. So-called payday lenders continue to dupe
senior citizens into taking out loans bearing triple-digit interest
rates.
This is the status quo Senate Republicans are preserving by blocking
Mr. Cordray's nomination. Consumer protection against these kinds of
practices should not be a partisan issue. I really hope our colleagues
across the aisle at least allow us to have an up-or-down vote on this
nomination. The majority rules, so let's vote and let's go.
Every day that Republicans continue their obstruction, Americans from
all walks of life--from students, to senior citizens, to our men and
women in uniform--will continue to be subjected to unchecked and
unregulated deceptive financial products. They will continue to be prey
for predatory loan instruments.
Abusive lending practices that strip wealth from communities and
purchasing power from consumers continue to hold back our struggling
economy. Let's confirm Mr. Cordray so that he can begin the hard work
of leveling
[[Page 19061]]
the playing field for the American consumer and help ordinary Americans
get a straight deal in our increasingly complex economy. I hope we will
be able to do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to join and associate
myself with the remarks made by my colleague from Rhode Island, who has
expressed forcefully and eloquently the reasons that I believe Richard
Cordray should be confirmed in his nomination as Director of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This country faces a continuing financial crisis. We see it on the
job lines, in the streets, and in our communities. That crisis can be
traced to the same abuses that this new agency was created by the
Congress to fight.
The laws are good laws. They are designed to protect consumers from
those abuses and problems that led to this financial crisis. But the
laws are dead letter, or meaningless, unless they are enforced
vigorously and rigorously, unless consumers are protected not just in
word but in deed. That is the reason we should confirm Richard Cordray
as the Director of the CFPB.
The people in this agency are doing good work. They have the
authority now to supervise some of the biggest banks, credit unions,
and other financial institutions, but they need a Director to oversee
the work of nonbank financial institutions, such as independent payday
lenders, nonbank mortgage lenders, nonbank mortgage servicers, debt
collectors, credit reporting agencies, and private student lenders.
Lest anyone think these are abstract or potential problems, they have
only to look to their neighbors and friends who are struggling to stay
in their homes, seeking to pay their debts, and facing every day the
continuing abuses in these areas. The bad actors may be among a
minority of actors in this area, but they cannot be counted unless
Richard Cordray is confirmed. I know from my experience that consumer
protection laws are meaningless to ordinary Americans, as they are to
citizens of Connecticut, unless there is vigorous enforcement of these
laws.
Richard Cordray will bring to this job a unique set of
qualifications. He has been involved at the local and State levels in
working closely with community banks and credit unions, as well as
other financial institutions, as a State and county treasurer. He
understands the important role they play in small towns and
communities. He knows how to work with institutions and the
businesspeople who run them. He is realistic and sensible. He has
common sense. He has had a positive experience--hands on--working at
the local and State level.
I have worked with him personally as an attorney general, worked
collaboratively with him--indeed, helping to start the investigation of
the mortgage service abuses that have led to a nationwide inquiry and,
hopefully, will lead to a nationwide solution. I know him to be a
practical and sensible person who knows how to listen. Richard Cordray
knows how to listen to people who are affected by the rulings he may
make, the policies he may implement, and the people whom he may hire.
Indeed, his nomination was praised by a former U.S. Senator and current
attorney general, Mike DeWine, a Republican who defeated him in 2010.
Republicans in this body have made this issue a partisan one. It
should not be. There is nothing partisan about debt collectors or
mortgage services or others who may abuse the trust of consumers. There
is nothing partisan about people who become victims of the abusive
practices that continue, which we need the CFPB to counter. There is
nothing partisan--or should be nothing partisan about this individual,
Rich Cordray, who has dedicated his life to protecting ordinary men and
women against the financial abuses the CFPB is designed to fight.
Blocking his nomination is, very simply, a way to stop the CFPB from
ending abuse. It may be articulated in a variety of ways, using words
such as ``accountability,'' ``rulemaking,'' ``structure,'' or
``authority'' as terms that are at issue. But the fact is that his
nomination cries out for confirmation simply to implement the important
laws that this body has passed, laws that remain dead letter as long as
they are not enforced.
The men and women who are working in this agency now, under the
leadership of Raj Date, are doing the best they can. They are making a
difference. They are protecting, for example, our veterans. Holly
Petraeus, who is head of the division in the agency designed to protect
our veterans, is doing great work in that area. She deserves our
support; she needs and merits our support. She and others in that
agency need and deserve the support of this Congress and this body in
confirming Rich Cordray.
I have worked with Rich Cordray. I know him as a man, as a public
official, as a nominee. We will be losing a uniquely qualified person
for this job if we fail to do the right thing and protect consumers
from the continuing abuses of this industry.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection,
it is so ordered.
____________________
PAYROLL TAX CUT
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the issue of the
payroll tax and the tax cuts we are trying to enact, very similar to
what we did last year when Democrats and Republicans came together at
the end of the year, right before the holiday season, and said, we have
to take action now to make sure we are doing everything possible to
jump-start the economy.
One of the elements of that agreement last year--and, again, it was
bipartisan--was a cut in the payroll tax. Just so people understand my
point about this tax--and I will deal only with the employee side--we
know that employees in the United States, when they make their payroll
tax payment, it is 6.2 percent of their earnings. Last year we cut that
from 6.2 to 4.2. It was the right thing to do and it had a positive
impact. What I am trying to do now--and, again, I think this is
bipartisan--is to not just do that again, but we want to cut it even
more so that we can reduce it in half, so instead of paying 6.2, an
individual would pay 3.1.
This is a very basic idea, and what we are trying to do are two basic
things. No. 1 is to give folks out there more take-home pay--kind of
dollars in the pocket. Last year, it was roughly $1,000 per worker. The
impact on a family--the positive impact of that--is very significant.
This year, we hope it will be greater. We hope we can enact something
where the take-home pay savings are increased, depending on how one
argues it, almost $1,500. Instead of being $900 or $1,000, for some
folks it can be $1,500 or $1,400 or somewhere in that range.
The second point on this is peace of mind. We ought to take action
here in a bipartisan way--and every once in a while we get this right--
that will say to people, we are trying to do our best to understand
what you are up against. We are trying to take actions here that will
lead to economic growth and job creation.
One of the actions we can take is making sure we reduce the payroll
tax so folks out there have more money in their pocket--more take-home
pay--as they head not just into the holiday season but as they head
into the new year in 2012. So it is about take-home pay and peace of
mind.
We have made some progress in the last couple of months, when we
consider where we have been and in trying to dig our way out of this
great recession. Unfortunately, the progress we have made is far too
modest, and the economic recovery right now is still very vulnerable,
very fragile--pick your word, there are lots of ways to describe it. We
need this tax cut to boost consumer spending.
[[Page 19062]]
A lot of the business folks I talk to in Pennsylvania, when I ask
them if they want to hire, or if they want to increase their payroll,
say, I want to, but I can't. I say, why can't you? They say, there is
not enough demand out there. So one of the best ways--maybe the best
way--to create demand in our economy is to have folks have more take-
home pay.
As you can see from this chart on my left, when we look at the
quarters, starting right here, we see minus 6.7 percent. That is the
first quarter of 2009. Eventually, we have gotten to the point where we
have started to have some growth. We have had nine straight quarters of
GDP growth. But that is not enough--not nearly enough. It is movement
in the right direction, but it has been barely positive, as you can
see, even if you look at just the last year. This .04 is the first
quarter of 2011. So even though we had almost 4 percent of good growth
back in a couple of quarters in 2009 and into 2010, in the last three-
quarters of 2011, we had .4 percent growth, 1.3 percent growth, and 2.0
percent growth.
What we have to do now is make sure the fourth quarter is stronger,
as best we can, and we need to make sure, by the actions we take here,
that 2012 is much better. We need to ensure we have stronger growth,
and putting $1,500 of additional earnings into the pockets of 160
million workers, as I said before, will help substantially. I think
that number should be repeated. When we talk about cutting the payroll
tax in half and putting more take-home pay in people's pockets, we are
talking about affecting 160 million workers in the United States.
Economists across the board have told us why this is so important.
They have reported the payroll tax cut will create jobs and increase
GDP--increase those numbers I referred to on the chart--and that
failing to extend the tax cut will slow growth and lead to fewer jobs.
Mark Zandi, of Moody's Analytics--one of the economists both parties
have quoted over many years--estimates that not extending the current
payroll tax cut--meaning allowing the payroll tax to go back up to the
6.2 percent, not cutting it in half--would reduce gross domestic
product growth by .5 percent in 2012.
So instead of having positive growth, he is saying that if we don't
enact and extend the payroll tax cut from last year, at a minimum we
would be losing a half point of growth. That would be devastating to
this economy.
Goldman Sachs has said similar things. They put the negative impact
on GDP growth at as much as two-thirds of 1 percent in 2012. Most
economists are in that range in terms of the adverse impact. RBC
Capital Markets concludes that the hit to GDP next year of failing to
act would be a full 1 percent.
So you have economists saying half a percent adverse consequence,
two-thirds maybe, but at least among others saying a full percentage
point. That would be devastating when we need to see growth at above 2
and hopefully even above 3. But that has been very hard to reach in the
last couple of months.
I put this chart up on my left to highlight what Mark Zandi said.
Here is his warning when discussing what could happen on the current
payroll tax cut in effect right now, the 4.2 level that we are at right
now from the cut from last year:
We'd be in recession right now without it.
That is what he said about what we did last year in a bipartisan way.
I would hope we could end this year on a high note, on a bipartisan
note, and make sure we cut the payroll tax again and put more take-home
pay in people's pockets.
Then here is Mark Zandi talking about if we don't extend, what could
happen into the near future:
We'll likely go into recession.
So says Mark Zandi. We can't afford to do that. The payroll tax cut
has helped sustain the economic recovery this year, and it will
strengthen the economy in 2012 if we reduce it again.
My bill not only extends it but increases it so that the per worker
take-home pay increase, instead of being around $1,000, would be
approximately $1,500.
We also know that cutting the tax leads to job growth. We know this
from our experience, and we know this from recent history. At the end
of 2010, Congress enacted the current payroll tax, cutting it from 6.2
to 4.2, and it took effect at the beginning of the year.
As we look at private sector job growth in 2011, we can see some of
the impact of the cut. As we can see on the chart, if you look at the
first couple of bars--even if you can't read the smaller print here--
this depicts starting in January of 2011 what was the monthly change in
private payrolls, meaning private sector job growth. January was only
94,000, not that great of a month in January 2011. But look at
February: 261,000 private sector jobs added. Look at March: 219,000
private sector jobs added. And then April: 241,000. So you had an
average of about 240,000 private sector jobs growing in those 3 months.
When we got to May and June, of course, a lot of things happened which
took that number way down. It slowed for a lot of reasons. One of them
was the spike in oil prices, another was the effect on gas prices, and,
finally, the earthquake in Japan had a terrible effect on our economy.
I am wrapping up here, but I want to make one more point about this.
The American people are looking at us right now, watching what we do,
and they are saying basically two things to us--at least the people in
Pennsylvania, to me. They ask me one basic question: What are you doing
to grow the economy and create jobs? What are you doing as an
individual Member of the Senate? One of the ways I can respond
affirmatively and positively is to say we have come together to reduce
the payroll tax even more than we did last year to help you in your
bottom line, so you have more take-home pay for you and your family.
The second thing they ask is, what are you doing to try to bring
people together, to try to reach a bipartisan consensus? We have all
got to try do that in our own way. This is about take-home pay and
peace of mind. We need this tax cut in place to boost consumer
spending, to create jobs, and accelerate economic growth.
I want to conclude with one thought about Social Security, because I
know it has been raised by a number of folks the last couple of days.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter
addressed to Secretary of the Treasury Geithner and Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, dated December 6, 2011. It is signed
by Steven C. Gross, Chief Actuary of the Social Security
Administration.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Social Security Administration,
Office of the Chief Actuary,
Baltimore, MD, December 6, 2011.
Hon. Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jacob J. Lew,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Geithner and Mr. Lew: We have reviewed the
language in the ``Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011'' (S.
1944), introduced yesterday by Senator Casey. We estimate
that the enactment of this bill would have a negligible
effect on the financial status of the Old Age and Survivors
Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program in both
the near term and the long term. We estimate that the
projected level of the OASI and DI Trust Funds would be
unaffected by enactment of this provision.
Section 2 of the bill would make the following changes for
payroll tax rates and OASDI financing: (1) for wages and
salaries paid in calendar year 2012 and self-employment
earnings in calendar year 2012, reduce the OASDI payroll tax
rate by 3.1 percentage points, (2) transfer revenue from the
General Fund of the Treasury to the OASI and DI Trust Funds
so that total revenue for trust funds would be unaffected by
this provision, and (3) credit earnings to the records of
workers for the purpose of determining future benefits
payable from the trust funds so that such benefits would be
unaffected by this provision. For wage and salary earnings,
the 3.1-percent rate reduction would apply to the employee
share of the payroll tax rate. For self-employment earnings,
the personal income tax deduction for the OASDI payroll tax
would be 66.67 percent of the portion of such taxes
attributable to self-employment earnings for 2012. Other
sections of the bill
[[Page 19063]]
would have no direct effects on the OASDI program.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Goss,
Chief Actuary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. The point of this letter is very simple. I won't read the
whole letter, but here is the pertinent part of this letter from the
Social Security Administration.
We estimate that the projected level of the OASDI and DI
Trust Funds would be unaffected by enactment of this
provision.
What he is talking about there is Social Security would be
unaffected. The trustee said last year the same thing. I won't add all
this to the Record, but read the one sentence. This is page 33 of a
report from last year:
Therefore, this payroll tax cut is estimated to have no
financial impact on these same trust accounts.
So it is abundantly clear that there is no impact on Social Security
and, secondly, it is abundantly clear that passing a payroll tax cut
again will boost job growth, strengthen the economy, grow the economy,
and give American families some measure of peace of mind as we head
into the holidays and head into the year 2012.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
ATF'S LANNY BREUER
Mr. GRASSLEY. The Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms is a division of the
Justice Department. I have been investigating Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms' Operation Fast and Furious for almost 11 months now. It is
past time for accountability at the senior levels of the Justice
Department. That accountability needs to start with the head of the
criminal division, Lanny Breuer. I believe it is time for him to go,
and I wish to explain why I have come to that conclusion.
The Justice Department denied, in a letter to me on February 4, 2011,
that ATF had ever walked guns. Mr. Breuer had been consulted in the
drafting of that erroneous letter of February 4, this year.
On May 2, 2011, rather than acknowledging the increasingly obvious
facts and apologizing for its February letter, the Justice Department
reiterated its denial on May 2, this year, the same denial of February
4th.
Thus, when the Justice Department revealed on October 31 of this year
that Breuer had known as far back as April 2010 about gunwalking at
ATF, I was astounded. That was a shocking revelation.
The controversy about gunwalking in Fast and Furious has been
escalating steadily for 10 months now. The Justice Department had
publicly denied to Congress that ATF would ever walk guns. Yet, the
head of the criminal division, Mr. Breuer, knew otherwise and said
nothing. He knew the same field division was responsible for walking
guns in a 2006-2007 case, and that case was called Wide Receiver.
But the real shock was how Mr. Breuer had responded within his own
department when that earlier gunwalking was first brought to his
attention in April 2010. He didn't tell the Attorney General. He didn't
tell the Attorney General's Chief of Staff. He didn't tell the Deputy
Attorney General. He didn't tell the inspector general. Instead, he
simply told his deputies to meet with ATF leadership and inform them of
the gunwalking:
. . . so they know the bad stuff that could come out.
Later, his deputy outlined a strategy to:
. . . announce the case without highlighting the negative
part of the story and risking embarrassing ATF.
Think about that. In that case, saving face was more important than
the bad policy.
For 18 months, the embarrassing truth about ATF gunwalking in Wide
Receiver and Breuer's knowledge of it was successfully hidden. It only
came out because of the congressional investigation into gunwalking in
Fast and Furious.
The public outrage over Fast and Furious comes from the average
American who cannot understand why their very own government would
intentionally allow criminals to illegally buy weapons for trafficking
into Mexico.
Next week, it will be 1 year since Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry
was murdered by bandits armed with guns as a direct result of this
policy of letting guns walk. The Terry family, and all Americans who
sympathize with their loss, are rightfully outraged and astonished at
their very own government doing such a thing. Yet, when Mr. Breuer
learned of a case where ATF walked guns in a very similar way, all he
did was give ATF a heads up. There seems to be a vast gulf between what
outrages the American people and what outrages Lanny Breuer.
Mr. Breuer showed a complete lack of judgment by failing to object to
the gunwalking that he knew about in April 2010, 9 months before I was
ever aware of Fast and Furious. If Mr. Breuer had reacted to gunwalking
in Wide Receiver the way most Americans reacted to gunwalking in Fast
and Furious, he would have taken steps to stop it and hold accountable
everyone involved. Consequently, Fast and Furious might have been
stopped in its tracks and Brian Terry might be alive.
When Mr. Breuer came before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
Crime and Terrorism the day after those revelations, I gave him a
chance to explain himself. I listened to what he had to say. He told us
that he:
. . . thought that . . . dealing with the leadership of ATF
was sufficient and reasonable.
Clearly, it was not sufficient. Mr. Breuer even admitted as much,
saying:
I regret that I did not alert others within the leadership
of the Department of Justice to the tactics used in Operation
Wide Receiver when they first came to my attention.
He regrets not bringing gunwalking in Wide Receiver to the attention
of the Attorney General. But what about bringing it to the attention of
Congress? He didn't even step forward to express his regret until e-
mails that detailed his knowledge were about to be produced under
congressional subpoena.
It is astounding then that it took the public controversy over Fast
and Furious to help the chief of the criminal division realize that
walking guns is unacceptable. Yet he had had 9 months after the
February 4 letter to step forward, correct the record, and come clean
with the American public. He had 18 months, after learning of
gunwalking in Wide Receiver, to put a stop to it and hold people
accountable. He failed to do so.
During his testimony, I asked him pointblank if he reviewed that
letter of February 4 before it was sent to me. His misleading answers
to these questions formed the basis for my second reason for calling on
Mr. Breuer to resign. He responded that he could not say for sure but
suggested that he did not review the letter. He said, ``[A]t that time,
I was in Mexico dealing with the very real issues that we are all so
committed to.''
Last Friday, the Justice Department withdrew their February 4 letter
to me because of its inaccuracies--and the word ``inaccuracy'' is their
word. The Department also turned over documents under subpoena about
who participated in the drafting and the reviewing of the letter. One
can imagine my surprise when I discovered from documents provided
Friday night that Mr. Breuer was far more informed during the drafting
of that letter than he admitted before the Judiciary Committee. In
fact, Mr. Breuer got frequent updates on the status of the letter while
he was in Mexico.
He was sent versions of the letter four times. Two versions were e-
mailed to Mr. Breuer on February 4, after he returned from Mexico,
including the version of the letter that was ultimately sent to me that
day. At that time, he forwarded the letter to his personal e-mail
account. Mr. Breuer's Deputy also sent him two drafts of the letter
while he was in Mexico, and he also forwarded one of those to his
personal e-mail account. We do not know whether he did that in order to
access it on a larger screen than the Government-issued BlackBerry or
whether he
[[Page 19064]]
engaged in any further discussion about the letter in his nongovernment
e-mail account. However, we do know, in response to the draft received
in Mexico, he wrote to one of the main drafters of the letter: ``As
usual, great work.''
The Justice Department excluded Breuer's compliment about the context
of the draft from the set of e-mails it released to the press on
Friday, before they released those documents to this Senator.
That evening, Mr. Breuer submitted answers to written questions. He
wrote:
I have no recollection of having [seen the letter] and,
given that I was on official travel that week and given the
scope of my duties as Assistant Attorney General, I think it
is exceedingly unlikely that I did so.
So as late as last Friday night, Mr. Breuer was still trying to
minimize his role in reviewing the letter, despite all the evidence to
the contrary. Why would Mr. Breuer say ``great work'' to a staffer
about a letter he claimed he had not read?
It is not credible that someone such as Mr. Breuer would forget about
his involvement in a matter such as this. Mr. Breuer's failure to be
candid and forthcoming before this body irreparably harms his
credibility. His complete lack of judgment and failure to deal with
gunwalking when he first learned of it in April 2010 was bad enough,
but this is the final straw. Mr. Breuer has lost my confidence in his
ability to effectively serve the Justice Department. If he cannot be
straight with the Congress, he doesn't need to be running the Criminal
Division. It is time to stop spinning and start taking responsibility.
I have long said the highest ranking individual who knew about
gunwalking and Operation Fast and Furious needs to be held accountable.
That standard applies no less to officials who knew about gunwalking in
Operation Wide Receiver. Gunwalking is unacceptable no matter when it
occurred. Documents made clear that Assistant Attorney General Breuer
was the highest ranking official in the Justice Department who knew
about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver. He did nothing to correct
the problem, alert others to the issue, take responsibility or even
admit what he knew until he was forced to do so by the evidence.
Therefore, I believe the Attorney General needs to ask for Mr. Breuer's
resignation or remove him from office if he refuses. If Mr. Breuer
wants to do the honorable thing, he would resign.
I am not somebody who flippantly calls for resignations. I have done
oversight for many years, and in all that time I don't ever remember
coming across a government official who so blatantly placed sparing the
agency embarrassment over protecting the lives of citizens. He has
failed to do his job of ensuring that the government operates properly,
including holding people accountable.
Because of that, Mr. Breuer needs to go immediately. Anything less
will show the American people the Justice Department is not serious
about being honest with Congress in our attempt to get to the bottom of
this.
In regard to my attempt to get to the bottom, just last night the
Justice Department sent a letter refusing to provide several Justice
Department staff for transcribed interviews. The letter explicitly goes
back on the assurances I received when I consented to proceed with the
confirmation of three senior Justice Department officials, which I had
held up to get an agreement to get the information Congress is entitled
to.
One of my conditions for agreeing to proceed with those nominations
was that officials who agreed to voluntary interviews in this
investigation would have either a personal lawyer present or a
Department lawyer present but not both. I personally met with the
Attorney General, and he had the conditions listed on a piece of paper
in front of him. It looked as if he had read it and was familiar with
it. Yet he never objected to that condition.
Dozens of witness interviews have been conducted under that
understanding with no problem. The only difference is that instead of
ATF witnesses, we are now seeking to interview Justice Department
witnesses. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. There is
no reason to change the rules in the middle of the game. I was relying
on the Attorney General and other officials at the Department to honor
their agreement. Apparently, that is not going to happen.
Fortunately, Chairman Issa has the ability to require the witnesses
to appear via subpoena if they refuse to appear voluntarily under
conditions that the Department previously agreed to with me. I am
confident he will do that if it becomes necessary, and I will take
whatever steps I have to take in the Senate to encourage the Department
to reconsider and stick to its original agreement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
____________________
THE CORDRAY NOMINATION
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am delighted to stand before you on this
Delaware Day, 2011. This is the anniversary of the day when, on
December 7, 1787, Delaware became the first State to ratify the
Constitution. For 1 week, Delaware was the entire United States of
America. We opened up things in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, eventually
New Mexico. For the most part, it has turned out well, especially the
New Mexico part. We are happy to be here to celebrate this day with all
our colleagues.
Later today, Senator Coons and I will return to regale our colleagues
with more about what we started all those years ago and how it has
turned out.
I wish to fast forward, if I could, though, to 2008. As the Presiding
Officer will recall, during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis
on Wall Street, one question which Congress repeatedly asked itself
was: What can we do to prevent future harm from reaching Main Street?
What can we do to prevent future harm from reaching Main Street?
This theme continued as we considered and ultimately passed in 2010
comprehensive financial regulatory reform regulation, which fortunately
the majority of us, including myself, supported, the legislation now
known as the Dodd-Frank law.
While none of us were able to agree on each of the elements of the
Dodd-Frank law, and while some of my colleagues did not support it in
the end, most us could agree we needed to do more to help protect
American families and businesses from bad actors.
As a result, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created.
For the first time in history, one agency would be charged with
overseeing consumer protection for Main Street Americans within the
financial industry.
In July of this year, 5 months ago, Richard Cordray was nominated to
be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Richard
Cordray served for many years as the president pro tem of the Delaware
State Senate before retiring roughly 10 years ago--a man now probably
in his mid-70s. I was shocked to hear he had been nominated to head
this new agency. It turns out it is another Richard Cordray. This
Richard Cordray had been the attorney general of Ohio for a number of
years. He was well regarded. He helped protect consumers, investors,
retirees, and business owners to ensure that Americans on Main Street
got a fair deal. At the time of his nomination, he was leading the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's enforcement efforts. Mr.
Cordray, former AG, is someone who has been intimately involved in
getting the new bureau stood up and running and who brings key
expertise to the table.
When we first passed the law, I suggested to the President, to
Secretary Geithner, and others--I said I think there are three models
they could choose from to pick someone to nominate to head this new
bureau. No. 1, they could pick an academician; No. 2, they could pick
somebody who has been a regulator or, in this case, attorney, an
Attorney General; and the third, I said they might want to try to find
somebody in the private sector who has run a significant financial
service company but had a great, impeccable record, that of a ``white
hat''
[[Page 19065]]
for consumer protection, for looking out for consumers, somebody who
believes one can do well and do good at the same time. I thought those
were the models. The administration looked at people in all three
categories, including the latter one and ultimately decided, within the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they had Mr. Cordray. He had a
good track record, and he was the person the President wanted to
nominate. I think he has made a very good choice.
I talked to a number of my colleagues who sat in on hearings where he
testified on his nomination and for the most part got good reviews from
Republicans and Democrats here.
As my colleagues and I debate this nomination and ask ourselves is he
qualified to do the job, I think the answer is yes. My colleagues on
the Senate Banking Committee agreed, and 37 attorneys general from
across the country, both Republican and Democratic, agreed.
However, today's debate has not been about whether Mr. Cordray is
qualified to do this job; instead, the debate has focused on the
structure of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In May of
this year, 44 of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle sent a
letter to the President saying they would block any nominee until
structural changes are made in the new agency. This is before the
President ever nominated Mr. Cordray. My colleagues want to see changes
made such as replacing the Director with a board structure and
subjecting the Bureau to the appropriations process. My colleagues, 44
colleagues in any event, pointed out that these structural changes
would model the Bureau after already-existing agencies, while some of
my other colleagues have also made the point that there are already
existing agencies not subject to the appropriations process, such as
the FDIC and the Federal Reserve.
What we have is a disagreement, one where colleagues on both sides of
the aisle have what I believe are legitimate points. The Consumer
Bureau was created in Dodd-Frank through a series of compromises.
Rarely is any compromise perfect. The Presiding Officer and I have been
involved in enough compromises over the years to know if, in the end,
neither side is fully satisfied with the compromise, maybe we struck a
pretty good balance, and I think that is the case here.
But the point of the Bureau is to put the consumer first, and I will
be the first to admit that there is no such thing as a perfect law. I
assume my colleagues who are here and back in their offices and at
committee hearings would agree with that. If there are aspects to Dodd-
Frank that can be tweaked and approved, we ought to do that. But at the
end of the day, we must put financial protection of consumers above our
disagreements and our personal preferences.
The longer we continue to constrain the Bureau by denying it a leader
and only discussing the structural changes that some Members would like
to see made, the greater the disservice to consumers across America.
The Bureau's authority was created so that it would not just be limited
to banks since those institutions are already regulated, as are credit
unions and bank-holding companies. The Bureau's authority is supposed
to extend to nonbanks as well, nonbanks which provide a form of
financial service, such as payday lenders and debt collectors.
Prior to Dodd-Frank, nonbank entities were subject to little, if any,
Federal supervision. Yet their reach and use across our country is
widespread. As a result, many unscrupulous actors were able to exploit
loopholes and harm American consumers. That is not to say all payday
lenders or all debt collectors are unscrupulous actors. They are not.
They are not all out there to exploit the loopholes. But too many of
them do, and they do so without the kind of supervision they should
receive.
However, without a Director in place, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau does not have the authority to supervise these very
entities. This drastically undermines the very spirit in which the
Bureau was created. It is not just the consumers who are harmed but our
small community institutions as well. These community institutions want
to see a level playing field where they can compete and where everyone
plays by the rules. Consumers and businesses need certainty, and they
need predictability. I hear that almost every day, especially from
businesses. Without certainty, without predictability in a whole wide
range of areas, we will continue to see our economic recovery hindered.
I think I have shared with the Presiding Officer a story that is
germane today to this discussion, and it goes back to 7 or 8 years ago
when I was working on clean air legislation to try to reduce the
emission of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide,
issues that we debate from time to time in the Committee on Environment
and Public Works where we serve.
I remember one day we had seven or eight utility CEOs in from across
the country to discuss the merits of different legislative proposals.
Finally, one crusty old CEO of a utility down south said to me: Look,
here is what you should do. You should figure out what the rules are
going to be, use some common sense, give us a reasonable amount of time
to comply with them, and get out of the way. That is what he said. I
thought those were words of great wisdom, and not just for clean air
legislation but also today.
We cannot afford to drag this disagreement out in perpetuity. We must
empower this Bureau to look out for Main Street as was envisioned with
the creation of the Bureau. We may have to look at the idea of a
commission-based structure, and I would love to sit down with my
colleagues from the other side of the aisle and discuss that option if
the former General Cordray's nomination continues to be blocked later
this week.
Right now we have the ability to move forward and to stand by our
words and by the spirit of the law. We need to look out for every
American with a mortgage, credit card, and those looking to send their
kids to college. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Mr.
Cordray's nomination. It is the right thing to do, and it is our
opportunity to show the American consumers that we are putting them
first, ahead of partisan politics, by governing as we were meant to do
in the first place.
I see Senator Webb of Virginia has joined us on the Senate floor. I
will close, before turning it over to him, on a little brighter note.
It is a gloomy day in our Nation's Capital. It has been raining,
sometimes pretty hard. When I was walking up here from the train
station it was.
I want to go back and talk about the issue of uncertainty and lack of
predictability. I think the greatest impediment to getting our modest
economic recovery going and turning it into a robust economic recovery
is to address so much of the uncertainty and lack of predictability. It
revolves around a bunch of issues. Can we demonstrate to those who
question our ability to find the middle to reach across the aisle? Can
we demonstrate the ability to govern? Are we able to demonstrate
through an approach much like the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission
plan the ability to get us back on the right track in terms of reducing
our debt?
What is going to happen with the health care law? Is it going to be
deemed constitutional or unconstitutional? What about the Tax Code?
What is going to happen in a year from now, and what will happen to all
of these tax provisions that expire at the end of this month? There is
a lack of certainty and a lack of predictability, and we need to deal
with that.
I want to mention two or three promising signs before I close. We
have new job numbers for the month of November. The unemployment rate
dropped down to 8.6 percent. Before we stand and celebrate that, there
are still a lot of people we know who don't have a job and are looking
for a job. A lot of people stopped looking for a job, and that is one
of the reasons that number has dropped.
Here is the good news: There were about 120,000 private sector jobs
created last month. About 100,000 jobs
[[Page 19066]]
were created the month before and roughly 200,000 jobs the month before
that. So that is roughly 140,000 jobs per month. We are actually
starting to see growth occurring not just over a couple of months, but
now for well over a year there has been private sector job creation. It
is not the numbers that we like, but it is in the right direction.
The other thing we are seeing is a regrowth and rebirth of
revitalization occurring in the manufacturing sector of our economy.
Some of you may know that we have something called a manufacturing
index. If it sits at 50, it means the manufacturing sector is not
growing, and it is not shrinking. I think it has been over 50 for about
25 consecutive months.
We are seeing a resurgence of manufacturing in this country, which
encourages me to believe that what the President is trying to do, to
double exports over a 5-year period of time, is not just a pipe dream.
It is something that might just happen. It is aided by the three free-
trade agreements that we passed in the last month or two.
On those happier notes, I want to say thank you, Mr. President, for
allowing me to talk about some leadership that is needed and the
willingness to compromise if we cannot get Mr. Cordray confirmed this
week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
____________________
PEARL HARBOR DAY
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, 70 years ago today at 0745 in the morning in
Hawaii--where it is now about 0840 in the morning--our country was
attacked at Pearl Harbor bringing us into World War II. It was a war
that had been ongoing in Europe for more than 3 years, and in Asia, in
different forms, for a much longer period, probably 7 to 8 years.
This began a national effort that was historically unprecedented in
its unity and in its vigor in which the United States astounded the
world in terms of its capacity to respond to this attack on many
different fronts. Our economic production was staggering by 1943. Our
production schedule included 125,000 aircraft, 75,000 tanks, 35,000
antiaircraft guns, and 10 million tons of merchant shipping.
During the course of that war, the productive capacity of this
country gave our allied forces more than half of all of its armaments,
including 86 percent of the armaments that were used in response to the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I rise today to express my thanks and my appreciation to the men and
women of that generation who stepped forward and responded to the call
of service in this period. During World War II more than 16 million
Americans stepped forward to serve our country. In that period more
than 400,000 of them died, including 291,557 who were killed in action.
Another 670,846 were wounded in action. Out of those 16.1 million,
today about 1.7 million World War II veterans remain alive. They are
carrying the torch and the memory of this larger group who stepped
forward and served and became known as the ``greatest generation.''
It is my profound pleasure and, quite frankly, my duty to remember
all of them today. Among those 16 million who served, nearly 8 million
were able to take advantage of the World War II GI bill. It was my
honor to have introduced a similar GI bill on my first day in the
Senate in 2007. Within 16 months, our body and the other body had come
together to agree on an educational package that would allow those who
served since 9/11 to have the same chance at a first-class future as
those who served during World War II. It is a program that will pay
their tuition, buy their books, and give them a monthly stipend.
On this day of remembrance, for those who served during World War II,
we should also remember that for every dollar that was spent on the
World War II GI bill, our Treasury received $7 in tax reimbursements
because of the ability of the ``greatest generation'' to have
successful careers and to contribute to our economy.
So today I would just like to say, as one of many of us here who are
the next generation from the ``greatest generation,'' how thankful I am
for the service they gave and for the example they set when they
returned from war. For many of us--me--they were our parents, they were
our mentors, they were our role models, they were our leaders as we
ourselves matured into leaders. They taught us how to love our country.
They taught us how to value the notion of service. Their legacy is in
every area of our society today.
We honor them and we should resolve, all of us, to continue in the
traditions that were imbued in us by their sacrifices and the example
they set when they returned from a most difficult war.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MUST-PASS LEGISLATION
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time because we are in the
last, we hope, few days before we adjourn for the holidays. There are
certain pieces of legislation we must get done before we leave town. We
call these the must-pass bills that we have to make sure are enacted
before Congress adjourns for the year.
One, of course, is what President Obama has been talking about. We
need to deal with the payroll tax issue. We don't want to see middle-
income families finding that on January 1 their paychecks--the actual
amount of money they take home--are reduced. During this economic time,
we want to make sure the money remains constant, and we don't want to
see additional burdens placed on middle-income families.
We all know we have to deal with the Medicare extenders, including
the physicians problem. We have a flawed system for reimbursing
physicians that causes a substantial reduction in rates physicians
receive--a 27-percent reduction. That would affect not only the
fairness of our reimbursement system to our doctors, but it would also
affect the access Medicare patients have to physicians. So we need to
absolutely take care of that issue.
We have the Omnibus appropriations bill. I certainly hope that is
going to be an appropriations bill so we can give some predictability
through the remainder of this fiscal year. We have to get that done
before we adjourn for the holidays.
We also need to pass the tax extenders. I know the Presiding Officer
has been very actively involved in the energy extenders, knowing full
well the importance not only to New Mexico but to our entire country.
Those extenders need to be passed because, if not, we lose jobs. This
involves the ability to move forward with sustainable energy projects
that will mean jobs in our communities and energy self-sufficiency for
America.
But I wish to take this time to talk about another must-pass bill
before we adjourn for the year; that is, the extension of the
unemployment insurance. It is absolutely essential that we get that
done before Congress adjourns for the year.
I think we have to make it clear that this extension will mean
providing the same number of weeks of unemployment insurance for those
who are currently in the system--those who have lost their jobs--that
we have had for the last couple of years for those who have been caught
up in this economic downturn. We are not extending beyond what the
unemployed have already received. So we are basically extending the
current policy because we are still in a very difficult economic
circumstance.
For every job that is open, there are four people who apply for it.
So it is very difficult for someone who is unemployed to be able to
find employment. As I know and as the Presiding Officer knows, if a
person is unemployed and looking for work, it is much more difficult.
[[Page 19067]]
For all of those reasons, the right thing to do is to acknowledge
that the number of weeks of benefits should not be reduced at this
period, that those who are currently in the system who have lost their
jobs should be able to get the same number of benefits that earlier
unemployed people were able to get during this economic period. That is
what this legislation would do.
Unemployment insurance is an insurance program. During good times, we
pay more into the system. During economic downturns, we take the money
out of the system. It is countercyclical so that we help our economy as
well as help our families.
This is the right thing to do. This is the only lifeline for many
families. This represents their ability to be able to put food on the
table for their families or to keep their home from going into
foreclosure or to pay their rent or to take care of their family needs.
This is the right thing to do from the point of view of families who
have been caught up in this economic period.
It also, by the way, would affect millions of our families. Over the
next year, if we were not to extend the unemployment insurance
benefits, it is estimated that 6 million families would be denied their
full benefits that they are receiving currently--6 million families--
and each one is a family in our community who would be adversely
affected.
It also helps our economy. Mark Zandi, who was the economic adviser
for then-Presidential candidate Senator McCain, said that for every
dollar we put out into the economy for unemployment benefits, we get
back $1.61 in our economy. The multiplier effect of unemployment
compensation is positive to our economy. So, once again, when we are
trying to stimulate job growth, this helps us. How does it help us? The
people who receive unemployment benefits visit our local shops, our
small businesses in our communities, keeping our economy moving,
keeping our path forward to job growth.
For all of those reasons--for the fact that it is the right thing to
do for families and for what the intent of unemployment insurance is
all about--it is the right thing for us to do because it helps our
economy. This must be on our list of must-pass legislation. We have to
get this done before we adjourn for the year.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
____________________
PEARL HARBOR DAY
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today is December 7, 2011. Seventy years
ago, something happened in Pearl Harbor. I shall never forget that day
because it was a Sunday, and, as were many Americans, I was preparing
to go to church. I was putting on my necktie and having a good time
listening to delightful Hawaiian music. Suddenly, at about this time--
1:55 p.m. here--the disc jockey in charge of that program began
screaming, yelling into the mike. He was saying: ``The Japanese are
bombing Pearl Harbor!'' He kept on repeating that. For a moment, I
thought it was a repeat or replay of Orson Welles, which my colleagues
will recall was the program that was a mighty hit in the United States.
The disc jockey kept on doing this for about 5 minutes--no music,
just screaming--so I decided to take my father out on the street and
look toward Pearl Harbor. We could see these black puffs, and then we
knew what was happening. Suddenly, while watching these black puffs of
explosions, we could hear a rumble just overhead, and there were three
aircraft. They were pearl gray in color, and they had red dots on the
wings. I knew what was happening, and I thought the world had just come
to an end. Just about 2,400 American sailors and soldiers and
noncombatants died that morning.
I was a young man of 17 at that time, but I was also a volunteer
medical aid man. We had a little aid station--a temporary one--set up
by the elementary school called Lunalilo. So I rushed there to respond
to the call of duty, and I stayed there for about a week taking care of
the wounded and the dead, because we also maintained a morgue on the
school premises.
I became familiar with the cost of war--not the full cost, but I knew
what was happening. The war was much more than just blood and guts. We
have an extraordinary Constitution. We have an extraordinary set of
laws. But throughout the history of mankind--not just the history of
the United States but the history of mankind--war has always provided
some justification for leaders to set aside these laws. For example, on
just about Christmas Eve of 1941, about 3 weeks after December 7, the
U.S. Government made a decision, and that decision was to provide a new
designation for all Japanese residing in the United States. Citizens
and noncitizens, such as my father, were given the new designation,
which was 4-C.
As the Presiding Officer knows, 1-A means you are physically fit,
mentally alert, and you can put on a uniform; 4-F means something is
wrong with you; and 4-C is the designation for an ``enemy alien.'' Just
imagine that--an enemy alien. This was used as one of the
justifications to round up over 120,000 Japanese, most of them
Americans of Japanese ancestry, and place them into these internment
camps. There were 10 of them throughout the United States in very
desolate areas--Arkansas, Arizona, Utah, out in the deserts. Their
crime was they were ``enemy aliens.'' None of them had committed any
crime. Investigation after investigation disclosed that. No sabotage,
no espionage, no assault--nothing. They were rounded up and placed into
these camps, which were described by our government as concentration
camps. Yes, it was unconstitutional, but our leaders felt the war was a
justification to set aside the Constitution and set aside the laws.
Well, many of us--especially the young ones--were very eager to
demonstrate to our neighbors and to our government that we were loyal,
that we wanted to do our part in this war, and, if necessary, put our
lives on the line. We petitioned the government. Finally, after about a
year of petitioning, President Roosevelt issued a statement saying:
Americanism is not a matter of blood or color. Americanism is a matter
of heart and soul. He said: OK, form a volunteer group. And that was
done. We trained in Mississippi and we did our best.
The 100th Battalion, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team were assigned
to do our battles in Europe. We fought in Italy and France. We started
off the war with about 6,000 men. At the end, over 12,000 had gone
through the ranks. So you can imagine the casualty rates. We had about
10,000 Purple Hearts for all the wounds they received. We were told
that these two units became the most decorated in the history of the
United States.
Yes, the bombing of Pearl Harbor 70 years ago began a period of my
life when I became an adult and, I hope, a good American. It is
something I will never forget. It changed my life forever.
Something of interest at this moment: 20 years ago, when we decided
to make it a national event--the 50th anniversary of the bombing of
Pearl Harbor--on that morning, the President was there. The Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of War, the Secretaries of the Interior
Department, State Department--all of the important people of the United
States were in attendance.
In preparation of this, we took a poll, about 6 months before
December 7, and the poll was among high school seniors, well-educated
young boys and girls. The question was a very simple one: What is the
significance of December 7, 1941?
Mr. President, I am sad to report to you that less than half could
respond. Most of them thought it was a birthday of some President or
some historic date of some nature, but they could not recall what it
was.
On this 70th anniversary, I wonder, if that poll were taken again,
What would be the outcome?
Well, I hope we will remember December 7. I hope we will remember 9/
11. That was just a few years ago. But people are beginning to forget
9/11, as well as forgetting December 7.
[[Page 19068]]
If December 7 is going to teach us anything, it should be that we
must remain vigilant at all times--not just to avoid war but vigilant
among ourselves so we would not use this as a justification to set
aside our most honored document, the Constitution. I hope it will never
happen again.
Mr. President, I thank you very much for this opportunity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very moved by the words of the
Senator from Hawaii--not only his words but the example he has set for
all Americans of heroism and sacrifice and service to his country, and
a most valued Member of the U.S. Senate but, more importantly, a
genuine American hero.
I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his continued service and his
continued inspiration to all Americans, especially those who are
serving in the military today.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, would my friend yield for a brief statement.
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I, like my friend from Arizona, compliment
my friend from Hawaii. But I think it speaks volumes to hear Senator
John McCain talk about a hero. It is a hero talking about a hero. Far
too rarely do we recognize these people whom we have the opportunity to
serve with here in the U.S. Senate.
When I came here with Senator McCain--we came at the same time--we
had a lot of people who were war veterans. It is not the case anymore.
But I so appreciate John McCain--a certified, unqualified hero--
standing and talking about Dan Inouye being a hero. This says, I
repeat, volumes coming from someone who is a hero himself.
I have such admiration for both of these men. For someone who has
never served in the military, to have the pleasure of being able to
serve and work together with these two men will be something I will
remember the rest of my life.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am deeply touched by the kind and
undeserved words of my old friend of many years, the distinguished
majority leader. We have had our spirited combat and our agreements,
but we share a commitment--the two of us--for the betterment of this
Nation.
I also remind my friend from Nevada what he already knows, but I
remind him, it does not take a great deal of talent to get shot down. I
was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane,
which will not go down in the Aviation Hall of Fame, not to mention the
several aircraft I destroyed at taxpayers' expense in previous times.
So I thank my dear friend from Nevada, as well, for his kind words.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the humility of my friend. I
have heard him say words to this effect before. The fact is, what he
did after the plane went down is what we all will remember. As long as
our country is the country it is, we will always remember what happened
after that plane went down, what John McCain did, setting an example
for the world and certainly his country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
____________________
RUSSIA
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Russia, and to
review--particularly, in light of the recent election in Russia and the
relationship we have--the state of what this administration has
trumpeted as a so-called reset of U.S.-Russia relations, especially in
light of the flawed Duma election that occurred this weekend, and in
light of my strong belief that the growing demand for dignity and
uncorrupt governance that has defined the Arab world this year may
impact Russia as well.
Let me once again make clear that I am not opposed to U.S. engagement
with Russia. I am not opposed to working consistently in good faith
with Russia to find more ways to improve our relationship. To the
contrary, we must continue to actively seek ways to cooperate with
Russia in mutually beneficial ways. It is in our national interest to
do so. And whatever can be said about the administration's policy
toward Russia, no one can accuse them of a lack of sincerity and
diligence in trying to increase cooperation with Russia.
I would simply ask, What has been accomplished? What has been the
result of the administration's good-faith desire for a so-called reset
of relations with Russia? The answer, I am afraid, is precious little.
Yes, there have been some areas of progress, but even those minor steps
may now be getting rolled back.
There has been a lot of news recently pertaining to our relationship
with Russia and Russia's future development, which my colleagues may
have missed. It is very important to spend some time today and review
these new developments.
Let's start with the issue of missile defense.
My colleagues will remember the debate we had here last year over the
ratification of the New START treaty. In that debate, we spent a lot of
time discussing the Russian threat to withdraw from the treaty if the
United States took any further steps to build up its missile defense
capabilities. Specifically, the Russian Government stated that the New
START treaty ``may be effective and viable only in conditions where
there is no qualitative or quantitative build-up in the missile defense
system capabilities of the United States of America.'' The Russian
Government stated that in the ratification of the treaty. They went on
to say that if those conditions were not met, Russia would exercise its
right to withdraw from the treaty.
Many of us felt strongly at the time, and feel strongly now, that it
was a mistake to ratify a treaty on which the two signatories had two
completely antithetical positions about the implications of that
treaty, particularly as it pertains to one of our most vital national
security programs--our missile defenses. Some of us thought and argued
at the time that the United States should not voluntarily sign up to a
treaty that would likely be used by the Russian Government as a source
of political pressure and blackmail to get us to make concessions on
our missile defenses.
Well, here we are, 1 year later, and let's review some of what the
Russian Government has been saying and doing in this regard.
On November 23, we read an article from Bloomberg entitled ``Russia
Prepares to `Destroy' U.S. Shield.'' This is what it said:
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the military to
prepare the capability to ``destroy'' the command structure
of the planned U.S. missile-defense system in Europe.
Russia may also station strike missiles on its southern and
western flanks, including Iskander rockets in the Kaliningrad
exclave between Poland and Lithuania, both members of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union,
Medvedev said on state television today.
``I have ordered the armed forces to develop measures to
ensure, if necessary, that we can destroy the command and
control systems'' of the U.S. shield, Medvedev said. ``These
measures are appropriate, effective and low-cost.''
On the same day, we read the following in an article in the New York
Times entitled ``Russia Elevates Warning About U.S. Missile-Defense
Plan in Europe.'' I quote from the article:
Russia will deploy its own missiles and could withdraw from
the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty if the United
States moves forward with its plans for a missile-defense
system in Europe, President Dmitri A. Medvedev warned on
Wednesday.
``I have set the task to the armed forces to develop
measures for disabling missile-defense data and control
systems,'' Mr. Medvedev said. . . .
But it was Mr. Medvedev's comments about the New Start
treaty, put into effect this year, that suggested a darkening
tone in
[[Page 19069]]
what has been a steady drumbeat of warnings out of Moscow in
recent days over the plans for a missile-defense system based
in Europe.
``In the case of unfavorable development of the situation,
Russia reserves the right to discontinue further steps in the
field of disarmament and arms control,'' Mr. Medvedev said in
a televised address from his residence outside Moscow.
``Given the intrinsic link between the strategic offensive
and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the
New START treaty could also arise,'' he said.
If all this were not troubling enough, we then read on November 28 an
article from a Russian state news agency entitled ``Russia's NATO Envoy
to Visit China, Iran, Over Missile Defense.'' Here is what was
reported:
Russian envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin will visit China and
Iran in mid-January to discuss a U.S.-backed global missile
defense network.
``We are planning to visit both Beijing and Tehran soon
under the Russian president's directive, to discuss the
planned deployment of a global missile defense network,''
Rogozin said during a roundtable meeting at the lower house
of the Russian parliament.
On November 28, the Russian Government went even further, not just
using the New START treaty to try to blackmail us into weakening our
missile defenses but threatening to cut off NATO's supply routes into
Afghanistan as well, which was another area of limited progress that
the administration hailed as part of its so-called reset policy. This
is how the Wall Street Journal described it last Monday in an article
entitled ``Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes.''
Russia said it may not let NATO use its territory to supply
troops in Afghanistan if the alliance doesn't seriously
consider its objections to a U.S.-led missile shield for
Europe, Russia's ambassador to NATO said Monday.
If NATO does not give a serious response, ``we have to
address matters in relations in other areas,'' Russian news
services reported Dmitri Rogozin, ambassador to NATO, as
saying. He added that Russia's cooperation on Afghanistan may
be an area for review, the news services reported.
So let me summarize: After being assured that the New START treaty
would contribute to the improvement of U.S.-Russia relations, and that
the Russian Government would not use the treaty against us as
blackmail, we are now in a situation where the President of Russia is
threatening to deploy ballistic missiles to destroy U.S. missile
defense systems in Europe; where he is openly threatening to withdraw
his government from the New START treaty if the United States does not
make unacceptable concessions on its missile defense programs; and
where the Russian Ambassador to NATO is threatening to cut off NATO's
supply routes to Afghanistan and planning to visit China and Iran with
the purpose of deepening Russia's cooperation with those governments
against U.S. missile defenses.
I think it is safe to say that the effect to date of the New START
treaty on the U.S.-Russia relationship is rather less positive than
originally advertised. The problems in our relationship with Russia go
well beyond missile defense, as important as that is. In recent months,
as the Assad regime in Syria has slaughtered roughly 4,000 of its own
citizens who are seeking a democratic future, what has been the Russian
Government's response? With the help of China, Russia has been
absolutely shameless in blocking any serious action in the United
Nations Security Council, including by vetoing a toothless security
resolution that would not have even imposed sanctions but merely hinted
at the possibility of sanctions. At the same time, while the Assad
regime's bloody rampage has continued against the Syrian people, the
Russian Government has continued to serve as its primary supplier of
weaponry. In fact, last week in a story entitled ``Russia Delivers
Missiles to Syria,'' AFP reported that despite the brutal violence of
the Assad regime, and over Israel's strenuous objections, Russia
delivered 72 supersonic cruise missiles to the Syrian Government worth
at least $300 million.
Then there is Russia's continued interference in the sovereign
territory and internal affairs of the Republic of Georgia, a country
that the Russian military invaded in 2008 and continues to occupy to
this day. Two weeks ago there was a Presidential election in the
breakaway state of South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia's sovereign
territory. But when Moscow's preferred candidate was overwhelmingly
defeated in those elections, the supreme court of this Russian proxy
state declared the results illegal and nullified the vote. Russian
parliamentarians applauded.
Finally, there is the unfortunate issue of Russia's backsliding on
human rights and democracy. A few months ago, President Medvedev
announced, as we all know, that he would step aside in Russia's
election next year so that Vladimir Putin could once again run for the
Presidency. Some see this as a sign that Putin will come back. I object
to that characterization, because I do not believe Putin ever left. He
has been running things in Russia with no less informal power than he
had as President.
Not surprisingly, over the past 3 years, the state of human rights
and freedom in that country has gotten no better. In fact, things have
gotten worse. Perhaps the clearest evidence of this fact is the tragic
and heartbreaking case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax attorney
working for an international company, Hermitage Capital, that had
invested in Russia. Magnitsky did not spend his life as a human rights
activist or an outspoken critic of the Russian Government. He was an
ordinary man. But he became an extraordinary champion of justice and
the rule of law in a Russia where those principles have lost nearly all
meaning.
What Magnitsky uncovered was that a collection of Russian Government
officials and criminals associated with them colluded to defraud the
Russian state of $230 million. The Russian Government, in turn, blamed
the crime on Hermitage Capital and threw Magnitsky in prison in 2008.
Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial.
Russian officials, especially from the interior ministry, pressured
Magnitsky to deny what he had uncovered, to lie and recant. But he
refused. He was sickened by what his government had done and he refused
to surrender. As a result, he was transferred to increasingly more
severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat
unclean food and drink unclear water. He was denied basic medical care
even as his health continued to deteriorate. In fact, he was placed in
even worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358
days in prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old.
The Magnitsky case shined a light on the tragic realities of human
rights abuses in Russia today, and the overwhelming cruelty and
injustice that Magnitsky endured has made it impossible for the
government and the people of Russia to ignore. Even the Public
Oversight Commission of the City of Moscow for the Control of the
Observance of Human Rights in Places of Forced Detention, a Russian
organization empowered by Russian law to independently monitor the
country's prison conditions, concluded the following in a report this
year:
A man who is kept in custody and is being detained is not
capable of using all of the necessary means to protect either
his life or his health. This is a responsibility of a state
which holds him captive. Therefore, the case of Sergei
Magnitsky can be described as a breach of the right to life.
The members of the civic supervisory commission have reached
the conclusion that Magnitsky had been experiencing both
psychological and physical pressure in custody, and the
conditions in some of the wards . . . can be justifiably
called torturous. The people responsible for this must be
punished.
The case of Sergei Magnitsky is but an extreme example of a problem
that is all too common in Russia today, the flagrant violations of
human rights and the rule of law committed by the Russian Government
and its allies outside of government. We have seen the problem in the
show trial of Mikhail Khordokovsky, which I would remind my colleagues
was unfolding at the exact same time that this body was debating the
ratification of the New START treaty last December.
After the Russian Government stole Khordokovsky's oil company, it
then turned around and charged him for the
[[Page 19070]]
crime. Even more absurdly, as he was nearing the end of his 8-year
prison sentence, the Russian state then charged him again for virtually
the same crime. Before the judge had even handed down his verdict,
Prime Minister Putin said, Khordokovsky ``should sit in jail.'' And lo
and behold, that is exactly what the judge ultimately ruled, sentencing
Khodorkovsky to 5 additional years in prison on top of the 8 years he
had already served.
Earlier this year, not surprisingly, Khodorkovsky lost his appeal of
this ruling. In a report released this year, Freedom House concluded
that the cases of Magnitsky and Khodorkovsky:
Put an international spotlight on the Russian state's
contempt for the rule of law. . . . By silencing influential
and accomplished figures such as Khodorkovsky and Magnitsky,
the Russian authorities have made it abundantly clear that
anyone in Russia can be silenced.
The violations of human rights in Russia also extend to the deep and
worsening problem of corruption, which perhaps as much as any other
issue mobilizes the frustration and anger of the Russian public. In its
annual index of perceptions of corruption, the independent organization
Transparency International ranked Russia 154th out of 178 countries.
That means that Russia is perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan,
Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be
better places to do business than Russia. I would point out that one of
those countries is the Republic of Georgia, which is ranked 12th by the
World Bank.
When we consider the pattern of corruption and abuse the Russian
Government has perpetrated over many years, it is not surprising to see
the outpouring of anger and dissatisfaction that Russian voters
expressed in this weekend's parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, the
conduct of that election and especially its aftermath has only
validated the growing frustration that Russians feel for their rulers.
Before the ballots were even cast, a noted Russian election monitoring
organization called Golos was subjected to intimidation, harassment,
political pressure, and fines. The subsequent election has been
criticized by impartial international observers, including the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which documented
in its preliminary assessment numerous irregularities and other efforts
by the government to sway a vote in its favor.
Instances of ballot stuffing have been documented. For example, in
Chechnya, it was reported that 99 percent of the population
participated in the election and 99.5 percent of them voted for Putin's
party. That seems a little suspicious, especially considering that the
Putin government has waged years of bloody warfare in Chechnya.
Despite the fact that the recent Duma election fell short of
international standards and violated Russia's law, substantially fewer
Russian voters chose to cast their vote for Putin's party, including in
its stronghold and home base of St. Petersburg. This frustration has
subsequently poured into the streets where Russian citizens have
peacefully sought to demonstrate against the recent election fraud. The
Russian Government has responded, in turn, by arresting hundreds of
opposition leaders, democracy and human rights activists, journalists,
and other members of civil society, including Boris Nemtsov, Alexey
Navalny, and Ilya Yashin. Those men and women are exercising universal
human rights and fundamental freedoms which should not be a crime in
any country.
I call on the Government of Russia to release every Russian citizen
who is unjustly detained for political purposes and to clarify the
whereabouts and conditions of those individuals.
Mr. President, throughout this year, I have said that the demand for
dignity, justice, and democracy that is shaking the Arab world to its
foundations will not be confined to that one region alone. It will
spread. It will inspire others. It will demonstrate to others that the
frustrations, indignities, and lack of hope they may feel today need
not be the realities they endure tomorrow. They can change those
realities. They can change their destiny. They can change their
countries. And it appears that message may be resonating with the
people in Russia. We should hope that it does resonate and resonate in
a peaceful manner, because we agree with a growing number of Russians
who clearly believe they deserve better. They deserve a government that
respects and responds to their aspirations for a better life. They
deserve the power to freely elect their own leaders.
The political development of Russia is more than an issue of moral
principle for the United States. It is closely tied to our national
interests. We have seen in the past that when autocratic governments
feel they are losing legitimacy among their people at home, they try to
demonize others, both in their country and beyond it, and redirect
their public's anger against imaginary enemies. We have seen how the
Putin government has done this in the past. We have seen its attempts
to paint the United States and our NATO and other allies as enemies of
Russia and to lash out against us in the hope of mobilizing public
support at home. This is why the growing pattern of confrontation from
the Russian Government that we have seen in recent months--over missile
defense, resupply efforts into Afghanistan, and other issues--should be
so concerning to us and why we must understand that the actions of the
Russian Government cannot be separated from its character. In fact, as
Russia's Government grows less tolerant of its own people's rights at
home, we should not be surprised if it treats us the same way.
As I have said before, I believe we need greater realism about
Russia, but that is not the same as pessimism or cynicism or
demonization. I am ultimately an optimist, and I often find sources for
hope in the most hopeless of places.
One year ago, after languishing in prison for 7 years and facing the
near certainty of enduring many more, Mikhail Khodorkovsky spoke before
his sentencing about the hopes of the Russian people as they watched
his trial. He said:
They are watching with the hope that Russia will after all
become a country of freedom and of the law. Where supporting
opposition parties will cease being a cause for reprisals.
Where the special services will protect the people and the
law, and not the bureaucracy from the people and the law.
Where human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the
tsar, good or evil. Where, on the contrary, the power will
truly be dependent on the citizens and the court, only on law
and God. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail,
and I do not want to die there. But if I have to, I will not
hesitate. The things I believe in are worth dying for.
That there are still men and women of such spirit in Russia is cause
for hope. And eventually--maybe not this year or next year or the year
after that but eventually--the Russian people will have a government
that is worthy of their aspirations, for equal justice can be delayed
and human dignity can be denied but not forever.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my most distinguished friend from
Arizona for his generous, warm, and friendly remarks. They mean a lot
to me. I will never forget them. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in observation of the surprise
attack that the Empire of Japan launched on the U.S. military bases in
Hawaii 70 years ago. The attack was concentrated on the Pearl Harbor
Naval Base, where over 2,400 courageous sailors, soldiers, and marines
lost their lives. Each year, close to 1\1/2\ million people from across
the country and around the world visit the memorials at Pearl Harbor to
remember the events of December 7, 1941, and how the world was changed
forever on that day.
As the Sun rose over Pearl Harbor today, solemn prayers were offered
and large crowds gathered to honor the sacrifice made by so many of our
brave young men and women.
The National Park Service and the Navy Region Hawaii are hosting the
70th Anniversary Pearl Harbor Day Commemoration at the Pearl Harbor
[[Page 19071]]
Visitor Center to recognize those who bravely survived the attacks and
to remember the thousands more who gave their lives in service to their
country that day.
Representative Charles William ``Bill'' Young from Florida will be
representing Congress at the commemoration ceremony accompanied by
William Muehleib, the president of the Pearl Harbor Survivors
Association, and approximately 100 survivors of the attacks, including
8 who were aboard the USS Arizona, which lies enshrined at the bottom
of Pearl Harbor today. The USS Oklahoma, BB 37, Memorial Executive
Committee will dedicate a rose granite memorial marker at the National
Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl to honor the memory of
the approximately 355 USS Oklahoma sailors who perished but were never
individually identified. The remains of two servicemembers will be
interred at the USS Utah and the USS Arizona so they may again join
their shipmates in accordance with their wishes. And the Hawaii Air
National Guard will fly F-22 Raptors over the memorial sites at Pearl
Harbor and Hickam Air Force Base in honor of the fallen.
I want to recognize and thank the National Park Service and Navy
Region Hawaii for their diligent work and dedication to ensuring that
the legacy of the thousands of servicemembers who perished that day
lives on through the memorials that stand solemnly at Pearl Harbor.
They have done an outstanding job conveying the unwavering spirit of
those who, in the face of perilous odds, stood their ground and fought
back against the Japanese attack to save the lives of their brothers in
arms. The efforts of these organizations have helped to make sure that
our country will never forget the tragic loss that all Americans felt
as news of the attack spread across the Nation.
We must continue to remember the acts of heroism, bravery, and
sacrifice that followed the attack. Our country fought in the name of
justice to preserve our Nation's sacred freedoms. And we must also
recognize and thank the courageous men and women of our Armed Forces
today who are still fighting in the name of those same freedoms. I urge
the citizens of this Nation to recall that it was the collaboration of
a country and the sacrifices made by ordinary men and women who rallied
in defense of freedom, liberty, and the great promise of our democracy
that preserved our Nation's freedom and liberty. It is in that spirit
of coming together to save our country that has always produced the
strongest results and made our country great.
Mr. President, I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in prayer and
remembrance for the men and women who died in Pearl Harbor and those
who are still fighting overseas today. May God bless all of those who
have served to protect our shores, and God bless America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Sanders pertaining to the introduction of S. 1960
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'' )
Mr. SANDERS. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the school year 2009-2010, the U.S.
Department of Education provided $132 billion in grants and loans to
students. That was up from $49 billion in 2001--a dramatic increase in
Federal aid to education. A large part of the increase can be traced to
one particular type of school: enrollment at for-profit colleges. That
has grown faster than any other sector.
Currently, about 10 percent of the students pursuing education after
high school attend for-profit schools--for-profit colleges and
different training schools that offer certification in certain skills
and certain professions, 10 percent. But that 10-percent portion of
students in America account for 25 percent of all the Federal aid to
education. In other words, dramatically more money is going to those
students than those attending other schools after high school.
When it comes to the student loan defaults, where college students
borrow money to go to school and then fail to pay it back, for-profit
school students account for 44 percent of the student loan defaults in
America. Again, 10 percent of the students, 25 percent of the Federal
aid to education, and 44 percent of student loan defaults are
attributable to for-profit schools.
The industry is dominated by 10 publicly traded for-profit companies.
Of those 10 companies, they enroll almost half the students in for-
profit schools. So it is dominated by the big players. The largest, of
course, the Apollo Group, University of Phoenix, at one point had over
450,000 students enrolled nationwide, more than the combined enrollment
of all the Big Ten colleges and universities--a big player when it
comes to higher education and a big player when it comes to Federal aid
to education. The Apollo Group, University of Phoenix, receives more
money than any other college in America, far and away. None are even
close. The next two schools, when it comes to Federal aid to education,
are also for-profit colleges.
While Federal spending on student aid has seen a huge increase, there
has been very little accountability when it comes to these for-profit
schools. Worse yet, almost no information has been available about
whether the students are actually learning and finding work in their
respective fields after graduation.
In June of last year, Senator Tom Harkin--who has joined me in this
effort to look closely at for-profit schools across America--added his
name to a letter we sent to the Government Accountability Office to
study the outcomes for students attending for-profit colleges. The
report has been formally released. For-profit colleges serve--and one
could argue they target--primarily low-income, nontraditional, and
minority students.
For-profit colleges often claim the reason more of their students
can't find jobs and the reason more of their students default on
student loans is because they are trying to provide education to
students whom others will not accept. That is their explanation for
higher debt levels and higher default rates and poorer student
outcomes. Senator Harkin and I wanted to ask the Government
Accountability Office straight out to take a look at the different
students in terms of their income and background and compare outcomes--
for-profit schools versus public universities and private schools. Our
question was: What does the research show about graduation rates,
employment outcomes, student loan debt, and default rates for students
at for-profit schools compared to those at nonprofit and public
schools, taking into consideration different student backgrounds.
When looking at student debt, one study by the GAO found that 99
percent--99 percent--of for-profit college students took out loans,
almost all of them. What is the comparison? Seventy-two percent of
those attending public colleges took out loans, with 83 percent of
those attending private, nonprofit colleges.
When it comes to student loans, the for-profit colleges lead all
types of schools and universities in the number of students who are
taking out loans. The GAO found that for-profit college students have
higher rates of unemployment when it is all over. When it comes to
loans and debts, students at for-profit colleges fare much more poorly
than their peers attending nonprofit or public institutions. Students
at for-profit colleges took out more student loans and they generally
had higher loan debt.
Let me tell you about one of those students who contacted our office.
His name is Jacob Helms. He attended a
[[Page 19072]]
for-profit, online school to earn a bachelor of computer science degree
in videogame design. When he enrolled, he was a little bit apprehensive
because of the cost. You see, this for-profit, online school told him
he had to take about nine classes a year and each class would cost him
$1,500. Jacob was concerned about the cost, but the school told him:
Don't worry about it. The loans you have to take out will cover your
entire education.
With that assurance, Jake enrolled 4 years ago. After about 4 years
of attending courses year-round, Jake reached the maximum direct loan
amount for independent undergraduate students. He had borrowed $57,500.
The problem was, he wasn't finished. He hadn't completed his required
courses. He had just run out of the ability to borrow any more money
from the government. Jake is $57,500 in debt. He has no degree and no
job prospects. He says all he wants to do is move forward and start a
career--his original goal. Jake says the school will provide him with
no assistance or alternative other than to drop out with a debt, no
diploma, and no job.
In fact, Jake didn't even know he had reached the maximum level on
his Federal direct loan limit. He was withdrawn from online classes
with no explanation and finally determined that since he could no
longer borrow money from the Federal Government--he was at the top,
with $57,500--they didn't want him. When he inquired, the school told
him he had run out of money. With an annual income of less than $25,000
and no other way to pay the tuition, Jake dropped out. He says the
school's attitude was very clear: We got our money; we are done with
you.
Jake is not alone. Student debt has outpaced credit card debt.
Imagine that. In October of last year--13 months ago--for the first
time in history, the total amount of student loan debt is greater than
credit card debt in America. In 2009, the average debt nationally for
students at for-profit colleges was well above those who attended other
institutions. Students at for-profit colleges graduated with an average
debt of $33,000. At public universities, the average was $20,000. At
private nonprofits, the average was $27,600.
There are very few penalties for schools where students incur huge
amounts of debt and can't repay their loans. More than three in four--
that is 76 percent--of young adults say college has become harder to
afford in the past 5 years. Nearly as many--73 percent--say graduates
have more student debt than they can manage.
It was interesting to see with this Occupy movement--which had many
different causes, in many different cities--that the one recurring
theme, particularly from the younger people who were there, was we have
to do something about student loan debt. Students across America, those
who have attended colleges and universities, understand that debt and
the burden it places on their lives. These students have to put off
buying homes, starting families, and other major life decisions because
of their debt.
Sadly, many students are not informed about the loans they are taking
out. They do not know the difference between a direct loan and a
private loan, but they should. The one critical difference is this. It
wasn't that long ago in America where people could borrow money from
the Federal Government to go to college and beyond and then declare
bankruptcy, so we changed the law. We said: That is not fair. They
can't borrow this money from the Federal government and then refuse to
pay it. So student loans from the government were no longer
dischargeable in bankruptcy.
I thought there was some sense and justice to that decision. We had
cases that were reported of students literally finishing medical school
and declaring bankruptcy before they went into practice so they didn't
have to pay their student loans. That was unacceptable and unfair and
it can no longer be done. Just a few years ago, we changed the law
again and said private college student loans--those are loans from the
university and not from the government--were also not dischargeable in
bankruptcy. What does that mean? It means, if a student has incurred a
debt or if one has signed on to their son or daughter's college debt,
they are on the hook. They will have to pay that off or else.
We asked some of the Federal agencies: Are you concerned about
student loan default? They gave a very cold answer. They said: No. We
will get our money because we will be watching for the rest of that
person's life. Every time they think they are going to receive a
Federal income tax refund, we will take the check. If necessary, we
will take their Social Security checks too. That shows this student
loan debt can haunt them for a lifetime.
We recently had an e-mail from a young man. It was heartbreaking. He
told a story of going to one of the for-profit colleges in the Chicago
area and he ended up coming out of college with $90,000 in debt, a
worthless diploma and no job. His parents signed a note. Because of the
penalties and interest which accumulated after he had finished his
education, his debt was now up to $124,000. Both his parents had
decided they could no longer afford to retire, as they had planned.
They had to keep working to pay off their son's student loan for an
education that turned out to be worthless.
I wish that was the only example I knew of, but we have been
receiving more and more examples just like it. There is no way in this
circumstance for this student to consolidate loans, lower interest
rates or pay off the balance.
Sadly, many students are not informed about the loans they take out.
They do not know the difference between direct loans and private loans.
They do not know this aspect of nondischargeability in bankruptcy.
Private loans are even more burdensome. You see, when a person takes
out a government student loan, after a period of time--because of some
of the decisions made by President Obama and by this Congress--they can
be at least limited in their exposure of how much they have to pay each
year, 10 percent of their income, with certain qualifications--10
percent, no more. After 10 years, should they take a job as a teacher
or nurse, some of their government student loan debt can be forgiven.
This is not true on the private side. The money loaned to a student
by the school, for example, or by some other institution other than the
government is not subject to these benefits or limits. Students wrack
up unmanageable amounts of debt, then can't repay their loans or
discharge their private student loans in bankruptcy.
In September, the Department of Education released the fiscal year
2009 national student loan default rates. It is a measurement of how
many students default on their student loans, and it gives us a view of
the overall burden of college on students. The rates of students
attending for-profit colleges continue to soar well above the rates for
students at private and public colleges--4.6 percent of students who
attend private schools defaulting on their loans. But students who
attend for-profit schools default at a rate almost 3\1/2\ times as
high, at 15 percent. That is dramatically higher if they attend for-
profit schools. Because their debt is higher, their likelihood of a job
is much less.
This says more about the institutions than it says about the
students. Yet there are no repercussions for schools with high default
rates, unless--under new regulations from this administration--they
have 25 percent default rates for 3 consecutive years. This is
unacceptable.
The recent GAO study recognizes we have few measures to determine the
quality of education students receive. One measure we do have is that
students at for-profits continue to go deeper and deeper into debt even
though most of them don't graduate. Of students who began their
education at for-profit schools in the 2003-2004 school year, only 15
percent had obtained a bachelor's degree by 2009. Again, for-profit
schools, over a period of 6 years, graduate 15 percent.
What about other schools? Sixty-four percent of students at public
colleges graduated in that 6-year period of time,
[[Page 19073]]
and 71 percent at private colleges obtained a bachelor's degree. That
is a huge difference. A 15-percent graduation rate at for-profit
schools means students, many of them, are deeply in debt by a margin of
almost 6 to 1 are not graduating. They don't end up with a diploma.
They have the debt, they have no diploma, and some of them end up with
a worthless diploma.
The recent Department of Education regulations are starting to work.
They are cracking down on aggressive recruiting practices. Students are
thinking harder about where they enroll in schools. In some cases,
students are avoiding for-profit colleges. Every high school student in
America should read the summary of the Government Accountability Office
report on for-profit schools before they even consider enrolling in one
of those schools.
Some of the schools are starting to ask questions on their own about
the way they do business, and they have come to me--many of these
schools--pleading with me, saying: You are just talking about the bad
guys. We are the good guys.
Well, prove it. Prove it. Make certain that students are getting an
education that is worthwhile. Don't sink them with debt. Stand by them
when it comes to finding a job or at least be mindful of what that debt
means to their lives.
More needs to be done to educate families, high school teachers, and
high school counselors about the choices students face. I hope these
companies will continue to examine their practices, and I hope the
Department of Education is going to continue monitoring the schools and
the way they operate.
Let me tell you about one such operation, the Career Education
Corporation. I know about this school because its former CEO came and
met with me in my office in Chicago and then appeared at a hearing,
pleading with me to give special consideration to his for-profit
schools, which were different and better and shouldn't be lumped into
the category of these schools that are exploiting young people coming
out of high school. I listened to him and basically said: Well, I will
pay attention to the way this turns out.
This gentleman, whose name is Gary McCullough, resigned as the CEO of
Career Education Corporation on November 1 after it was reported that
his school had misrepresented its placement rates for its graduates.
Career Education Corporation is an Illinois-based company with over
100,000 students nationwide. If you have not heard of Career Education
Corporation, you may have heard of some of the names of its schools. I
saw one of them on a bus in Chicago advertising for more students, and
it is a familiar name to people who have followed the culinary side of
business for a long time: Le Cordon Bleu. They bought that name, and
they named one of their schools Le Cordon Bleu. We will teach you how
to be a superchef, an Iron Chef, whatever chef you want to be. But it
turns out that they were not only failing to educate and train the
students, but the students couldn't get jobs, and the students were
deep in debt.
When Mr. McCullough ended up resigning as CEO of Career Education
Corporation, they found out that only 13 of their 49 health, education,
and art design schools--13 of 49--met the 65-percent minimum placement
rate for the reporting period. They had falsified their numbers, and
now they are under investigation. They should be. We need to get to the
bottom of it. If they are lying to the students, something has to
happen.
First, they shouldn't be qualified for Federal student loans or Pell
grants. If they are not graduating students into jobs, then they ought
to be held to higher standards. And the students shouldn't be misled
into believing that if they can get a Federal loan at a school, it has
to be a good school.
Secondly, there has to be some standard for accreditation. There
obviously is little or no accreditation accountability at this point.
You can't expect a high school student or his parents to be able to
look at a school from the outside or look at the Web site and decide
whether it is any good. There have to be some standards for performance
and excellence when it comes to these for-profit schools--for every
school, for that matter.
Finally, if this school loses its accreditation, particularly in the
programs where it has failed to graduate students, I think this school
and this corporation should be held accountable for the student loans
that have been incurred by these students. They didn't know they were
signing up to go to an unaccredited school. Their debt is very real;
their diploma is a phony. So it is time for these schools to be held
accountable.
I am sure there are many for-profit schools that offer a good
education, but there are certainly many that are exploiting students
today. They are so good at marketing, you can't avoid them, whether it
is on the Internet or television. They are everywhere, everywhere you
turn, particularly in low-income communities. They are offering
``college'' to many students who can't get into a regular college or
university. These students feel they are finally going to get their
chance. Little do they know that all these for-profit schools are
looking for is the money they can bring to them. When it is all over,
they are deep in debt with no job and no place to turn.
What is our responsibility? Remember, we put $132 billion a year into
Federal aid to higher education. It is time for us to make sure the
schools that receive them for the students are real schools, are
graduating students and preparing them for a good life and a good job.
____________________
NOMINATION OF RICHARD CORDRAY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, experts blame credit default swaps and
collateralized debt obligations for the financial crisis. The fact is,
these complicated financial products were based on mortgages sold to
families who couldn't afford them, credit cards with hidden fees, and
loans targeted to low-income individuals with up to 400 percent
interest rates. The financial regulators ignored their responsibility
to protect consumers from these predatory practices. Because there was
not one regulator solely responsible for consumer protection, the
financial regulators pointed their fingers at the other guy when the
system collapsed. Consumers lost $17 trillion in household wealth and
retirement savings almost overnight.
That is why a bipartisan group of 60 Senators voted last year to
consolidate consumer protection authority into one agency: the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB was given new responsibilities to
oversee nonbank actors who deal in payday loans, prepaid cards, student
loans, and credit reporting.
Mr. President, 200 million Americans rely on credit reporting
agencies when they make a big purchase and sometimes when they apply
for a job. An estimated 20 million people use payday lenders to make
ends meet. I wish they didn't, but they do. Many of them face up to 400
percent interest rates to obtain these short-term loans. Four million
Americans have prepaid debit cards. As more companies use these types
of products instead of checks or direct deposit, it is expected that
over $670 billion will be loaded into prepaid cards in the next few
years. More than $10 billion in private student loans is given to
students, who then face up to 15 percent interest rates. I talked about
a few of them in an earlier statement.
Tens of millions of Americans relying on nonbanks for their financial
needs will go without protection unless the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau has the resources it needs to help American consumers
and a Director.
Earlier this year, President Obama nominated Richard Cordray to be
Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He was recruited
to lead the Enforcement Division and now is being asked to move up and
take over the directorship. Before joining, he served as Ohio's
attorney general, recovering billions of dollars in pension funds on
behalf of retirees and taking on the predatory lenders. Mr. Cordray
[[Page 19074]]
saw firsthand how the failure to enforce Federal consumer protection
laws related to mortgages affected Ohio residents. He has a strong
grounding, working with both consumer advocates and the financial
sector. He is an excellent choice, and I strongly support his
nomination.
Unfortunately, Mr. Cordray is asking to head up a consumer protection
agency which, to paraphrase a former colleague on the floor, the banks
hate like the devil hates holy water. The idea that we would give
authority to an agency to watch these financial institutions--payday
loan operations and the rest--to make certain they don't exploit
American consumers drives these banking interests wild. They have done
everything they can to stop him from becoming Director and to cut the
money available for his Bureau. They don't believe there should be
consumer protection. Let the buyer beware. They don't care, at the end
of the day, if innocent people suffer across America. But they should.
My colleagues claim there won't be any real checks on his power if
Mr. Cordray is given this position, but he is subject to an annual
audit by the GAO; he has to report to Congress biannually; is subject
to private sector independent audit; monitored by the inspector general
of the Federal Reserve; the Comptroller General is required to annually
audit the financial transactions of the Bureau; and is subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congress
Review Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act, to name a few. The
Financial Stability Oversight Council that includes members from across
the financial sector can review and overturn CFPB regulations. No other
agency is subject to having regulations under its own jurisdiction
overturned. But that isn't enough for the special interests that hate
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These are the same players
who helped create the financial crisis that devastated our economy.
Despite all these measures to ensure congressional oversight, those
who couldn't kill the CFPB outright are determined to destroy its
ability to act. And now, as we finally start to recover from this
economic crisis, the same special interests are protesting efforts to
require the disclosure of credit card fees, for example. The same banks
that made billions from selling homes to families who couldn't afford
them are refusing to modify mortgages so families can stay in their
homes. They don't want to change the structure of the CFPB; they want
to destroy its ability to protect America's consumers and families.
They want to go back to the days of ``heads I win, tails you lose,''
back to the days when we didn't have to worry about a regulator
enforcing consumer protection laws.
The CFPB structure is similar to other financial regulators. The
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has been led by one
individual with congressional oversight for over 100 years, for
example. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, is also led by a single Director with congressional
oversight. Yet both financial regulators have avoided the political
outcry we are hearing about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Really, what we are seeing, I am afraid, is a partisan effort to
block a well-qualified nominee. Many intelligent, decent, and hard-
working Americans volunteer to contribute as appointed public servants.
They are well qualified, but all too often these days, they can't get
through the Senate. This has serious consequences on all Federal
agencies and our judiciary.
Yesterday, we saw an incredibly astonishing Republican filibuster of
the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to serve in the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals. The fact is, those voting against her nomination couldn't
come up with a good reason. She had been found by the ABA to be
unanimously ``well qualified,'' she had an amazing resume, and she was
rejected on a filibuster initiated by the Republican side. That is
unfortunate.
I would just say to my Senate Republican colleagues that I think
Richard Cordray has the background and experience to lead this agency.
He should be given a chance. I know the banks aren't happy that anybody
is watching them. These financial institutions--payday lenders and the
rest--would rather do their business without anybody looking over their
shoulders.
Holly Petraeus is the wife of General Petraeus. She has been working
with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stop the exploitation
of men and women in military service. She came by my office to talk
about what this agency is doing to protect these families. Sadly, some
of these families are exploited so badly that they are forced out of
the military and have to be discharged. We don't want that to happen.
We don't want it to happen to American families who unsuspectingly find
themselves lured into financial arrangements that are totally unfair.
Richard Cordray is competent, qualified, and an honorable public
servant. He deserves an up-or-down vote. We are going to have that vote
probably tomorrow, and I hope he will be confirmed and given an
opportunity to lead this important agency.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I
complete my remarks, the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, be allowed
to follow me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the President of the United States has said
repeatedly that he makes jobs his top priority, he wakes up every
morning thinking about what he can do to create jobs and how he can
create jobs. Yet we have the greatest shovel-ready project in the
country right in front of us, and when it comes to that particular
project, for some reason the President is suddenly not interested. I
think we have to ask the question of why that is. I think there are
probably a number of reasons, most of which have to do with politics
and not the economy and not jobs because clearly this is a subject on
which there is no debate when it comes to the job-creation potential
there, the impact it would have on the economies of multiple States in
our country and what it would do for the issue of energy security.
The project to which I am referring is the Keystone XL Pipeline. The
Keystone XL Pipeline is a project that has been under review now for
the better part of 3 years. In fact, there have been two environmental
studies. If you look at all of the due diligence that has been done, it
has clearly been reviewed, it has been analyzed, it has been studied,
and it has been scrutinized. It has gotten to the point now where it is
time to move forward, time to make a decision on this.
Ironically and I think sort of surprisingly to a lot of people,
recently the administration said they are not going to decide this now,
for 18 months. They are going to put it off for 18 months--
interestingly enough, from a timing standpoint, until after the next
election. I think it is unfortunate that is the case because, again, if
your No. 1 priority is job creation, you have one here ready to go
today that could be under construction, and it would immediately create
20,000 jobs in this country, and it would create $7 billion of
investment and a lot of revenue for State and local governments, many
of which desperately need it.
In my own State of South Dakota, the Keystone XL Pipeline would
traverse my State of South Dakota as the oil that comes from the oil
sands area up in Canada makes its way down to the refineries and other
parts of the country, comes through South Dakota, and just in our State
alone that would be about $\1/2\ billion of economic activity, meaning
hundreds of jobs and revenue for a lot of State and local governments.
This project in my State, like so many States where it comes through,
where it impacts--there have been a number of opportunities for people
to be heard, to get their input made on this. It has been going on now
for 3 years. You finally get to a point where you have to say it is
time to make a decision one way or the other. Clearly,
[[Page 19075]]
my view on this is that this is a project that should move forward. But
one way or the other, the President of the United States and his
administration ought to be acting with some finality on this subject
now, not waiting 18 months, not waiting until after the next election
because it is politically expedient to do that, but making a decision
now. Why is that? Because, if it does not get done here, that oil from
the oil sands area in Canada will go somewhere else and some other
country around the world will benefit from that. It will not be the
United States, it will not be refineries here in this country, it will
not be the citizens of America--who have a good relationship with our
neighbor to the north. Canada is our biggest single trading partner. We
do about $640 billion of bilateral trade every single year with Canada.
It makes a lot of sense, if you are thinking about energy security, if
you are worried about the dangerous dependence that we have on other
countries around the world for our energy needs, that if we are going
to get energy we get it from a country with which we have a good
relationship, a country that is friendly and a country with which we do
a tremendous amount of trade.
If we cannot move forward, it is going somewhere, probably to Asia,
probably to China. China will get the benefit. The citizens of China
will get the benefit of this project rather than having the American
people benefit from all this project would entail if we could get it
approved here.
But we ought to at least make a decision. We have all these
discussions in this country, all the rhetoric coming from the other
side about how it is so important that we create jobs in this country.
Yet the administration seems willing to disregard that and say we are
going to make what is clearly a political decision and put this off for
18 months until after the next election.
I think it is interesting to note what some are saying about this,
and frankly even what the President himself has said as recently as
last April about the importance of getting energy from countries that
are stable and friendly. This is something the President said:
Importing oil from countries that are stable and friendly
is a good thing.
That is something the President of the United States said as recently
as last April. There is a letter that went from 22 congressional
Democrats to the President, telling him that America needs the Keystone
XL Pipeline. Twenty-two Democratic Members of the House of
Representatives weighed in on this issue. We have had Democratic
Senators here as well who weighed in with the administration and
weighed in publicly and said this is an important project that needs to
be completed.
You even have the labor unions. Traditionally you would think of them
as part of the President's political base. What are they saying about
this? The AFL-CIO said:
For America's skilled craft construction professionals, any
discussion of the Keystone XL Pipeline project begins and
ends with one word: JOBS.
That is what the AFL-CIO is saying.
Laborers' International Union of North America says it is:
. . . not just a pipeline, but it is a lifeline for
thousands of desperate working men and women.
You have bipartisan support here in Congress. You have the working
people, the organizations of this country that represent working
people, weighing in saying this is a project that needs to be approved,
that would create jobs, that would address some of the economic angst
we are feeling in this country, and here we are faced with this
unnecessary delay.
We have legislation that has 40 cosponsors in the Senate. It was
introduced last week. Many of our colleagues have taken the lead:
Senator Hoeven of North Dakota, Senator Johanns from Nebraska, Senator
Murkowski, Senator Barrasso, who is here on the floor, and others who
believe so strongly in the issue of economic growth, job creation,
energy security, national security, that we have introduced a bill that
would allow this project either, No. 1, to move forward or to have to
provide a rationale why it would not move forward. It is pretty simple,
straightforward legislation. It would allow 60 days from enactment of
the legislation for a decision to be made about the permit, one way or
the other. Either it gets permitted or, on the contrary, the President
gives an explanation as to why it should not be permitted. But at least
we get a decision made so there is some economic certainty for the
people behind this project, the people who are making this investment,
about whether it is going to go forward.
One thing we hear over and over from small businesses across this
country--and large businesses, job creators--is we need economic
certainty. We cannot continue to operate in this complete cloud of
economic uncertainty if we are going to put investment out there and
create the jobs that go with that investment.
Mr. President, 700,000 barrels a day is the equivalent of what we get
daily from Venezuela. If we could get 700,000 barrels of oil today from
Canada, a friendly neighbor to the north, or 700,000 barrels from
Venezuela or any other countries from which we import oil, it seems so
logical and such a no-brainer for us to be able to trade and interact
and to have this economic relationship with Canada on this particular
project. It does come across that way, as I said, in many parts of the
Dakotas and Montana. It would encourage greater oil production here in
this country as well, because you have the Bakkan Reserve in North
Dakota and Montana which we would be able to access for this pipeline
to be able to get some of their energy to refiners around this country.
It is an ``all of the above'' domestic energy strategy: More domestic
oil, more alternative fuels, more innovation. It is all these things we
need when we talk about energy security. But clearly in this case, for
some unexplained reason, the administration has concluded that this
project should not go forward.
There was a concern raised earlier on about the State of Nebraska and
the route the pipeline was taking. That issue has been addressed. The
leaders in Nebraska--Senator Johanns and the Governor of Nebraska--have
come together behind an alternative route which I believe was agreeable
to the company, TransCanada, so you can no longer hide behind that and
use that as a shield. The legislation we are introducing would make, of
course, this subject to States rights and having States such as
Nebraska intervene and work with the company to find this alternative
route. It also would ensure and require strong environmental
protections in the legislation. So that issue is something the
legislation has addressed.
More than anything else, what it does is it at least forces some
action. It at least says we are going to be serious about job creation
in this country or we are not. We are going to support a shovel-ready
project that could create 20,000 jobs and start immediately or we are
not. All this rhetoric and all the hot air that comes from people here
in Washington, DC, about wanting to create jobs, this is putting it to
the test. This is where you have to put up or shut up when it comes to
whether you are serious about creating jobs in this country.
I hope my colleagues here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle--
because I believe this is a bipartisan issue--will work with us to
advance this legislation. There is some thinking that perhaps the House
of Representatives, the other body, may include it in some legislation
they send us that could be coming this way in the not too distant
future.
If that is the case, I hope we will pick that up and act on it
because if we are serious and mean what we say about job creation in
this country, there is no better way than to put some certainty behind
this project. Again, it would be one thing if this had not been studied
and overstudied and evaluated and analyzed and scrutinized--but it has,
over and over again, now for the better part of 3 years. Mr. President,
700,000 barrels of oil today from Canada and the Bakkan region in North
Dakota and U.S. refineries or 700,000 barrels of oil to some other
place around the world that will benefit from it and, just as
[[Page 19076]]
important if not more important, 700,000 barrels of oil the United
States will have to import from some other country around the world
that perhaps is not nearly as friendly as our neighbors to the north.
This is not complicated. This is a pretty straightforward issue and
one where I don't think there is anything but support from the States
that are impacted by this, anything but support from the leadership,
political leadership at the State level and local levels. I am not
suggesting there is--there is no project that has unanimous support.
There are people who oppose this as there are people who oppose almost
anything that happens in this country. But the huge majority of people
I think in the States that are impacted see this for what it is--a
positive, forward-looking project that would address so many of the
important priorities for this country right now: economic growth, job
creation, energy security, national security, addressing some of the
needs the State and local governments have for additional revenue. All
these issues are addressed with regard to this project.
It is mystifying as to why the President of the United States and his
administration would put this decision off until 18 months from now
after the next election, other than purely and simply political reasons
and motivations. That is wrong for the American people. It is wrong for
this project. It is wrong for jobs. It is wrong for the economy. I hope
this body, the Senate, will take steps to rectify that by putting a
date certain out there by which this project is at least acted on, at
least decided, at least permitted or not permitted--hopefully
permitted--so these jobs can be created and we can get this economic
activity underway in these many States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Wyoming.
____________________
A SECOND OPINION
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as I have so
many times since the President's health care bill was signed into law,
with a doctor's second opinion. I do that because I practiced medicine
in Wyoming, taking care of families from around the State for about a
quarter of a century.
When I talk to patients at home and I talk to people on the street,
when I talk to folks all around my State and around the country, what I
hear they want from a health care law was an opportunity to have the
care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford. But
what we have gotten in this country through this administration and
this health care law is a law that is bad for patients, in my opinion;
bad for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of those
patients; and terrible for American taxpayers. So I come to the floor
again with a second opinion today because I am thinking about job
creation.
We just heard about the Keystone XL Pipeline and the opportunity
there with a shovel-ready project to get people back to work. I am
reminded what former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claimed after
the health care law was passed. She said it would ``create 4 million
jobs.'' She went on to say ``400,000 jobs almost immediately.''
As we all know, that prediction never came true. In fact, the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the health care law will
actually encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from
the labor market altogether.
This past week when the employment statistics came out we saw that
over 300,000 Americans have withdrawn from the labor market altogether.
It is interesting that about the same time the health care law was
signed, March 2010, Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Senator,
claimed on ``Meet the Press'':
. . . as people learn about the bill, and now that the bill
is enacted, it's going to become more and more popular.
In fact, this health care law is less popular now, today, December
2011, than it was at the time it was signed into law.
We look at all of these predictions that never came true. It has been
20 months. The health care law's popularity remains low. The law is in
front of the Supreme Court to deal with the constitutionality of this
government going into the homes of American people, telling them they
must buy a product. It is clear that Washington Democrats and the
President have miscalculated. They made promise after promise to the
American people. They asked families, they asked businesses all across
the Nation, to trust them. The President promised that if you like what
you have, you can keep it. The American people know that promise has
been broken. The President said that premiums, health care premiums or
insurance costs for families would drop by $2,500 per family per year.
We know that the costs have gone up higher than if the law had never
been passed in the first place.
Week after week we hear of more unintended consequences within the
law, glitches that are found which show additional problems with the
law and additional promises of the President being broken.
The American people know that they do not like this health care law.
When you ask them do you think this health care law was passed for you
or for someone else, most Americans will tell you that they think it
was passed for someone else.
Today I want to talk about two specific examples of problems with
this health care law and the possible unintended consequences and some
of the repercussions of the things that have happened with this health
care law.
One has to do with the labor statistics that came out on December 2
of this year. They released updated payroll employment and unemployment
numbers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data actually shows that health
care employment was up in November. It was up for all the wrong
reasons. The problem is, the health care law's excessive mandates and
burdensome regulations are prompting the health care industry to create
additional administrative jobs, not caregiver jobs.
The health care law was supposed to actually work to get more doctors
and more nurses and more x-ray techs and physical therapists to take
care of patients, but that is not what happened. Now we see it is
administrative jobs that are up, not caregiver jobs. As a matter of
fact, USA Today printed a half-page article, and the title was ``Health
Care Jobs Grow . . . in Administration.''
The article actually talked about a New Hampshire hospital, and that
hospital--according to the article--was forced to eliminate 5 percent
of its workforce. So we have a hospital eliminating 5 percent of the
workforce after the State cut Medicaid funding last year. So here is a
hospital where 5 percent of the workforce is cut. Many of those workers
were nurses and other caregivers. When I hear caregivers, I think of
physical therapists, radiation technologists, nurse's aides.
Yet in spite of the fact that they had to eliminate 5 percent of its
workforce, they are actually still hiring. How can that be? Let's
listen to what the hospital's vice president, Mark Whitney said. He
said:
We need to deal with new technology, new services, new
regulations, electronic health records, government reporting
requirements on quality . . . a lot of this is related to the
new Federal health law.
So they are eliminating nursing positions, eliminating positions of
caregivers and hiring more people to push paper.
The President and the Democrats in Congress promised their health
care law would expand health insurance coverage. Look at what is
happening now. More and more people are pushing paper.
It is interesting that what the President and Democrats did not tell
the American people is that the health care law's oppressive mandates,
burdensome regulations would actually cause health care employers to
lay off or stop hiring the very health care professionals needed to
treat patients.
Instead, the health care employers must be hiring more clerks, more
administrators, more paper pushers, all in an effort to figure out and
then comply with the health care law's rules and
[[Page 19077]]
mandates. I do not believe that is the change most Americans wanted
when they started to think about health care reform.
The second example I would like to give is from a column in the
Washington Post, December 2 of this year--just a week or so ago--
written by George Will. The article is titled ``Choking on Obamacare.''
The article talks about the health care law's crushing insurance
mandates and how those influence both small and large businesses in
terms of their willingness to actually hire new workers.
When we have this kind of record unemployment, such as we are dealing
with in this country, we want to have businesses hire more people, get
people back to work. That is what makes America grow. That is what
helps our economy, putting people back to work.
In the article, they use the example of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's
restaurants. There are about 3,200 of those restaurants around the
world. The parent company said they have created about 70,000 jobs, and
they want to hire more workers. But the CEO of the company, Andy
Puzder, said they cannot hire more workers because they don't know how
much they will need to spend on health care. They are planning to spend
about $18 million on health care, and they say that is just a guess.
If someone is running a business, they want to be able to figure out
what their future costs are going to be, what the expenses are going to
be, and they would rather have a little more predictability than just
guessing. Thanks to the health care law's complex formulas and many
regulations which have not yet been released and many of the
uncertainties that continue to exist, this is a company that is going
to have to guess about how much they will need to spend on health care.
What business can afford to guess what one of their largest costs is
going to be? They are guessing they are going to have to spend about
twice the amount of money on health care as they did building new
restaurants last year. So they talk about building new restaurants--and
those are construction jobs and jobs for the people who work in the
restaurants providing services--and they are going to end up spending
twice as much on health care as building new restaurants. It doesn't
take a lot to realize that hindering a company's ability to build new
restaurants means fewer available jobs for construction workers and for
service suppliers in a struggling economy.
The CEO of the company is right when he says that ``employers
everywhere will be looking to reduce labor content in their business
models as Obamacare makes employees unambiguously more expensive.''
If we want to spur the economy and economic growth and job creation,
Washington must take its shackles off our job creators. This is just
one more reason why the President's health care law must be repealed
and replaced.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CORDRAY NOMINATION
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support Richard
Cordray, the President's nominee to be Director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.
Three years ago our economy was tumbling into the deepest recession
since the Great Depression. In the fall of 2008, the stock market was
plummeting, unemployment was skyrocketing, and there were daily reports
of yet another financial institution crumbling. Our economy was in a
chaotic tailspin. That was only 3 years ago.
Today we are in a slow and tenuous recovery. Unemployment is still
way too high. Millions of Americans are out of work and have been for
some time. Long-term unemployment is staggeringly high. Retirement
accounts are still reeling. Yet in the Halls of Congress we are
dominated by discussions of our Nation's debt and deficit. In fact, we
are doing little else. These discussions are necessary. We need to
tackle our deficits and our long-term debt. But as we do, we shouldn't
lose sight of how we got here.
The lessons we learned in the aftermath of the 2008 crash shouldn't
be so quickly forgotten. The crash of 2008 was driven in no small part
by unfair practices in the mortgage industry which led to many
consumers being trapped in loans they didn't understand and couldn't
afford. It should come as no surprise that this was as a result of
increasing deregulation of the banking industry.
So in response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. Dodd-Frank, which was passed into law last
year, sought to rein in abusive practices, protect American consumers,
and prevent future meltdowns. One of the bill's centerpieces was the
establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB is
the first Federal financial regulator devoted solely to looking out for
the best interests of American consumers and to do so before a crash
and before any taxpayer-funded bailouts are necessary.
The CFPB's mission is a commonsense one. The CFPB is tasked with
ensuring that consumer financial markets are fair and competitive; that
consumers have clear information about financial products; that
financial practices are not unfair, deceptive, or abusive; and that
consumer financial regulations are improved and streamlined. The CFPB
seeks to empower American consumers to make the best financial
decisions for their families, and that can only help out our Nation as
a whole.
Several months ago, on the 1-year anniversary of the enactment of
Dodd-Frank, there was good news and bad news. The good news was that
the CFPB officially opened its doors. It has already hired staff and
begun some of its work. In fact, a while back I met with Mrs. Holly
Petraeus, who is heading up the Office for Service Member Affairs at
CFPB. She wanted to discuss a few problems that disproportionately harm
members of our armed services.
We talked about ways to educate servicemembers about the potential
downfalls of certain types of loans. This is exactly the type of work I
am so happy that the CFPB has begun. That would be the good news.
The bad news is the CFPB still does not have a Director. Under Dodd-
Frank, the CFPB cannot fully do its job until a Director is in place.
It can do some things, but it will be limited until the Senate confirms
a nominee. President Obama has nominated Richard Cordray. Rich is an
impressive figure, and he has my full support.
Rich Cordray has been on the front lines protecting homeowners from
risky and sometimes illegal practices of mortgage servicers. In 2009 he
was the first State attorney general to take on a mortgage servicer for
violating consumer laws.
Last year, he continued his strong record of standing up for
homeowners when he represented the people of Ohio against GMAC Mortgage
for signing thousands and thousands of affidavits allowing foreclosures
to proceed despite the fact that nobody at the company had any
knowledge of these cases. So I want Rich Cordray at CFPB to put his
previous expertise to work.
During his tenure as attorney general, he also took on the credit
rating agencies on behalf of Ohio's pensioners. Because of the rating
agencies' reckless behavior, hard-working Ohioans lost over $450
million from their pensions. Rich Cordray is exactly the kind of strong
consumer advocate that CFPB needs.
Further compounding the bad news is that most of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle have vowed to oppose any nominee until the CFPB
is substantially altered--literally any nominee. They claim that
changes to the CFPB need to be made before they will even look at a
nominee. The proposed changes supposedly rectify the unprecedented
authority--unprecedented authority--granted to the CFPB
[[Page 19078]]
and impose real checks on that authority. In fact, the CFPB is subject
to unprecedented limitations. It is the only banking regulator with
rules that are subject to veto power by a group of other regulators,
the only banking regulator subject to Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act panels, and the only banking regulator with a
budgetary cap.
We already have had this debate. During the consideration of Dodd-
Frank last year, there were attempts to weaken the CFPB, and those
attempts were defeated. Now the people who lost that debate are taking
a second crack at consumers and trying to bring down this Bureau. Only
this time, instead of debating on the Senate floor, they are hijacking
the advice-and-consent function of the Senate. Is that a precedent that
we want to set? I do not believe that is what the Founders of this
great Nation conceived when they gave this function to the Senate.
I urge my colleagues instead to consider this nominee on his merits.
Rich Cordray has demonstrated he is looking out for middle-class
families. He is looking out for homeowners who have been scammed by
mortgage servicers. He is looking out for pensioners who have lost
their pensions at the hands of Wall Street recklessness. He has been
endorsed by former Republican Senator and current Ohio attorney general
Mike DeWine. He is exactly--exactly--the type of person we need at the
helm of this critical Bureau, and this Bureau cannot do its job until
he is confirmed.
I hope my colleagues will reconsider their position and instead do
what is right for American consumers. I hope my colleagues will join me
in supporting Rich Cordray to be the first Director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
DELAWARE DAY
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, today is Delaware Day. Something very
important for our State and our Nation occurred on December 7, 1787.
Senator Coons is here. I ask him to take a moment and share with our
colleagues what that was all about. What happened then at that Golden
Fleece Tavern?
Mr. COONS. I thank the Senator for entering into this colloquy about
Delaware Day. As some folks may know, if you look at the Delaware flag,
as the Senator mentioned, there is the date, December 7, 1787. That is
the day 30 Delawareans, elected delegates, gathered at the Golden
Fleece Tavern in Dover and voted unanimously to make Delaware the first
State to ratify the U.S. Constitution. That is why our State moniker
is--
Mr. CARPER. The First State.
Mr. COONS. Yes, the First State.
Mr. CARPER. The small wonder. Thirty of those guys who were there
that day--I would like to say they were drinking hot chocolate. I am
not sure what they were drinking at the Golden Fleece Tavern, but the
outcome was a good one. For one whole week after that, Delaware was the
entire United States of America. Who was next, Pennsylvania? Maybe
Pennsylvania, maybe New Jersey. Then the rest followed and I think, for
the most part, it turned out pretty well.
Mr. COONS. One of the things I have always been struck by is that it
was 11 years before that that Delaware actually, on Separation Day, on
June 15 of 1776, acted both to declare its independence from
Pennsylvania and its independence from the King of England, and by
doing so acted in an incredibly risky way because, of course, had the
Continental Congress on July 4 not chosen to ratify the Declaration of
Independence, Delaware would have stood alone, and arguably hung alone,
for having taken the risk of stepping out first.
Delaware has a tradition of being first--first in declaring its
independence and acting to secure its independence, and in ratifying
the Constitution, which set the whole structure that ended the debate
over the Articles of Confederation and moved toward the Federal system,
one where we look to each other as States and look to this government
for the provision of and the securing of our liberty through the
balance of justice and liberty that we rely on so much. What else are
we doing to celebrate this great day?
Mr. CARPER. The Constitution that was ratified that day--the thing
about it is that it is the most enduring Constitution of any nation on
Earth, the most copied or emulated Constitution of any nation on Earth
as well, and a living document that provides for us to change and
update as time goes by. It is remarkable, the role we played in getting
the ball rolling in this great country of ours.
I want to go back to July 1776, if I can. Not far away from the
Golden Fleece Tavern, there was a guy named Caesar Rodney, who rode his
horse. Does the Senator want to share that story?
Mr. COONS. That made it possible for our delegation to be represented
in Philadelphia and for us to commit to the Declaration by breaking a
tie between the other representatives of Delaware in the Continental
Congress.
Mr. CARPER. If you look at the back of the Delaware coin, you might
say why is Paul Revere on the back of that coin? Well, that is not Paul
Revere, that is Caesar Rodney riding the horse from Dover to
Philadelphia. For people who are familiar with Dover Air Force Base,
where big planes come in--the C-5s and C-17s that fly all over the
world--as you come in on the approach, the runway heading north-
northeast to land, you are very close to flying over an old plantation
house where a guy named John Dickinson used to live. There is a John
Dickinson high school in Delaware, which was named after him. He was
also a guy who was involved in the Constitutional Congress and also
involved in the Declaration of Independence, and the penman of the
Revolution. So if you think about it, there at the Golden Fleece
Tavern, the Constitution was ratified. Caesar Rodney, from Dover,
departing from not far from there, casts the tie-breaking vote for the
Declaration of Independence, and the penman of the Revolution, growing
up in what is now the Dickinson plantation. There is a lot of history
there, especially for a State that doesn't have a national park.
Mr. COONS. Although we have a senior Senator who is tireless in his
effective advocacy of our State.
Mr. CARPER. Maybe we can do something about that with the Senator's
help and that of Congressman Carney, and our colleagues in the Senate
and the House--and maybe including the Presiding Officer from North
Carolina. In closing, believe it or not, the economic value of national
parks is actually charged for every one of our States.
The most visited sites in the United States among tourists from
foreign countries are our national parks. The economic value to the
State of North Carolina--I was told last year--from their national
parks was $700 million. Not bad.
Mr. COONS. If I might, later today we are having our first Delaware
Day reception in one of the Senate buildings. It is a way for us to
promote and celebrate what is great about Delaware.
One of the things I treasure most about Delaware is our unique
political culture--a culture that focuses on consensus, on reasoned
compromise, on bringing folks together across from what is, in some
other places, a sharp partisan divide to find reasonable, principled
paths forward to tackling the challenges that face our State. It is
that consensus, commonsense approach I know my senior Senator brought
to his two terms as Governor and has brought to the Senate. Our
Congressman, who was on national television this morning with a
Republican cosponsor of an initiative, has also made that a hallmark of
his tenure. I know our Governor has as well.
[[Page 19079]]
I wanted to suggest that one of the things that makes Delaware
unique, special, valued, and first isn't just our agricultural
products, it isn't just our great and enjoyable food products, and it
isn't just our unique history in the beginning of our country but it is
also how we continue to find ways to build bridges across the divide
that so many Americans watch us in the Congress wrestling with at this
moment and that I think, in our home State, we have managed to find a
good path forward.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, we call this the Delaware way. As my
colleague from Delaware knows, whenever I run into people who have been
married a long time--50, 60, 70 years--I ask them what is the secret to
being married so many years. They give some funny answers, but they
also give some very pointed answers. One of the best answers I have
heard--and I hear it over and over--as the reason why they have been
married such a long time is because of the two Cs. I say: What are the
two Cs? They say, ``Communicate and compromise.''
I would suggest that is what we do pretty well in our State. It is
not only good advice for creating an enduring marriage, but it would
also be good advice for us in this body, in this town, to do a better
job--both parties--at communicating and compromising. We show, I think
every day, in our State, if we do those things, take that seriously,
the result is pretty good. We could get a better result here if we keep
that in mind.
With that, I think we have said our piece. It is Delaware Day, one
more time, and may the spirit of Delaware and the Delaware way permeate
this place as well.
I have enjoyed being with my friend and colleague in this colloquy.
Mr. COONS. I thank my colleague.
Mr. CARPER. 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. HARKIN. Madam 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 RICHARD CORDRAY
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have come to the floor on numerous
occasions this year to discuss the distressed state of America's middle
class. In fact, in our committee, we have had a series of hearings
looking at the state of the middle class and what is happening to the
middle class in America. In recent decades, our Nation's once secure
middle class has struggled in the face of stagnant wages, declining job
security, rising indebtedness, and disappearing pensions, not to
mention sharply higher costs for health care, education, food, and
energy.
It wasn't always this way. In the three decades after World War II,
America's middle class grew rapidly. Incomes rose steadily as the
middle class secured its fair share of the expanding national wealth.
The Federal Government invested generously in infrastructure building,
innovation, and education, vastly expanding opportunity for people to
move into the middle class. America became a more equal, fair, and just
society, built on a solid bedrock of a strong middle class.
I am an example of that. My father had an eighth grade education. He
was a coal miner. My mother was an immigrant with very little formal
education. Yet their three children were able to go to good schools,
get good jobs, and get an education. All three of their children
graduated from Iowa State University, a great land grant college,
because it didn't cost very much and we could afford to go there and we
were able to enter the middle class from those humble beginnings.
But beginning in the 1970s, much of that progress started to come to
a halt. Our manufacturing base declined, and the U.S. economy became
increasingly dominated by financial markets and Wall Street--a trend
that was accelerated by ill-advised deregulation. Soaring profits and
sky-high salaries attracted more of our Nation's best and brightest to
pursue careers in finance at the expense of engineering, teaching, and
public service.
Wall Street bankers were emboldened by deregulation. They were
incentivized by huge salaries and bonuses to take ever greater risks,
and they devised ever more exotic and risky investment schemes. As we
all know, in 2008, this frenzy of greed and recklessness culminated in
the catastrophic meltdown of our Nation's financial system. This
economic crisis was a hammer blow to our already struggling middle
class. The value of Americans' homes and retirement accounts plummeted,
millions lost their jobs or were forced into foreclosure, and hopes for
the future dimmed.
In the wake of this financial crash, with its pervasive damage to the
middle class, the American people demanded action to rein in the worst
abuses of Wall Street and to prevent a replay of 2008. This led to the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act--let me
repeat that, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act--the
most sweeping reform of our financial system since the Great
Depression. For hundreds of millions of American consumers in their
everyday lives, no aspect of this law is more important and
transformative than the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. Again, read the words of the legislation. It is the Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, a big part of the bill
was to build in consumer protections, and one of those was to create
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I have come to the floor in strong support of the nomination of
Richard Cordray to be Director of this Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. The idea behind this bureau is very simple. We need a cop on
the beat looking out for the best interests of consumers who use
financial products, just as we have regulators looking out for the
financial health of banks.
A strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will ensure consumers
are not lured into debt through hidden fees, for example. It will
simplify disclosures and reduce paperwork so consumers aren't faced
with mountains of paperwork they can't understand. It will oversee
providers of consumer credit, such as payday lenders, which for years
have acted like banks without facing any kind of banking regulation.
Additionally, as student debt surpasses credit card debt as the largest
source of consumer debt--which has already happened, by the way, that
student debt right now is larger than credit card debt--this Consumer
Protection Bureau can play a critical role in helping families better
understand the increasing challenges of facing a college education and
financing it as well as bringing some sanity to the private student
loan marketplace.
Finally, a key function of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
will also provide help to our veterans through the Office of Service
Member Affairs. Sadly, too often our servicemembers fall victim to
abusive financial traps upon their return home. The Bureau has made an
outstanding choice for leadership of this office with the selection of
Mrs. Hollister Petraeus. But cynically, my Republican colleagues have
chosen to protect the unscrupulous lenders that prey on military
families. They would rather neuter the entire agency, have no Director,
than to fully empower Mrs. Petraeus to protect military personnel and
their families from all forms of predatory lending activities.
These steps are essential elements of helping to tilt the scales of
our economy back into balance so that once again we put the interests
of the 99 percent of Americans who use financial products ahead of the
1 percent who profit from them.
I was deeply disappointed when our Republican colleagues voted
against the Wall Street reform bill that should have been
overwhelmingly a bipartisan bill. But now the bill is law, and guess
what. My Republican friends are doing everything in their power to
prevent it from doing its important job.
Earlier this year, 44 Republican Senators served notice that they
would not
[[Page 19080]]
confirm anyone--let me repeat, they would not confirm anyone--to the
position of Director unless structural changes are made to the Bureau
that would effectively take away its ability to stand up for consumers.
The changes they have demanded are unfair and unreasonable. No other
independent financial regulator has its rules subject to veto by other
regulatory agencies. To suggest that the only regulator with a primary
mission to protect everyday hard-working Americans should face
unprecedented levels of oversight simply does not make sense. Once
again, the Republicans have brazenly put the interests of Wall Street,
payday lenders, and unscrupulous mortgage lenders ahead of the
interests of Main Street consumers.
To restore the American economy to its place, we need a financial
system that works for them. This means a financial system where
consumers choose services based on a full and transparent understanding
of the costs of those services. But absent a Director, the Consumer
Finance Protection Bureau won't be able to supervise payday lenders,
debt collectors, or private student lenders. They won't be able to make
it easier for the good actors in the financial system--our community
banks, for example, or our credit unions--to compete against those who
are making a large profit by unfairly taking advantage of unsuspecting
consumers.
Richard Cordray is a superb choice to serve as the first Director of
this Bureau. As attorney general of Ohio, he was a strong and fair
advocate for consumers. His work has earned him the endorsement of
bankers, CEOs, and civil rights leaders across the State of Ohio. He is
a public servant of the highest caliber who deserves to be given the
opportunity to lead this critically important Bureau.
As a matter of fundamental fairness to hard-working Americans on Main
Street, we need an effective, evenhanded Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. Mr. Cordray deserves the opportunity to lead this new Bureau.
I call upon my Republican colleagues, at long last, to put the
interests of consumers ahead of the interests of those whose reckless
pursuit of profits and bonuses have caused so much harm to our society
and economy. I call upon my Republican colleagues to ignore the legions
of Wall Street lobbyists who are urging them to disable and, if
possible, kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Richard Cordray is a dedicated and impartial public servant who will
put the best interests of American consumers first. We should give him
that opportunity. I hope my colleagues will join me in strongly
supporting his nomination.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we are now as a country squarely in the
middle of the Obama economy. It is a period of slow growth,
persistently high unemployment, with many potential workers having
abandoned the playing field and simply given up looking for work.
There is a growing awareness among our countrymen that the policies
of President Obama--the policies enacted during the first 2 years of
his administration under Democratic supermajorities--have made matters
worse.
We have legitimate disagreements in this Capitol concerning the
solutions to the problems we are experiencing with the Obama economy.
My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle would enact aggressive
regulatory reform, an expansive energy policy, and we would vastly
limit the size and scope of the Federal Government. That is our plan,
and it is a plan about which we could have genuine disagreements.
What I want to talk to my colleagues about today, though, is what I
would suggest is a manufactured dispute over this issue of the
extension of the payroll tax. That is an issue on which really there is
a wide consensus on the Democratic side of the aisle, over here on the
Republican side, and down the hall in the other body.
The President said only a few months ago that it is not wise to raise
taxes on anyone during a recession. And we certainly are in a
recession. In recent weeks, the President has suggested that perhaps he
has abandoned this position and changed his mind and that we should
perhaps raise taxes on some people even though we are still in a
recession. But Republicans have consistently agreed with what the
President said earlier: We are in a recession, and this is no time to
raise taxes on anyone. This means we shouldn't raise taxes on the
working poor. It means we shouldn't raise taxes on employees working on
the assembly line or working in the retail sector. It means we should
not raise taxes on job creators. We should not raise taxes on investors
on whom we depend to provide the capital to create jobs. We shouldn't
raise taxes on anybody because we are in a time of recession.
Let's put this into a historical context. Last December, at a time
when Democrats still had supermajorities over here in the Senate, when
Speaker Pelosi was still in charge in the House of Representatives with
her majority there, this Congress on a bipartisan basis enacted
legislation to keep in place the Bush-era tax cuts, to leave those
rates in place for all Americans at whatever income level, and we also
on a bipartisan basis enacted a cut in the payroll tax. This is the
Social Security tax that all workers pay regardless of income, the so-
called FICA taxes that you see on your pay stubs. Last December, that
tax cut dropped the payroll tax for employees from 6.2 percent to 4.2
percent. I supported that. Republicans and Democrats supported that. It
is up for renewal, and there is a huge majority of Members of the House
and Senate who want to renew that. The distinguished majority leader,
Senator Reid, however, has suggested that not only do we keep the lower
rate of 4.2 percent rather than 6.2 but we actually lower that FICA tax
to 3.1 percent.
We can have an extension of the current FICA tax rate. Democrats know
it, the White House knows it, and the Republican conference knows it.
But one problem must be addressed, and I think both parties want to
address this: We need to offset the cost to the Social Security trust
fund of these lower payroll tax rates. Why do we need to do this?
Because when the law says we are really supposed to be taking in 6.2
percent and putting that in the trust fund to make the Social Security
Program as solvent as possible and we lower that to 4.2 percent or to
less, as the majority leader wants to do, it amounts to a drain on the
Social Security system. I think the last thing we want to do with a
weak system, which we know can't come out in the end, is to put further
pressure on the Social Security trust fund. So both parties have
proposed to offset, or pay for, a continuation of the payroll tax cuts.
Last week, the White House unveiled a digital clock at the top of its
Web site that counts down to the date when the payroll tax cuts will
expire at the end of the year. This somehow suggests that someone in
this town wants the payroll tax to go back up to 6.2 percent. This is
pure political gamesmanship. We can have a bipartisan solution to keep
the payroll tax at 4.2 percent, but we must pay for it.
The distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, had a proposal last
week not only to lower the payroll tax to 3.1 percent but to pay for it
by raising taxes on someone else. This violates what the President said
several months ago: We don't need to raise taxes on anyone.
We can pay for a continuation of this, as Republicans have proposed
to do, by offsetting it with smart spending cuts, a freeze in Federal
pay, a reduction in the Federal workforce, and means testing of some
benefits at the upper income levels. We proposed this last week, but it
was shot down by the majority in this body with, to me, a contrived
plan to actually lower the payroll tax and shift those taxes to someone
else.
We are told that this week, just like last week, we are going to have
some more political theater. The majority leader will propose once
again a tax increase on others so that we can keep this payroll tax
cut, and we will propose a side-by-side which is essentially
[[Page 19081]]
the pay-for plan to keep the tax rate as it is. Both of these will fail
because the majority leader intends for them to fail, and essentially
we will have wasted 2 weeks at the end of this session of Congress by
creating a manufactured disagreement for the sake of scoring political
points.
Maybe after we get this week over with and we have had yet another
week of gamesmanship, the Senate can get down to the business of
passing a simple extension of the payroll rates in their current form
and to offset that action with savings. There is an absolute majority
in the Senate and in the House to do just that. In doing so, we can end
3 weeks of political theater with the Democrats trying to score points
for 2012.
I wish we could fast-forward to next week and get this important
piece of legislation done and enact a continuation of the payroll taxes
that a vast majority of Republicans and Democrats support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Louisiana.
____________________
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM EXTENSION
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor and urged
all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in a
commonsense, bipartisan way and extend for a significant period of time
the very important National Flood Insurance Program. That program,
which is essential to the country, involves a lot of properties
essential to real estate closings, to allow that important part of our
economy to happen as we struggle to get out of this recession. That
program would otherwise expire 1 week from this Friday.
I also wrote Senator Reid that same day, as I came to the floor,
urging him to support this legislation, extending this vital program,
to be passed quickly, hopefully unanimously, through the Senate.
The good news is that I have reached out to many folks--Democrats and
Republicans--since then, and we have continued to build consensus to do
that, to make sure there is no threat of the National Flood Insurance
Program lapsing yet again, as it did, unfortunately, four times in
2010--no good reason--for a total of 53 days. Every time that happens
or is even threatened to happen, within a few days there is great chaos
and uncertainty in the real estate market. Good closings are put off.
Our economy slows down for no good reason, as we need every closing in
sight to do exactly the opposite and to improve the economy. Again, the
good news is that we have built consensus, and I think we have reached
consensus to avoid that sort of lapse. So I return to the floor today
to get that formally done.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of S. 1958, my bill, to extend the National Flood
Insurance Program well into next year, to May 31, which I introduced
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1958) to extend the National Flood Insurance
Program until May 31, 2012.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this
measure. I will have a few closing comments after we formally pass it,
but I urge its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The bill (S. 1958) was passed, as follows:
S. 1958
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking
``September 30, 2011'' and inserting ``May 31, 2012''.
(b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by
striking ``September 30, 2011'' and inserting ``May 31,
2012''.
(c) Repeal.--The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012
(Public Law 112-36; 125 Stat. 386) is amended by striking
section 130.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and any
statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in closing, I thank everyone, on both
sides of the aisle, who worked in a very commonsense way to get this
done. Again, sort of the worst case scenario is what we all experienced
in 2010. Four different times in 2010 the program actually lapsed, a
total of 53 days. More times than that it came within a few days of
lapsing and created great uncertainty in the real estate market.
We do not need any of that. We have been trying to struggle out of a
recession and a very bad economy which has been led by a real estate
downturn. We need every good closing we can get. Giving the market this
certainty over a week before it would otherwise expire is very good as
we try to create that certainty and build a better economic climate.
I am happy we came together in a commonsense bipartisan way to extend
the National Flood Insurance Program, as is, to May 31. Let me also say
in closing I strongly support a full 6-year reauthorization of the
program. I have worked on that bill with many others in the relevant
Senate committee, the Senate Banking Committee. We have reported a good
bill out of committee. I want to get that to the Senate floor and merge
it and compromise it in some reasonable way with the House
reauthorization.
We need a full-blown 6-year reauthorization of the program with
significant reforms. That was obviously not going to happen between now
and a week from Friday. It is obviously not going to happen a month or
two into the new year. So we needed to create the certainty this
extension will create as we continue to work on that full
reauthorization.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT ACT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to urge
my colleagues to support legislation to extend and expand the payroll
tax cut on which middle-class families across America depend. Last week
Democrats brought a bill to the floor that would have not only
accomplished this goal for our workers, it would have also cut the
payroll tax for half of our Nation's employers and eliminated it
entirely for businesses who were making new hires.
To pay for this proposal, Democrats proposed a small surtax on
millionaires and billionaires; that is, people who are earning more
than $1 million a year. In order to extend and expand the critical tax
break for middle-class families and small businesses owners, we thought
it right to call on the wealthiest among us--those who can afford it--
to pay just a little bit more at a time when a vast majority of
Americans are struggling.
Our bill set up a choice, and we thought it was an easy one: Do you
vote to extend critical tax cuts for middle-class families or do you
vote to protect the wealthiest Americans from paying one penny more
toward their fair share?
Unfortunately, almost every Senate Republican chose to side with the
richest Americans and filibuster our middle-class tax cut bill. In a
surprising
[[Page 19082]]
development, their leadership's own bill to simply extend the middle-
class tax cuts while protecting the wealthiest Americans was opposed by
the majority of Republicans.
Republicans spent months on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction saying that the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should
be made permanent, that the wealthiest Americans and biggest
corporations should get even deeper tax cuts, the tax cuts for the rich
should not be paid for and should be simply added to the deficit, and
that a pledge made to a Republican lobbyist named Grover Norquist gave
them no choice but to support tax cut extensions.
So I have to say I am truly disappointed to see, once again, that
this apparent concern for tax cuts only seems to extend to millionaires
and billionaires. Now that a break for the middle class is on the verge
of ending in a few short weeks--potentially causing deep harm to our
weak economy--those Republicans who fought tooth and nail for tax cuts
for the rich are nowhere to be found. In fact, many of them are
actively opposing it.
Republicans seem to be operating under the backwards economic
principle that only tax cuts for the richest Americans and biggest
corporations are worth fighting for. In fact, they have a name for that
group of people. They call them the job creators. They believe the only
ones who create jobs in America are the rich, and they claim the tax
cuts and loopholes they fight for that benefit the wealthy will somehow
trickle down to the rest of us.
Well, that is wrong. We know the Republican economic policy has
failed us. It was this kind of thinking that turned a surplus into a
deficit, that brought our economy to its knees, that failed our middle
class and allowed the wealthiest Americans to amass record fortunes,
paying the lowest tax rates in decades. It is the wrong way to go.
Americans know it and our country has the scars to prove it.
A constituent of mine named Nick Hanauer recently published an op-ed
in Bloomberg Businessweek that speaks to this point exceptionally well.
Nick is a businessman. He is a venture capitalist in Seattle. He helped
to launch more than 20 companies, including amazon.com, and he has a
deep understanding of 21st-century jobs and the innovation economy.
Nick wrote that it is not tax cuts for the rich that create jobs--and
I want to quote him. He says:
Only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that
allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to
hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job
creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
He advocates ending the tax breaks for the rich and using some of
that savings to give average working families a break and put more
money in their pockets. Nick's logic is clear, and it makes economic
sense. It is in line with what the American public believes, and it is
exactly why this middle-class tax cut needs to pass.
So while I strongly supported our last bill that would have extended
and expanded this tax cut on both workers and employers, it was clear
that Republicans were not going to drop their filibuster. So we are
back now with a compromise.
Republicans claim to be concerned that our bill was too big, so we
scaled it back. They didn't like the surcharge on the wealthiest
Americans, so we cut it down significantly and we made it temporary. To
make it even more acceptable, we included spending cuts that both sides
said were acceptable as well as their proposal to make millionaires
ineligible to receive unemployment insurance and food stamps.
The compromise that is before us is fully paid for. It extends and
expands payroll tax relief for millions of middle-class families in our
country. It will create jobs and provide a critical boost for this
economy at a time when we desperately need it.
So I continue hoping that our Republican colleagues will be as
focused on tax cuts for the middle class as they are for the wealthiest
Americans and largest corporations. I hope they stand with us to pass
this critical legislation in time for the holidays because that is what
American families want.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CORDRAY NOMINATION
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow we will be voting on whether to
close debate on the nomination of Richard Cordray as Director of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This vote can be framed in terms
of his qualifications, but that would be a mistake because folks on
both sides of the aisle have noted he is exceptionally qualified for
this position. He is a graduate of Michigan State University, of Oxford
University, and the University of Chicago Law School, where he was
editor in chief of the University of Chicago Law Review.
In addition, he has held a number of public positions with honor and
distinction as State representative, as Ohio's treasurer, as Ohio
attorney general. Indeed, as Ohio's attorney general, he was an
aggressive advocate for consumers. He recovered more than $2 billion
for Ohio's retirees, investors and business owners and took major steps
to help protect its consumers from fraudulent foreclosures and
financial predators. What a terrific resume. He is an individual who
has stood up for retirees, business owners, and investors. He has said
fraud will not be tolerated. We will seek it out and we will penalize
it and we will end it. In other words, it is exactly the resume of
someone we would want to head a consumer financial protection
department or division or bureau.
Why are we voting tomorrow to end debate? Why don't we just have a
unanimous consent agreement that we go to a final vote? The answer is,
my colleagues across the aisle are objecting. They are objecting to a
vote on his nomination not because he isn't qualified but because they
want to prevent this agency from doing its job: protecting America's
families against predators. I cannot think of many issues that are so
important to the success of our families as making sure they are not
subject to financial predators. Yet my colleagues across the aisle are
opposing this nomination in order to protect the predators preying on
America's families. That is just plain wrong. I hope they will change
their position before tomorrow.
Let's turn the clock back to 2003. In 2003, a new type of mortgage
was invented in the United States. This was a mortgage that had a 2-
year teaser rate--a very favorable, low rate--so as to serve as the
bait for mortgage originators to say to their clients: This is the best
mortgage for you because it has the lowest rate. But what the
originators didn't tell their clients was that after 2 years, that rate
exploded to a very high interest rate--a predatory rate--and they
couldn't get out of the mortgage because the mortgage had a little
sentence in it that said they have to pay a huge penalty if they try to
refinance this mortgage. That penalty was 5 or 10 percent of the value
of the loan. Show me a working family in America who buys a house, puts
down their downpayment, makes their repairs, gets moved in, and still
has 10 percent of the value of the house sitting in the bank, able to
pay a penalty so they can get to a fair interest rate after the
interest rate explodes.
So this new mortgage turned the humble, amortizing, family mortgage
that had been the pathway for the middle class, for millions of
American families, into a predatory trap that destroyed families and
that created a lot of wealth for the 1 percent who run the system in
our society. Have no doubt, that 1 percent got in, in every possible
way. They said: Let's package these predatory mortgages and sell them
and then let's take pieces of those packages and combine them with
pieces of other security packages and resell them and
[[Page 19083]]
then let's develop a brandnew insurance industry that insures
securities. This insurance is what is often called credit default swaps
or derivatives, which are fancy names for insurance on these packages
and mortgages. So then they said let's thereby make them very
attractive to pension funds and investors across the world. This was so
successful that those who were buying the mortgages were willing to pay
a huge bonus to the mortgage originators to steer families away from
the very successful, humble, amortizing, fixed-rate mortgage into this
predatory, exploding interest rate mortgage, all the time posing as the
family's counselor, saying it is my job to do what is best for you.
Why did this predatory practice in 2003, that grew enormously over
the next 4 years, continue to go on? What happened to oversight of
fairness, and what happened to the agency that was supposed to shut
down predatory practices? That agency was the Federal Reserve and the
Federal Reserve is a very powerful organization. The Federal Reserve
has two responsibilities: employment and monetary policy. Those are the
traditional responsibilities, but they were given a third, which is
consumer protection. Somewhere in that vast, powerful agency on the
upper floor, the head of the Federal Reserve and his key advisers were
hard at work on monetary policy, deciding what interest rates they
would lend to our major banks, and they were hard at work, we would
hope, on the employment side as well. But they seemed to have forgotten
they were also responsible for consumer protection. That mission was
set aside. It was put down in the basement of the building and the
lights were turned off and the doors locked and they did absolutely
nothing about these predatory practices that were destroying the
finances of millions of Americans, that were betraying the fundamental
relationship between a family and its trusted mortgage originator who
was getting bonus payments for steering them into these loans. They did
absolutely nothing about a number of other predatory practices.
That is why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created. It
doesn't have other responsibilities to distract it. It isn't going to
take the fate and success of our families and lock that mission down in
the basement and turn out the lights because this is the heart of why
this bureau exists.
This vote tomorrow is about whether we believe in the family value of
fair deals that build the success of our families or whether we believe
in the 1 percent exercising full predatory practices to destroy the
financial lives of Americans, destroy the financial lives of our
veterans for standing up for us in war and who are often a highly
targeted group when it comes to these types of mortgage practices and
these types of payday practices.
This is an important vote tomorrow. It is not a vote about the
qualifications of the nominee because the nominee has the right set of
skills to be highly qualified in a number of directions. It is a vote
about whether, in America, one believes it should be OK to be a
predator or not OK. I believe it is not OK. I believe States and the
Federal Government should do all they can to make sure deals are fair,
to make sure there are not conflicts of interest, to make sure there
are not payments that are undisclosed to a customer, to make sure there
are not hidden clauses to convince customers by their trusted advisers
to sign documents which cause the destruction of families' financial
lives over the next 10 to 20 years as a result of that trust. Fairness
matters to the success of our families.
We should have a unanimous vote tomorrow to end this debate and get
on to the final vote of whether to confirm a very distinguished and
capable and honorable man who is prepared to fight for the success of
American families.
I thank the Chair.
____________________
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
Mr. CASEY. Mr President, I would like to express my support for the
Menendez amendment, which passed 100 to 0 and would sanction the
Central Bank of Iran. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of this
important legislation. The Islamic Republic of Iran has proven through
its recent behavior its blatant disregard for its international
commitments to the IAEA and for the universal declaration of human
rights. Iran is a serious threat to the security of the United States,
the Middle East, and the world.
Last month's IAEA report on Iran said that the Agency had credible
information that Iran may have worked on developing nuclear weapons.
This is the most damning report yet on Iran's nuclear program and has
served as a wake up call to the world. The United Kingdom has responded
with tough sanctions. Italy and France have expressed support for
tougher measures.
This opinion has been held by many here in the Senate for a long
time. That is why we in the Senate have been so persistent in our
efforts to pursue tougher sanctions to isolate Iran. This is why we
continue to strive to provide all the tools necessary to ensure that
maximum pressure is brought to bear on the regime in Tehran.
I appreciate the administration's efforts to engage with the Iranian
regime since coming into office. The administration has made serious
efforts to diplomatically engage Tehran officials. But the regime has
rejected requests by the United States and international community for
true dialog. Regretfully, I do not think dialog will work with this
regime.
The IAEA report was a culmination to months of events that showed
Iran's brazen disregard for international norms. In October, the regime
planned to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. The
Iranian regime sought to kill a senior foreign official on U.S. soil.
There must be consequences for the planned attack on the Saudi
Ambassador. There must be consequences for Iran's nuclear conduct as
evidenced in the new IAEA report. This amendment makes these
consequences clear.
I am concerned that the administration's November 21 sanctions
response is not adequate in responding to this new information on
Iran's intentions. European countries, led by the United Kingdom and
France, have called for sanctioning of the Central Bank of Iran. My
question to the administration is this: does the IAEA report indeed
reflect a turning point for U.S. policy? And if so, what should the
United States do to address this looming threat? The administration's
announcement of new sanctions on November 21 is a good step, but the
United States must take this one step further and sanction Iran's
Central Bank. If the IAEA report does not indicate that we have turned
a corner with respect to this critical national security threat, I
don't know what does.
This administration has taken unprecedented measures to isolate the
Iranian regime. It understands the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. And
while I appreciate the administration's focus on this issue at this
critical juncture in history, I believe that we must do more.
This amendment would restrict U.S. financial institutions from doing
business with any foreign financial institution that knowingly conducts
financial transactions with Iran's Central Bank. With this amendment,
we are hitting Iran where it hurts. Eighty percent of Iran's hard
currency comes from crude oil sales, which depend on transactions
through the Central Bank. The Central Bank of Iran is complicit in
Iran's nuclear program. This amendment also has measures that would
ensure that the oil markets are not affected by isolation of the
Iranian oil industry. The amendment also requires the President to
start a ``multilateral diplomacy initiative'' to convince other
countries to cease oil imports from Iran.
It has become increasingly clear in the past month that the
international community cannot negotiate with the current leadership in
Iran, which has proven incapable and unwilling to abide by its
international commitments. This was made crystal clear by the planned
attack on the Saudi Ambassador, credible evidence of illegal nuclear
activity in the IAEA report, and the attack on the British Embassy.
[[Page 19084]]
I believe that we have turned a corner in how we should regard this
regime in Iran.
This means that in addition to severe sanctions, the United States
should renew its support for democratic activists in Iran. Amid the
remarkable change taking place across the region, the United States
should clearly place itself on the side of democratic forces in Iran.
Compromise with the current regime is not possible, and we, working
with the international community, should work to engage fully with the
democratic actors in the country. Those who ransacked the British
Embassy do not represent the Iranian people. The majority of Iranians,
based on the outpouring of support for the Green Movement in 2009,
aspire for a different future.
We have reached a pivotal moment, and we must stand on the right side
of history. We must do all that we can to prevent Iran from gaining a
nuclear weapon. I am proud to have cosponsored the Menendez amendment
sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran. We must make it clear that there
are substantial consequences to Iran's nuclear intentions.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL LOREN M. RENO
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an
exceptional leader, superb officer, and friend, LTG Loren M. Reno, the
deputy chief of staff, logistics, installations and mission support for
the Air Force, as he prepares to retire after more than 38 years of
dedicated and distinguished service to our Nation.
General Reno is a consummate professional and, truly, the most
humble, genuine general officer whom I have had the pleasure of working
with during my years in the Senate. Thankfully, I have had the
opportunity to get to know him very well. We worked closely together
during his two tours at the Air Logistics Center in Oklahoma City, and
that relationship continued during his time back on the Air Force
staff.
General Reno's accomplishments over his 38-year career have been
remarkable. He is a senior navigator with more than 2,500 flying hours
in the C-9, C-130, T-29, and T-43 aircraft, a master maintainer with
over 24 years experience keeping the Air Force flying, and an
accomplished leader of airmen. General Reno commanded two aircraft
maintenance squadrons, a technical training group, and the Defense Fuel
Supply and Defense Energy Support Centers, and, of course, the Oklahoma
City Air Logistics Center at Tinker Air Force Base, OK.
A native of Port Jefferson, NY, General Reno graduated from
Cedarville University in Ohio in 1970 and spent 4 years teaching middle
school science before attending Officer Training School. After earning
his commission from OTS as the distinguished graduate and his initial
training where he was also the distinguished graduate, he was assigned
to the 21st Tactical Airlift Squadron in the Philippines. It was from
there that he flew missions into Saigon, Vietnam, at the close of the
war in 1975. His prowess as a navigator earned him selection to attend
instructor training at Mather Air Force Base, CA, in 1978, where he
once again graduated as a distinguished graduate. His subsequent
performance as an instructor earned him the award as the Instructor
Navigator of the Year in 1979.
Next, General Reno worked in legislative affairs on the Air Staff in
the Pentagon and then for Air Mobility Command from 1981 to 1985.
Following his staff tour, General Reno moved to Dyess Air Force Base,
TX, in 1985 where he continued to shine on the ground and in the air as
the chief navigator for the 773rd Tactical Airlift Squadron. It was
during this assignment that he left the navigator career field and
cross-trained as an aircraft maintenance officer. In 1987, General Reno
took command of the 463rd Avionics Maintenance Squadron and then the
463rd Field Maintenance Squadron there at Dyess. After Air War College,
he moved back to the Air Staff from 1990 to 1992, working as a program
manager and as the chief of maintenance policy for the Air Force.
After two years in the Pentagon, General Reno moved back to Texas,
this time to Sheppard Air Force Base, where he commanded the 396th
Technical Training Group and the 82nd Training Group before moving to
Fort Belvoir, VA, to work in the Defense Logistics Agency from 1994 to
1998 in positions of increasing responsibility, working on joint
logistics for contingency operations and strategic programming, before
being selected as the commander of the Defense Fuel Supply Center and
Defense Energy Support Center.
Upon the completion of his command at the DLA in 1998, General Reno
moved to my home State of Oklahoma to work at the Oklahoma City Air
Logistics Center. While there, he was promoted to brigadier general and
appointed as the center's deputy commander. After his first Oklahoma
tour, General Reno returned to Scott Air Force Base in 2002 as the
director of logistics for air mobility command. In this capacity, he
was responsible for developing policy logistics plans for 14 major
active air installations in the United States and 17 locations
throughout the world. It was also in this position that General Reno
was selected for his second star.
After this, General Reno returned to the DLA, where he served as the
vice director and was responsible for providing logistics to the
various military departments and combatant commands. We were able to
get him back to Oklahoma in 2007 when he returned to command the
Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, where he provided maintenance for
the Air Force's KC-135s, B-1, and B-52s, as well as numerous types of
aircraft engines while also commanding Tinker Air Force Base. He also
helped shepherd through one of the biggest growth opportunities for the
base by working with the local community to acquire an abandoned
automotive plant that was located adjacent to the base. The new
facility vastly increased the base's ability to accomplish the Air
Force's depot maintenance mission and ushered in an era of new
possibilities for Oklahoma City and the Air Force. It is this kind of
performance that characterized General Reno's whole career.
Based on this performance, he was promoted to lieutenant general and
sent back to the Pentagon in 2009 to be the Air Force's deputy chief of
staff for logistics, installations and mission support. During that
time Lieutenant General Reno demonstrated a mastery of complex issues,
decisive leadership, and dedication to both mission and people. He
advocated and defended over $30 billion annually in logistics and
installation programs and developed long-range strategic guidance for
Air Force weapons systems, facility sustainment, military construction,
and contingency support to achieve national security objectives. He led
the Air Force's first-ever worldwide inventory of all nuclear
components at 581 sites. This epic venture allowed the Air Force to
reestablish control of more than 34,000 items valued at $1.3 billion
and was the first of many crucial logistics milestones needed to
reinvigorate the nuclear enterprise, the Air Force's No. 1 priority.
His leadership was invaluable to the success of the $1 billion
Expeditionary Combat Support System Program, the culmination of a
decade-long effort in developing and modernizing Air Force business
operations that will ultimately save the Air Force $9 billion in supply
chain costs.
Finally, as a hands-on leader and champion of airmen resiliency
initiatives, he was instrumental in the creation of the Air Force's
Deployment Transition Center providing a critical, strategic, physical,
emotional, and spiritual respite for thousands of airmen. He provided
the leadership and support to ensure outside-the-wire airmen are
provided an opportunity to decompress before they return to their home
station and families.
What I appreciate most about Loren is his dedication to others. He
doesn't have hobbies because he works for the benefit of everyone else.
He set aside hobbies like golf and instead made spending time with his
children and wife his hobby. As a man of deep faith in Jesus, he
sacrificed personally so he
[[Page 19085]]
could give extravagantly to missions and to ministry. Although General
Reno's service in the Air Force will come to an end, his service to
God, his family, and his country continues. I can't wait to see what's
next.
On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank
Lieutenant General Reno, his wife Karen, and their entire family for
their extraordinary commitment, sacrifice, contribution, and dedication
to this great Nation during his distinguished career in the U.S. Air
Force. I congratulate him on the completion of an exemplary career and
wish him, his wife Karen, and their family God's speed and continued
success and happiness in the future.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
RECOGNIZING OLD FARM CHRISTMAS PLACE OF MAINE
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, December in Maine invokes the
classic images of Christmas. The wonders of children sledding down
snow-covered hills and small towns enveloped in December's darkness
while illuminated by the glow of twinkling lights. One of the most
memorable parts of any Christmas celebration revolves around the
selection and decoration of the perfect tree. Today I rise to commend
and recognize the Old Farm Christmas Place of Maine, a small business
that allows families throughout the Nation to enjoy the tradition of
selecting and cutting down their own Christmas tree.
The Old Farm Christmas Place of Maine, located in the coastal town of
Cape Elizabeth, opened in November of 2010. Jay Cox, the owner of Old
Farm, purchased the historic Dyer-Hutchinson farmhouse in 2001. Built
in 1790, the Old Farm stands as a testament to Maine's rich history and
in 1997 was accepted into the National Registry of Historic Places.
After substantial renovations to the historic property, Jay planted his
first Christmas trees in the spring of 2004 on the 50-acre property.
Finally, last year, with roughly 18,000 trees planted and 1,000 trees
ready to be sold, Jay opened up his winter wonderland.
This small business provides a unique tree-cutting venture and
invites families to experience the joy of selecting the perfect tree.
At Old Farm, this is a journey that begins with a wagon ride over the
farmland onto the fields where families can explore acres of the
beautiful farm until they find their ideal tree. Once this perfect tree
is selected, they will assist you in cutting down the tree and loading
it into your car or even delivering it to local areas throughout the
State. Lastly, as Maine's winters can be frigid, families can finish
the experience warming themselves by the fire inside the Old Farm store
while sipping delectable cider and rich hot chocolate.
Jay comes from a family of Christmas tree enthusiasts; his parents
owned and operated Dun Roamin' Christmas Tree Farm in Cape Elizabeth
for 25 years. That farm now makes wreaths which are sold at the Old
Farm Christmas Place store. The storefront also carries several locally
made Christmas decorations and ornaments to adorn households near and
far, adding a new element to the traditional tree farm selection.
As opening a small business is a daunting task, Jay Cox's dedication
for nearly a decade to open a Christmas tree farm and storefront
reminiscent of old times and tradition is truly inspiring. I am proud
to extend my congratulations to everyone at the Old Farm Christmas
Place of Maine for their tremendous efforts and offer my best wishes
for continued success.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 11:35 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 bills, without amendment:
S. 1541. An act to revise the Federal charter for the Blue
Star Mothers of America, Inc. to reflect a change in
eligibility requirements for membership.
S. 1639. An act to amend title 36, United States Code, to
authorize the American Legion under its Federal charter to
provide guidance and leadership to the individual departments
and posts of the American Legion, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
H.R. 1021. An act to prevent the termination of the
temporary office of bankruptcy judges in certain judicial
districts.
H.R. 2297. An act to promote the development of the
Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for
other purposes.
H.R. 2405. An act to reauthorize certain provisions of the
Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act relating to public health preparedness and
countermeasure development, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2471. An act to amend section 2710 of title 18, United
States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider
may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an
ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the
Internet.
H.R. 3237. An act to amend the SOAR Act by clarifying the
scope of coverage of the Act.
The message further announced that the House has passed the following
joint resolution, with an amendment, in which it requests the
concurrence of the Senate:
S.J. Res. 22. Joint resolution to grant the consent of
Congress to an amendment to the compact between the States of
Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-
State Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40
years.
____
At 4:34 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
disagrees to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1540) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and
agrees to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon, and appoint the following Members as
managers of the conference on the part of the House:
From the Committee on Armed Services, for consideration of the House
bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Messrs. McKeon, Bartlett, Thornberry, Akin, Forbes, Miller
of Florida, LoBiondo, Turner of Ohio, Kline, Rogers of Alabama,
Shuster, Conaway, Wittman, Hunter, Rooney, Schilling, Griffin of
Arkansas, West, Smith of Washington, Reyes, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California, Messrs. McIntyre, Andrews, Mrs. Davis of California,
Messrs. Langevin, Larsen of Washington, Cooper, Ms. Bordallo, Messrs.
Courtney, Loebsack, Ms. Tsongas, and Ms. Pingree of Maine.
From the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for
consideration of matters within the jurisdiction of that committee
under clause 11 of rule X: Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mrs. Myrick, and Mr.
Ruppersburger.
From the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for consideration
of section 548 and 572 of the House bill, and sections 572 and 573 of
the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Petri, Heck, and George Miller of California.
From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of
sections 911, 1099A, 2852, and 3114 of the House bill, and section 1089
of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to the conference:
Messrs. Upton, Walden, and Waxman.
From the Committee on Financial Services, for consideration of
section 645 of the House bill, and section 1245 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Bachus, Mrs.
Capito, and Mr. Ackerman.
From the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for consideration of sections
1013, 1014, 1055, 1056, 1086, 1092, 1202, 1204, 1205, 1211, 1214, 1216,
1218, 1219, 1226, 1228-1230, 1237, 1301, 1303, 1532, 1533, and 3112 of
the House bill, and sections 159, 1012, 1031, 1033, 1046, 1201, 1203,
1204, 1206-1209, 1221-1225, 1228, 1230, 1245, title XIII and section
1609 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Chabot, and Mr. Berman.
From the Committee on Homeland Security, for consideration of section
[[Page 19086]]
1099H of the House bill, and section 1092 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference: Mr. Daniel Lungren of
California, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of sections
531 of subtitle D of title V, 573, 843, and 2804 of the House bill, and
section 553 and 848 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference: Messrs. Smith of Texas, Coble, and Conyers.
From the Committee on Natural Resources, for consideration of
sections 313, 601, and 1097 of the House bill, and modifications
committed to conference: Messrs. Hastings of Washington, Bishop of
Utah, and Markey.
From the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for
consideration of sections 598, 662, 803, 813, 844, 847, 849, 937-939,
1081, 1091, 1101-1111, 1116, and 2813 of the House bill, and sections
827, 845, 1044, 1102-1107, and 2812 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Ross of Florida,
Lankford, and Cummings.
From the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for
consideration of sections 911 and 1098 of the House bill, and sections
885, 911, 912, and division E of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Hall, Quayle, and Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
From the Committee on Small Business, for consideration of section
804 of the House bill, and sections 885-887, and division E of the
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Graves
of Missouri, Mrs. Ellmers, and Ms. Velazquez.
From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for
consideration of sections 314, 366, 601, 1098, and 2814 of the House
bill, and sections 262, 313, 315, 1045, 1088, and 3301 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Mica,
Cravaack, and Bishop of New York.
From the Committee on Veterans Affairs, for consideration of sections
551, 573, 705, 731, and 1099C of the House bill, and sections 631 and
1093 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Buerkle, and Ms. Brown of Florida.
From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of sections
704, 1099A, and 1225 of the House bill, and section 848 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Camp,
Herger, and Levin.
The message also announced that the House disagrees to the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2055) making appropriations for
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other
purposes, and agrees to the conference asked by the Senate on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon; and appoints the following
Members as managers of the conference on the part of the House:
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Lewis of
California, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Aderholt, Mrs. Emerson,
Ms. Granger, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr.
Rehberg, Mr. Carter, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Visclosky, Mrs. Lowey,
Mr. Serrano, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Moran, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, and Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 2297. An act to promote the development of the
Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 2405. An act to reauthorize certain provisions of the
Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act relating to public health preparedness and
countermeasure development, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
H.R. 2471. An act to amend section 2710 of title 18, United
States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider
may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an
ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the
Internet; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
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-4220. A communication from the Deputy Chief of the
Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to 47 C.F.R. Parts 1,
36, 51, 54, 61, 64, and 69 to Comprehensively Reform and
Modernize the Universal Service and Intercarrier Compensation
Systems'' (FCC 11-161) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on December 5, 2011; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-4221. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed amendment to a manufacturing
license agreement for the manufacture of significant military
equipment abroad and the export of defense articles,
including, technical data, and defense services to Japan for
the production of the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) in
the amount of $100,000,000 or more; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-4222. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report relative to
the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program for
2011; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4223. A communication from the Secretary General of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union, transmitting, a report relative to
the Annual 2011 Session of the Parliamentary Conference on
the World Trade Organization; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-4224. A communication from the Secretary of Education,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Family Educational Rights and Privacy'' (RIN1880-AA86)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
December 5, 2011; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-4225. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Authority's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal
year 2011; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4226. A communication from the Director of Legislative
Affairs, Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy
in the position of Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on December 5, 2011; to the Select Committee on
Intelligence.
EC-4227. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implementation of the
Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2008'' (RIN1117-
AB25) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on December 5, 2011; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-4228. A communication from the Under Secretary and
Director, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Revision of Patent Term Adjustment Provisions
Relating to Information Disclosure Statements'' (RIN0651-
AC56) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on December 1, 2011; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-4229. A communication from the Acting Staff Director,
United States Commission on Civil Rights, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of the appointment of members to
the Arizona Advisory Committee; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
EC-4230. A communication from the Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of
Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the semi-annual
report of the Attorney General relative to Lobbying
Disclosure Act enforcement actions taken for the period
beginning on July 1, 2010; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-4231. A communication from the Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of
Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the semi-annual
report of the Attorney General relative to Lobbying
Disclosure Act enforcement actions taken for the period
beginning on January 1, 2010; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
EC-4232. A communication from the Director of the
Regulation Policy and Management Office, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury
Protection (TSGLI) Program Genitourinary (GU) Regulation''
(RIN2900-AO20) received during adjournment of the Senate in
the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2,
2011; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
[[Page 19087]]
EC-4233. A communication from the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to
expenditures from the Pershing Hall Revolving Fund; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER, from the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute:
S. 1430. A bill to authorize certain maritime programs of
the Department of Transportation, and for other purposes
(Rept. No. 112-99).
____________________
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. KERRY:
S. 1949. A bill to provide for safe and humane policies and
procedures pertaining to the arrest, detention, and
processing of aliens in immigration enforcement operations;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and
Mr. Pryor):
S. 1950. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
improve commercial motor vehicle safety and reduce commercial
motor vehicle-related accidents and fatalities, to authorize
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Sanders):
S. 1951. A bill to restore the exemption from fees for
certain customs services for passengers arriving from Canada,
Mexico, and islands adjacent to the United States; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 1952. A bill to improve hazardous materials
transportation safety and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 1953. A bill to reauthorize the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, to improve transportation research
and development, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 1954. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
provide for expedited security screenings for members of the
Armed Forces; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. PAUL:
S. 1955. A bill to authorize the interstate traffic of
unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for
direct human consumption; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. THUNE:
S. 1956. A bill to prohibit operators of civil aircraft of
the United States from participating in the European Union's
emissions trading scheme, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Burr, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Begich, Mr. McCain, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Paul,
Mr. Heller, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Coats, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
DeMint, Mr. Thune, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Johnson of
Wisconsin, Mr. Lee, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Hoeven, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Toomey,
Mr. McConnell, Mr. Risch, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Inhofe, and
Mr. Barrasso):
S. 1957. A bill to provide taxpayers with an annual report
disclosing the cost of, performance by, and areas for
improvements for Government programs, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
By Mr. VITTER (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 1958. A bill to extend the National Flood Insurance
Program until May 31, 2012; considered and passed.
By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Coats, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Warner, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Corker, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Udall of Colorado):
S. 1959. A bill to require a report on the designation of
the Haqqani Network as a foreign terrorist organization and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mrs. McCaskill):
S. 1960. A bill to provide incentives to create American
jobs; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Casey,
Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Lieberman, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Ms. Ayotte, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Webb, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Cardin):
S. 1961. A bill to provide level funding for the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program; to the Committee on
Appropriations.
By Mr. DeMINT (for himself and Mr. Barrasso):
S. 1962. A bill to make the internal control reporting and
assessment requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
optional for certain smaller companies; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
S. Res. 345. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate on the closure of Umatilla Army Chemical Depot,
Oregon; considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 227
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 227, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure more timely
access to home health services for Medicare beneficiaries under the
Medicare program.
S. 571
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 571, a bill to amend subtitle B
of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to provide
education for homeless children and youths, and for other purposes.
S. 678
At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 678, a bill to increase
the penalties for economic espionage.
S. 737
At the request of Mr. Moran, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Blunt) was added as a cosponsor of S. 737, a bill to replace the
Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with a 5-person
Commission, to bring the Bureau into the regular appropriations
process, and for other purposes.
S. 755
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 755, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an offset against income tax
refunds to pay for restitution and other State judicial debts that are
past-due.
S. 1281
At the request of Mr. Kirk, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Blumenthal) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1281, a bill to amend
title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses
in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing two or more
levels stacked on top of one another.
S. 1551
At the request of Mr. Kirk, the name of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1551, a bill to establish
a smart card pilot program under the Medicare program.
S. 1692
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1692, a bill
to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000, to provide full funding for the Payments in
Lieu of Taxes program, and for other purposes.
S. 1718
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Pryor) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1718, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act with respect to
[[Page 19088]]
the application of Medicare secondary payer rules for certain claims.
S. 1781
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1781, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income amounts
received on account of claims based on certain unlawful discrimination
and to allow income averaging for backpay and frontpay awards received
on account of such claims, and for other purposes.
S. 1798
At the request of Mr. Udall of New Mexico, the name of the Senator
from Montana (Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1798, a bill
to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish an open burn
pit registry to ensure that members of the Armed Forces who may have
been exposed to toxic chemicals and fumes caused by open burn pits
while deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq receive information regarding
such exposure, and for other purposes.
S. 1821
At the request of Mr. Coons, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1821, a bill to prevent
the termination of the temporary office of bankruptcy judges in certain
judicial districts.
S. 1822
At the request of Mr. Heller, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Webb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1822, a bill to provide for
the exhumation and transfer of remains of deceased members of the Armed
Forces buried in Tripoli, Libya.
S. 1882
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1882, a bill to
amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure that valid
generic drugs may enter the market.
S. 1886
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1886, a bill to prevent
trafficking in counterfeit drugs.
S. 1894
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1894, a bill to deter
terrorism, provide justice for victims, and for other purposes.
S. 1903
At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1903, a bill to
prohibit commodities and securities trading based on nonpublic
information relating to Congress, to require additional reporting by
Members and employees of Congress of securities transactions, and for
other purposes.
S. 1904
At the request of Mr. DeMint, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Risch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1904, a bill to provide
information on total spending on means-tested welfare programs, to
provide additional work requirements, and to provide an overall
spending limit on means-tested welfare programs.
S. 1925
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) and the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) were added as cosponsors of S. 1925, a bill to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
S. 1944
At the request of Mr. Casey, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1944, a bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax
relief for middle class families and businesses, and for other
purposes.
S. RES. 310
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 310, a resolution
designating 2012 as the ``Year of the Girl'' and congratulating Girl
Scouts of the USA on its 100th anniversary.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mrs. McCaskill):
S. 1960. A bill to provide incentives to create American jobs; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend and
colleague Senator McCaskill, to introduce legislation we believe is
essential to restoring growth and creating jobs in our economy.
Our bipartisan bill is comprised of proposals in four general
categories. First: taxes--we would protect American workers from
payroll tax increases and preserve and provide new tax incentives for
small business job creators to help spur job growth.
Second: infrastructure--we propose restoring and expanding funding to
rebuild our nation's crumbling roads, bridges, and water treatment
plants, adding jobs now and ensuring that the critical infrastructure
needed for long-term economic growth is properly maintained.
Third: sensible regulatory reform--we focus on cutting the tangle of
red-tape that is holding businesses back from expanding and adding
jobs.
Fourth: job training--we propose fundamentally reforming the hodge-
podge of Federal jobs training programs to focus on what really works.
We also propose extending the charitable deduction for books and
computers.
We would offset the cost of these proposals with a 10-year, 2 percent
surtax on those with incomes of a million dollars or more, but with a
``carve out'' to protect small business owner-operators: our nation's
job creators.
Let me discuss these proposals in further detail. With respect to
taxes, Senator McCaskill and I believe that action must be taken
quickly to extend the two percent payroll tax cut for employees that is
scheduled to expire at the end of this month. Unless we do so, 159
million Americans will face a tax increase of up to $2,000 at a time
when the economy is still weak. With so many American families
struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we ought to do is to allow
an automatic tax increase to take effect in less than a month.
But keeping taxes steady won't be enough to get the economy going
again. If we want more jobs, we must do more. That is why Senator
McCaskill and I are proposing that the two percent payroll tax cut be
extended to employers, too, on the first $10 million of payroll. This
targets small and medium-sized employers who have historically been the
source of our nation's job growth.
We also extend bonus depreciation and Section 179 expensing at the
current level, to encourage businesses to use this tax benefit to
invest in the tools American workers need to remain the best in the
world.
In the global competition for jobs, American workers go head-to-head
with workers from China, India, and other countries, who are paid far
less than Americans, and whose working conditions would rightly be
viewed as unacceptable here in the United States.
The middle-class, the source of America's economic strength, was
built by making sure American workers had the best tools in the world,
so they would be the most productive workers in the world. Productivity
and tools go hand-in-hand, and in the global competition for jobs, the
worker with the best tools wins.
The provisions I have described will help businesses invest and keep
the American worker ahead of the global competition.
There are several other tax benefits in our package. One is an
innovative proposal that originated with Senators Mark Pryor and Scott
Brown to generate investment in new high-tech companies. We all know
how dynamic these young companies can be--a decade ago, Google was a
fledgling search engine and Facebook didn't even exist. Today, Google
executes billions of searches every week, and Facebook has
[[Page 19089]]
800 million members, and growing. Both are valued at more than $100
billion, but most important, both employ thousands of American workers.
But without the right investment at the right time, these two
companies would not exist. Nor would many other companies in the high-
tech field, or the millions of jobs they have created. The tax credit
we propose will help the high tech firms of the future get the support
they need to get off the ground, and become a part of the American
story.
It is also important to help established companies stay on the
cutting edge by extending the Research and Development tax credit.
Before I go on to describe the other provisions of this bipartisan
jobs bill, I would like to explain further the small business ``carve
out'' we built into our offset. Many on my side of the aisle have
voiced the concern that a surtax would fall on small businesses. I
share that concern. Most of our nation's small businesses are
structured as ``flow-through'' entities, such as ``subchapter S''
corporations. These flow-through entities do not pay taxes directly,
but instead distribute their income to their owners, who then pay tax
on that income on their individual income tax returns.
To impose a surtax on this income as if it were the owners' personal
income would be a mistake--we would be raising taxes on our nation's
job creators at the exact same time we are trying to get our nation's
job engine started again.
If we ignore this reality, we risk taxing small businesses as if they
are ``the wealthy.'' They are not.
We cannot impose higher taxes on flow-through income without taking
money out of small businesses--money that is needed to help those small
businesses invest and add jobs. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are
proposing to ``carve out'' owner-operator small business income so it
is not subject to the surtax.
The way we would accomplish this is to separate ``active business
income'' from ``passive business income,'' tracking the passive
activity rules of Section 469 of the tax code. Basically, this means
that business owner-operators who ``materially participate'' in the
running of their businesses will be protected from the surtax, while
those who are passive investors will pay higher rates.
This is as it should be. Owner-operators are actively engaged in
running their small businesses. They are on the front lines of our
economy, and of the communities in which they live. The pass-through
income that shows up on their tax returns is critical to their ability
to finance investment, and grow their businesses. Left in their hands,
this income will lead to more jobs and buy the tools that make American
workers more productive.
Let me turn now to the other provisions of our bill.
With respect to infrastructure, our bill would provide $10 billion to
capitalize the U.S. Department of Transportation's State Infrastructure
Bank program. These banks are revolving loan funds established and
administered by State DOT's to complement traditional funding by
providing loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of non-grant
assistance that leverage private dollars. This one-time infusion would
allow states to voluntarily utilize this additional funding, while at
the same time ensuring that there is sufficient oversight, reporting
and public disclosure requirements.
Additionally, my bill would provide $25 billion in supplemental
appropriations for existing highway and bridge formula programs. This
funding is meant to supplement and not replace the approximately $40
billion appropriated annually under the current Surface Transportation
authorization for similar transportation programs. According to the
Federal Highway Administration's most recent estimates, every $1
billion spent on highway construction supported approximately 30,000
jobs.
It is essential that we rebuild our nation's deteriorating
infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers,
it would cost more than $200 billion annually to substantially improve
the conditions of our nation's roads and bridges--far more than current
levels of national investment. Our legislation will not only create
jobs but also bolster important road and bridge investments throughout
the United States.
I am pleased to hear that the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, a nonprofit, nonpartisan
association, supports what we have proposed in our bill. These
investments not only create jobs now when they are needed most, but
they also address our nation's aging infrastructure, a daunting but
essential task.
There is also no shortage of sewer and drinking water infrastructure
needs in states and communities across the nation. The American Society
of Civil Engineers' latest infrastructure report card gave the nation's
water infrastructure a D-, and the Environmental Protection Agency
estimates $187.9 billion in wastewater needs and $334.8 billion in
drinking water needs over the next 20 years.
To help ensure the provision of safe water, we propose providing $800
million in additional funding to the Clean Water and Drinldng Water
State Revolving Loan Funds, CWSRF and DWSRF, to help ensure these
critical infrastructure programs are funded at the fiscal year 2010
levels of $2.1 billion for CWSRF and $1.387 billion for DWSRF. Water
infrastructure investments provide significant environmental, economic,
and public health benefits in our states and communities.
Investment in water infrastructure also creates jobs. The National
Association of Utility Contractors, for example, estimates that one
billion dollars invested in water infrastructure can create over 26,000
jobs.
As I meet with businesses, a chief complaint is that regulations and
red tape are preventing them from growing and adding jobs. Our bill
also contains important reforms to our regulatory system by
incorporating provisions I offered earlier this year as the CURB Act,
which stands for Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. These
provisions are designed to force Federal agencies to cut the red tape
that impedes job growth.
All too often it seems Federal agencies do not take into account the
impacts to small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules
and regulations. The bill we are introducing today obligates them to do
so in three ways: first, by requiring Federal agencies to analyze the
indirect costs of regulations, such as the impact on job creation, the
cost of energy, and consumer prices.
Currently, Federal agencies are not required by statute to analyze
the indirect cost regulations can have on the public, such as higher
energy costs, higher prices, and the impact on job creation. However,
Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, obligates
agencies to provide the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
with an assessment of the indirect costs of proposed regulations. Our
bill would essentially codify this provision of President Clinton's
Executive Order.
Second, our bill obligates Federal agencies to comply with public
notice and comment requirements and prohibits them from circumventing
these requirements by issuing unofficial rules as ``guidance
documents.''
After President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, Federal
agencies found it easier to issue so- called ``guidance documents,''
rather than formal rules. Although these guidance documents are merely
an agency's interpretation of how the public can comply with a
particular rule, and are not enforceable in court, as a practical
matter they operate as if they are legally binding. Thus, they have
been used by agencies to circumvent OIRA regulatory review and public
notice and comment requirements.
In 2007, OMB issued a Bulletin which contained a provision closing
this loophole by imposing ``Good Guidance Practices'' on Federal
agencies. This requires agencies to provide public notice and comment
for significant guidance documents. Our bill would essentially codify
this OMB Bulletin.
Third, our bill helps out the ``little guy'' trying to navigate our
incredibly
[[Page 19090]]
complex and burdensome regulatory environment. So many small businesses
don't have a lot of capital on hand. When a small business
inadvertently runs afoul of a Federal regulation for the first time,
that first penalty could sink the business and the jobs it supports.
Our bill directs agencies to search their files to determine whether a
small business is facing a paperwork violation for the first time, and
to offer to waive the penalty for that violation if no harm has come of
it. It simply doesn't make sense to me to punish small businesses the
first time they accidently fail to comply with paperwork requirements,
so long as no harm comes from that failure.
One example of a planned onerous regulatory action by the
Environmental Protection Agency is the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology standards for boilers and incinerators, known as Boiler
MACT. While currently being reworked by the agency, these rules could
cost manufacturers billions of dollars, and potentially lead to the
loss of thousands of jobs, especially in some of the hardest hit areas
across the Nation. According to a recent study commissioned by the
American Forest and Paper Association, implementing the rule as
previously drafted could cause 36 pulp and paper mills around the
country to close, putting over 20,000 Americans out of work--18% of the
industry's workforce. For this reason, our legislation includes the EPA
Regulatory Relief Act, which currently has 40 bipartisan cosponsors, to
guarantee the 15 months the EPA itself requested, to provide the agency
with the testing data needed for achievable rules and provide
manufacturers with the time needed for the capital planning to comply
with these very complex and expensive rules.
Maine has lost more than a third of its manufacturing jobs during the
past decade, and I am wary of imposing costly new regulations that
could lead to more mill closures and lost jobs. I remain committed to
working with my Senate colleagues and the EPA to help ensure that the
Boiler MACT rules are crafted to protect public health without harming
the forest products industry, which is the lifeblood of many small,
rural communities.
We must also act to reform our Federal jobs training programs. In our
current fiscal climate, we need to ensure that our Federal dollars are
being used as efficiently and productively as possible. The Collins-
McCaskill bill requires OMB to study the consolidation of duplicative
job training programs and make legislative recommendations to Congress
that contemplate consolidating job training programs under a single
agency. Of the savings that result from this consolidation, half will
be devoted to classroom, field, and hands-on training, and the other
half will be be used to reduce the deficit.
In closing, Senator McCaskill and I believe this is the first
comprehensive bipartisan jobs bill to be introduced in the Senate since
the President's speech before the Joint Session of Congress in
September. With the end of the year just three weeks away, we must take
action now to protect the American public from a tax increase that will
occur automatically on January 1. We must also work together to help
grow the economy and add jobs. In achieving these goals, I would ask my
colleagues to consider the approach Senator McCaskill and I have
proposed in this bipartisan jobs legislation.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown of
Ohio, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Ms. Ayotte,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Webb, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Cardin):
S. 1961. A bill to provide level funding for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program; to the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the bipartisan LIHEAP
Protection Act, along with my colleagues Senator Snowe from Maine and
Senator Sanders from Vermont, and many of our colleagues on both sides
of the aisle. I am pleased to see such broad support for funding for
this critical program even in the midst of our budget challenges.
Indeed, LIHEAP is a lifeline, providing vulnerable families with
vital assistance when they need it most by helping low-income families
and seniors on fixed-incomes with their energy bills.
Last year, Congress provided $4.7 billion for LIHEAP. In an effort to
control Federal spending, the Administration proposed an approximately
45 percent cut in LIHEAP funds from last year's level, down to about
$2.57 billion in 2012. The Senate and House Appropriations bills only
partially restored this drastic cut, to roughly $3.6 billion and $3.4
billion, respectively.
These cutbacks could put our most vulnerable citizens at risk,
especially as the number of households eligible for the program already
exceeds those receiving assistance. Given the difficult economy and the
projected rise in household energy expenditures, as much as 8 percent
more than last year for those who heat their homes with heating oil
according to the Energy Information Administration, it does not make
sense to cut vital LIHEAP funding.
We also need to act quickly. If funding is not finalized before
winter, millions of low-income households run the risk of not receiving
assistance during the coldest months when they need it most. Given the
uncertainty in the full year appropriations for LIHEAP, which resulted
in the release of only $1.7 billion in LIHEAP funding to States in
October, some States have already begun lowering LIHEAP grant amounts.
LIHEAP is a smart investment. For every dollar in benefits paid,
$1.13 is generated in economic activity, according to economists Mark
Zandi and Alan S. Blinder.
I know we face a lot of difficult budget decisions around here, but
I, along with so many of my colleagues, believe that LIHEAP should not
be the place where we seek savings.
I look forward to working to provide level funding for LIHEAP for
fiscal year 2012.
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. 1961
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 ``LIHEAP Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section--
(1) is to ensure the appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
the total amounts described in subsection (b), for payments
described in that subsection, under this Act or prior
appropriations Acts; and
(2) is not to require the appropriation of additional
amounts for those payments, under appropriations Acts enacted
after this Act.
(b) Appropriation.--In addition to any amounts appropriated
under any provision of Federal law, as of the date of
enactment of this Act, there is appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fiscal
year 2012--
(1) an amount sufficient to yield a total amount of
$4,501,000,000, for making payments under subsections (b) and
(d) of section 2602 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621), and all of such total amount
shall be used under the authority and conditions applicable
to such payments under the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011; and
(2) an amount sufficient to yield a total amount of
$200,000,000, for making payments under section 2602(e) of
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
8621(e)), notwithstanding the designation requirement of such
section 2602(e), and all of such total amount shall be used
under the authority and conditions applicable to such
payments under the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) this Act should be carried out in a manner consistent
with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25; 125
Stat. 240);
(2) the Secretary of Health and Human Services should
continue and expedite program integrity efforts to identify
best practices used by grant recipients under the Low-
[[Page 19091]]
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, provide training and
technical assistance to such grant recipients, recommend
policy changes, and assess and mitigate risk at the Federal,
State and local levels, in order to eliminate any waste,
fraud, and abuse in the Program and strengthen the Program so
all Program funds reach the households who need them most;
and
(3) every Program dollar going to waste, fraud, and abuse
is a dollar not being spent as the dollar is needed or
intended.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about an issue
of enormous importance to the people of the State of Vermont and people
all over this country; that is, the issue of making sure that in
America this winter nobody goes cold, that nobody freezes to death,
that children do not become ill because the thermostats in their homes
are turned down so low.
The issue I am talking about is to ask for support for legislation
that is being introduced by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine which would level fund the LIHEAP
program at $4.7 billion. As most of my colleagues know, LIHEAP is the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Here is the problem we face. We are in the midst of a horrendous
recession. Unemployment is sky high. In many cases, wages are in
decline, poverty is increasing, and at the same time the price for home
heating oil and propane gas is going up. According to the Energy
Information Administration, average expenditures for households that
heat with oil or propane are forecast to be higher than in any previous
winter. Heating oil prices are currently averaging about $3.90 a
gallon. So what people in the Northeast and people all over this
country are looking at are the highest home heating oil prices we have
ever seen, coming in the midst of a terrible recession, with
unemployment high and wages in decline.
In Vermont, heating oil prices are already 34 percent higher than
they were at the same time last year. It is currently $3.82 a gallon,
compared to $2.85 a gallon last year. What is happening is that because
of cuts--significant cuts--in LIHEAP funding, the average LIHEAP
benefit in Vermont is 45 percent less this year than it was last year,
and that is $474 per family as opposed to $866 last year.
One thing that has to be understood about LIHEAP is that nearly 80
percent of funding from this program goes to our citizens who are
elderly, families with preschool kids, and the disabled. So the people
who benefit from this program are some of the most vulnerable people in
our country. Eighty percent of the funding, once again, goes to senior
citizens, families with preschool children, young children, and people
who are dealing with disabilities.
It is not uncommon in the State of Vermont and in other States for
the temperatures to drop to 10 below zero or 20 below zero in the
wintertime. When people do not have enough funds to heat their homes or
their apartments, serious problems arise.
What I want to do is take a moment to read some comments my office
has received from Vermonters all over the State who are trying
desperately to stay warm this winter.
Josie Crosby, 81 years of age, of Brattleboro, VT, said this:
We will have money for one more tank. After that, I don't
know.
That is a woman who is 81 years of age who has money for one more
tank of oil. After that, she is not sure how they will stay warm in the
winter.
A 48-year-old from Orleans County in the northern part of our State
wrote this:
I was able to get 100 gallons of fuel last week, and for
that I am grateful. The struggle begins now on how to stretch
that fuel as long as possible. I had to buy a portable
electric heater to keep halfway warm while waiting for fuel
assistance. I don't even want to see how high my electric
bill will be. I am an honorably discharged disabled veteran
and have limited funds. I have already slashed my food bill,
so what goes next? My meds, my electric service, my home?
That is from a disabled vet in the northern part of Vermont.
A 59-year-old woman in central Vermont writes:
I have been keeping my thermostat as low as I can
``almost'' tolerate. I bundle up in the house with several
sweaters, and even a coat and hat at times. When company
arrives, I am embarrassed at how ridiculous I probably
appear. I am just barely squeaking through each month. I have
made cuts everywhere possible, including food.
Wendy Raven, 62, from Whitingham, VT, writes:
I had to drag my bed out of my bedroom and put it in the
living room, then close off the bedroom for the winter. I
will have to eat even less than I do now in order to pay my
fuel bills. I have done everything I can to button up the
place, but now all I can do is pray I get through the winter
without a bill so large it will again take me until next fall
to pay it off.
Is that where we are in the United States of America--that we force
people to live under those conditions?
A 31-year-old woman from Bennington, VT, writes:
We are now trying to stay warm by scraping up enough for a
gallon or two of heating oil a week, and keeping the
thermostat down very low. I turn the furnace off during the
day when my child is in school and turn it on an hour before
she gets home so that the house gets warm. We are hoping to
qualify for crisis fuel assistance or we are in trouble,
because there is nowhere to get the extra money needed to pay
for the fuel, especially considering its continuously
increasing cost. We have to choose what bills to pay each
month and what ones not in order to put food on the table.
In this great Nation, in the midst of a recession, in the midst of
high unemployment, in the midst of growing poverty, we as the Senate
must be very clear that nobody in this country is going to go cold this
winter; that we are not going to pick up a paper in Maine or Rhode
Island or Vermont or North Dakota and read that some senior citizen was
found frozen to death. That is not what we are going to allow. That is
why Senators Jack Reed, Olympia Snowe, I, and many others are working
hard so that at the very least we can level fund LIHEAP so that nobody
in our country goes cold this winter.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 345--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE
CLOSURE OF UMATILLA ARMY CHEMICAL DEPOT, OREGON
Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 345
Whereas, in December 2001, the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 (Public Law 107-107)
was signed into law, which included authorization for a 2005
round of defense base closure and realignment (BRAC);
Whereas, on February 16, 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld included the closure of the Umatilla Army Chemical
Depot, Oregon, as one of his recommendations for the 2005
round of defense base closure and realignment;
Whereas, on September 8, 2005, the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission, in its report making recommendations
to the President, found that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's
assertion that the chemical demilitarization mission at
Umatilla would be complete by the 2nd quarter of 2011 was
optimistic, and wrote, ``An examination of status information
for the depot's mission completion and subsequent closure
revealed that dates may slip beyond the 6-year statutory
period for completion of BRAC actions.'';
Whereas, in that same report, the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission took the Secretary of Defense's
recommendation ``Close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR'' and
changed it to ``On completion of the chemical
demilitarization mission in accordance with treaty
obligations, close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR'';
Whereas, by doing so, the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission acknowledged that the closure of
Umatilla Army Chemical Depot would happen when the
demilitarization mission is completed, even if that is after
September 15, 2011; and
Whereas Congress did not pass a joint resolution of
disapproval with respect to the Commission's report, and the
report and recommendations became law: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That, in light of the clear history, the Senate
reiterates its original intent and reaffirms its direction
that the closure of the Umatilla Army Chemical Depot, Oregon,
and subsequent management and disposal shall be carried out
in accordance with procedures and authorities contained in
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A
of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
[[Page 19092]]
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session
on Wednesday, December 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-430 to mark up the
following:
S. 1855, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act
Reauthorization of 2011;
Wendy Spencer, to be Chief Executive Office of the
Corporation for National and Community Service;
Deepa Gupta, to be a member of the National Council on the
Arts;
Christopher Merrill, to be a member of the National Council
on the Humanities;
Stephanie Orlando, to be a member of the National Council
on Disability;
Gary Blumenthal, to be a member of the National Council on
Disability; and
en bloc, one hundred and seventy-eight nominations to the
Public Health Service.
For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the
committee on (202) 224-5375.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on commerce, science, and transportation
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to
meet during the session of the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.
in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Turning the
Investigation on the Science of Forensics.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on December 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Drug Shortages:
Why They Happen and What They Mean.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on homeland security and governmental affairs
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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 December 7, 2011, at 9:30
a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Homegrown Terrorism: The Threat to
Military Communities Inside the United States.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled
``Reauthorizing the EB-5 Regional Center Program: Promoting Job
Creation and Economic Development in American Communities.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on
Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 2 p.m., to
conduct a hearing entitled ``Enhanced Supervision: A New Regime for
Regulating Large, Complex Financial Institutions.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on
Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery
and Intergovernmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a joint
hearing entitled ``From Earthquakes to Terrorist Attacks: Is the
National Capital Region Prepared for the Next Disaster?''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ty Grogan,
an intern of Senator DeMint's office, be granted floor privileges for
today's session of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ashley
Stevens and Anna Esten of my staff be granted the privilege of the
floor for the duration of today's proceedings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CLOSURE OF UMATILLA ARMY CHEMICAL DEPOT, OREGON
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 345, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 345) expressing the sense of the
Senate on the closure of Umatilla Army Chemical Depot,
Oregon.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or
debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 345) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 345
Whereas, in December 2001, the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 (Public Law 107-107)
was signed into law, which included authorization for a 2005
round of defense base closure and realignment (BRAC);
Whereas, on February 16, 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld included the closure of the Umatilla Army Chemical
Depot, Oregon, as one of his recommendations for the 2005
round of defense base closure and realignment;
Whereas, on September 8, 2005, the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission, in its report making recommendations
to the President, found that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's
assertion that the chemical demilitarization mission at
Umatilla would be complete by the 2nd quarter of 2011 was
optimistic, and wrote, ``An examination of status information
for the depot's mission completion and subsequent closure
revealed that dates may slip beyond the 6-year statutory
period for completion of BRAC actions.'';
Whereas, in that same report, the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission took the Secretary of Defense's
recommendation ``Close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR'' and
changed it to ``On completion of the chemical
demilitarization mission in accordance with treaty
obligations, close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR'';
Whereas, by doing so, the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission acknowledged that the closure of
Umatilla Army Chemical Depot would happen when the
demilitarization mission is completed, even if that is after
September 15, 2011; and
Whereas Congress did not pass a joint resolution of
disapproval with respect to the Commission's report, and the
report and recommendations became law: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That, in light of the clear history, the Senate
reiterates its original intent and reaffirms its direction
that the closure of the Umatilla Army Chemical Depot, Oregon,
and subsequent management and disposal shall be carried out
in accordance with procedures and authorities contained in
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A
of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
[[Page 19093]]
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2011
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on
Thursday, December 8, 2011; that following the prayer and pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed
expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use
later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed
to executive session to consider Calendar No. 413, the nomination of
Richard Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, with the time until 10:30 a.m. equally divided and controlled
between the two leaders or their designees; and that the cloture vote
on the Cordray nomination occur at 10:30 a.m.; finally, that if cloture
is not invoked, the Senate resume legislative session and resume
consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1944.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the cloture vote on the Cordray
nomination will be held at 10 a.m. tomorrow. Additionally, cloture was
filed on the motion to proceed to S. 1944, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act
of 2011. Unless an agreement is reached, that vote will be Friday
morning.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. MERKLEY. 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 6:03 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, December 8, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 19094]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Latta).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
December 7, 2011.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Robert E. Latta to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 5, 2011, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 1 hour and each Member other than the majority and
minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes each, but
in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
____________________
FLAWED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN PUERTO RICO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) for 5 minutes.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Today I'm sending a letter to Colonel Alfred A.
Pantano, the commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
Jacksonville, Florida, the district that oversees, among other things,
the permitting process for the construction of a massive gas pipeline
that will cross the mountains in Puerto Rico. The 92-mile gas pipeline,
which does not make any sense environmentally, economically, or
ethically, is moving forward in part because Colonel Pantano's office
issued a Draft Environmental Assessment that clearly favors the
eventual issuance of the permit.
I would like to read an excerpt from my letter:
``I was intensely angered, but sadly not entirely surprised, when I
read the report issued by your office regarding the gasoducto in Puerto
Rico. From the start, people in Puerto Rico have been telling me that
they suspect all the regulatory oversight is nothing more than show and
this process has been assured of passage because of insider cozy
relationships between the Army Corps Jacksonville staff and the very
industry they are supposed to be overseeing and regulating.
``Further, having sunk millions of dollars in this project already,
the ruling party in Puerto Rico's very credibility is at stake on this
massive construction project going forward.
``The Draft Environmental Assessment is so slanted and flawed that it
adds more evidence to the growing view that there will be no meaningful
oversight for this project and no meaningful input from the residents
of Puerto Rico.
``I believe your decision, Colonel Pantano, shows a complete
disregard for compelling evidence demonstrating little need for the
project. It shows disregard for the opinion of other Federal agencies
who have looked at the project. The decision disregards evidence of
potential safety hazards to the people of Puerto Rico. This woefully
slanted decision also gives credence to the suggestion of impropriety
in matters related to this project and the inability of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to oversee this project.
``I believe this process should begin again in an open and
transparent manner, that the process that has led to the decision
should be fully investigated, and further efforts should be supervised
by new leadership. I ask for a U.S. Army Office of Inspector General
investigation immediately into the relationship between the government
of Puerto Rico, the Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville office, and
the power companies and its contractors.
``Lobbyists who used to work for the Army Corps of Engineers should
not be allowed to line their pockets at the expense of the safety of
the people of Puerto Rico. Your boss, President Obama, stated `the cozy
relationship between the regulators and the industry they regulate must
come to an end.'
``I strongly support the President and agree with him completely.
However, my misgivings about the pipeline project multiplied
substantially when the project was abruptly removed from Army Corps'
office in Puerto Rico and transferred to the Jacksonville office in
Florida.
``There is clearly a cozy relationship between current Jacksonville
staff that you supervise and former Jacksonville staff who now
supervise and work for the private company consulted by and hired by
the government of Puerto Rico to lobby and provide technical assistance
for the project.''
The result: The Army Corps of Engineers appears to have adopted all
the power company's wholesale argument for moving forward. What a
surprise. These include ignoring the advice of other Federal agencies
that do not seem to have any cozy connections and relationships to the
moneyed interests behind the pipeline, including warnings from the Fish
and Wildlife Service--ignored; the Environmental Protection Agency--
ignored.
Finally, I point out that it is an insult to the people of Puerto
Rico to have released the Army Corps' report in the manner it was
released. The report is exclusively in English, whereas the common
language in Puerto Rico is Spanish. English is a language that hundreds
of thousands of Puerto Ricans whose lives will be directly affected by
the pipeline do not speak and cannot read. How are they supposed to
give advice and consent?
It is also personally insulting that the 30-day comment period
occurred during the holiday season when the residents of Puerto Rico
are especially focused on their family, and interestingly enough,
Congress will be in recess.
The people of Puerto Rico, including those who live humbly in the
mountains and those who have derived their livelihoods from the land,
deserve a government that protects their interest. They deserve to know
when their safety and way of life are threatened, the government will
protect them. This case reveals the opposite. It reveals a government
agency that ignores the warnings of other government agencies and a
wealth of facts regarding safety concerns and environmental impact. It
reveals a government agency that responds more to well-connected
lobbyists than advocates for the people of Puerto Rico. It reveals a
government agency that is doing nothing--not doing the job that it was
mandated to do.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record this petition, on
behalf of many individuals and environmental groups from the Legal
Assistance Clinic at the Law School at the University of Puerto Rico,
to have the environmental assessment translated into Spanish.
Escuela de Derecho,
[[Page 19095]]
Universadad de Puerto Rico,
San Juan, PR, December 6, 2011.
Re Petition to Translate into Spanish the Draft Environmental
Assessment, Statement of Findings, Public Notice, and
Joint Permit Application for the Via Verde Natural Gas
Pipeline Project, Permit Application No. SAJ 2010-02881
(IP-EWG).
Colonel Alfred A. Pantano,
District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District, San Marco Boulevard, Jacksonville,
FL.
Dear Colonel Pantano: The United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) has recently published a Draft
Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings
(collectively, Draft EA) as part of its environmental review
process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
for the Via Verde Natural Gas Pipeline project proposed by
applicant Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) under
permit application SAJ-2010-2881 (IP-EWG). This project
involves the construction of a 92-mile natural gas pipeline
that would cross the island of Puerto Rico, starting at the
municipality of Penuelas in the south coast, to Arecibo in
north coast and then east to San Juan. According to the Draft
EA, the purpose of the pipeline is to supply natural gas to
three power plants located in the north coast. The project
will have temporary and permanent impacts on 235 river and
stream crossings; 1,500 acres of land; 369 acres of wetlands
(including various types of important aquatic resources); the
biodiversity-rich and underground water-abundant northern
karst zone; private and public forested lands; natural
reserves; archaeological sites; areas of critical habitat for
endangered and/or threatened species; rural areas; densely
populated urban areas; and coastal areas. In all, the project
may affect over 40 endangered or threatened species, and will
put at permanent risk the lives of over 200,000 residents.
The majority of the people of Puerto Rico are against this
project, as shown by various polls, the 6,000 comment letters
your agency has received so far, and the public
demonstrations against the project involving tens of
thousands of Puerto Rican citizens. In addition, this project
has been the subject of vivid presentations on the floor of
Congress, as well as hundreds of news articles, including
attention from the New York Times, Washington Post, and other
national media. Not surprisingly, your agency has
acknowledged that this project is one of very high public
interest.
We are submitting this letter on behalf of various
environmental groups and individuals. The conservation groups
include the Puerto Rico Chapter of The Sierra Club; Center
for Biological Diversity; Ciudadanos del Karso; Asociacion
Nacional de Derecho Ambiental; Comite Bo. Portugues Contra el
Gasoducto; Comite Utuadeno en Contra del Gasoducto; Sociedad
Ornitologa Puertorriquenia; Vegabajenios Impulsando
Desarrollo Ambiental Sustentable; Iniciativa para un
Desarrollo Sustentable; and Comite Toabajenio en Contra del
Gasoducto. These groups all share a common purpose: to
promote the general welfare of the communities they serve
through education and capacity building of its residents
concerning the adverse impacts of human activities on the
ecologic balance of natural systems and the importance of
restoring the environment and promoting conditions under
which human beings and the environment can exist in harmony
to fulfill economic, social and other needs of present and
future generations.
Likewise, the individual clients of the environmental law
clinics of Vermont Law School, University of Puerto Rico
School of Law, and the Inter American University School of
Law; and of the Puerto Rico Legal Services, Inc. support this
petition as well. These individuals include Juan Cortes Lugo;
Sofia Colon Matos; Luis Guzman Melendez; Ana Oquendo Andujar;
Ivan Velez Gonzalez; Francisca M. Montero Colon; Sol Maria De
Los Angeles Rodriguez Torres; Ivan Carlos Belez Montero;
Aristides Rodriguez Rivera; Ada I. Rodriguez Rodriguez; Alex
Noel Natal Santiago; Miriam Negron Perez; Francisco Ruiz
Nieves; Silvya Jordan Molero; Ana Serrano Maldonado; Felix
Rivera Gonzalez; William Morales Martinez; Trinita Alfonso
Vda. De Folch; Alejandro Saldana Rivera; Dixie Velez Velez;
Dylia Santiago Collaso; Ernesto Forestier Torres; Miriam
Morales Gonzalez; Fernando Velez Velez; Emma Gonzalez
Rodriguez; Samuel Sanchez Santiago; Raquel Ortiz Gonzalez;
Maritza Rivera Cruz; Virginio Heredia Bonilla; Lilian Serrano
Maldonado; Yamil A. Heredia Serrano; Jean Paul Heredia
Romero; Pablo Montalvo Bello; Ramona Ramos Dias; Virgilio
Cruz Cruz; Candida Cruz Cruz; Amparo Cruz Cruz; Gilberto
Padua Rullan; Sabrina Padua Torres; Maribel Torres Carrion;
Hernan Padin Jimenez; Rosa Serrano Gonzalez; Jesus Garcia
Oyola; Sucesion de Ada Torres, compuesta por Carmen Juarbe
Perez, Margarita Forestier Torres y Ernesto Forestier Torres;
Maria Cruz Rivera; Cristobal Orama Barreiro; Haydee Irizarry
Medina; Miguel Baez Soto; and Gustavo Alfredo Casalduc
Torres.
We anticipate that more groups and individual citizens will
join this petition in the coming days or weeks.
The purpose of this letter is to formally request that the
USACE prepare a Spanish version of Draft EA and other key
documents, particularly the most recent Public Notice and
Joint Permit Application. In order for the public comment
period to provide a meaningful opportunity for public input
on a project of tremendous local interest and concern, it is
important that these translations are prepared and
distributed to the public before the commencement of the
public comment period. Once the USACE provides an official
Spanish version of the Draft EA and other key documents, the
USACE should provide a public comment period of at least 60
days in light of the complexity and magnitude of this
proposed project. In addition, we respectfully request that
the USACE provide public hearings in Puerto Rico with
translators available.
There are ample statutory and regulatory provisions as well
as executive orders and judicial precedents which support our
requests, as discussed further below. Furthermore, compliance
with these requests is necessary if USACE intends to provide
affected communities and interested individuals throughout
the island of Puerto Rico with an adequate opportunity to
comment on the project, considering that less than 19% of
island residents consider themselves to be bilingual. The
residents of these communities often have valuable
information about places and resources that they value and
the potential environmental, social, and economic effects
that the proposed federal actions may have on those places
and resources. NEPA and other federal statutes, regulations,
and executive orders require USACE to provide concerned
citizens and organizations with access to enough information
to allow them to provide meaningful comments, and these laws
require USACE to take their comments into account. If the key
documents to be evaluated remain available only in a foreign
language, however, it will be too difficult for the affected
and concerned citizens and groups alike to meaningfully and
adequately comment on the project. In fact, the Draft EA and
other key documents include so much technical and difficult
to grasp information that even an English-speaking layperson
would have difficulty reading, analyzing, and commenting in
just 30 days.
Fundamental principles of environmental justice warrant
that the Draft EA for a project of such magnitude must be
translated in the Spanish language and that the public
comment period be restarted and extended to 60 days once the
Spanish version of the EA is available to the public. The
USACE is bound to these principles by NEPA, the Council on
Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQ guidelines), the
Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice, the Department of Defense Strategy on Environmental
Justice pursuant to the Executive Order, the U.S.
Constitution, and other legal authorities and precedents.
Security issues also warrant a translation. The pipeline is
a safety risk to various thousands of people who will live,
work or commute daily near the pipeline's ROW. The Draft EA
recognizes this fact when it states that ``the addition of
the pipeline in the community decreases public safety.''
Likewise the value of property might be affected depending on
the proximity to the ROW of the pipeline. Basic fundamental
principles of justice require that people put in harm's way
or whose property, may be affected be able to read and
understand the Draft EA which contains the basic findings of
the USACE regarding the risks of the proposed action to their
lives and property.
NEPA and CEQ Regulations
The Draft EA for the proposed Via Verde Pipeline project
was prepared by the USACE pursuant to an environmental review
process required under NEPA. NEPA's environmental review
process has two major purposes: (1) for agencies to make
better informed decisions; and (2) for other interested
agencies and citizens alike to have an opportunity to
participate and provide input in the review process. Courts
have repeatedly interpreted the statute as requiring agencies
to grant meaningful and adequate participation to the public
by disclosing all non-exempted documentation the agency used
and by allowing the public to submit comments in a process
that guarantees that the agency will take into account the
public's comments.
In light of these obligations, USACE has repeatedly
promised that it will take into account all the comments
submitted by the people of Puerto Rico. A 30-day period is
not enough time to give the people of Puerto Rico a
meaningful opportunity to read, analyze, evaluate and then
comment on this 110-page long Draft EA for this highly
complex and controversial project. Moreover, the USACE has
overlooked the fundamental fact that Puerto Rico is a
Spanish-speaking nation and the Draft EA, a, highly technical
document, and other key documents are written in the English
language. If affected and concerned citizens are not able to
read the key documents under review, their participation will
not be meaningful and adequate as the statute requires.
Through NEPA, Congress ordered the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) to issue regulations governing federal agency
implementation of the NEPA environmental
[[Page 19096]]
review process. These CEQ regulations are binding on all
federal agencies. Section 1506.6 of the CEQ regulations,
regarding public involvement, states that agencies shall:
(a) Make diligent efforts to involve the public in
preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.
(b) Provide public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public
meetings, and the availability of environmental documents so
as to inform those persons and agencies who may be interested
or affected.
1. . . .
2. . . .
3. In the case of an action with effects primarily of local
concern the notice may include:
(i) . . .
(ii) . . .
(iii) Following the affected State's public notice
procedures for comparable actions.
(iv) . . .
(c) . . .
(d) Solicit appropriate information from the public.
(e) . . .
(f) Make environmental impact statements, the comments
received, and any underlying documents available to the
public . . . [emphasis added]
When a Federal provision requires ``diligent efforts to
involve the public'', to ``inform those persons [. . .] who
may be interested or affected'', and to ``solicit appropriate
information from the public'' in a Spanish-speaking nation
like Puerto Rico, regarding a project so controversial and of
such a scope and magnitude as Va Verde, the only way to
comply with the provision is by providing the information' in
the common language spoken. Likewise, in the case of an
action with effects primarily of local concern, as in the
case of Va Verde, section 1506.6 (b)(3)(iii) orders the
agency to follow ``the affected State's public notice
procedures for comparable actions'' which for Puerto Rico
would be a draft EA in the Spanish language.
CEQ regulations offer additional reinforcement in order to
guarantee an adequate public participation. For instance,
section 1502.8 of the CEQ guidelines state that
``[e]nvironmental impact statements shall be written in plain
language and may use appropriate graphics so that
decisionmakers and the public can readily understand them''
[emphasis added]. Courts have interpreted this ``plain
language'' provision as to require Federal agencies to
provide the public with comprehensive information regarding
environmental consequences of a proposed action and to do so
in a readily understandable manner. See Klamath-Siskiyou
Wildlands Center v. Bureau of Land Management, 387 F.3d 989
(2004), ``While the conclusions of agency expert are entitled
to deference, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documents are inadequate if they contain only narratives of
expert opinions, and the documents are unacceptable if they
are indecipherable to the public''; Earth Island Institute v.
U.S. Forest Service, C.A.9 (Cal.), 442 F.3d 1147 (2006),
certiorari denied 127 S.Ct. 1829, 549 U.S. 1278, 167 L.Ed.2d
318 (emphasis added), ``A final environmental impact
statement (FEIS) must be organized and written so as to be
readily understandable by governmental decisionmakers and by
interested non-professional laypersons likely to be affected
by actions taken under the FEIS'' [emphasis added]; Oregon
Environmental Council v. Kunzman 817 F.2d 484 (1987),
``Readability requirement of Council on Environmental Quality
regulation mandates that environmental impact statement be
organized and written so as to be readily understandable by
governmental decision makers and by interested
nonprofessional laypersons likely to be affected by actions
taken under the environmental impact statement'' [. . .]
``Upon review of environmental impact statement, parties may
introduce evidence concerning reading level of affected
public and expert testimony concerning indicia of inherent
readability. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
Sec. 102, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 4332; {time} 5 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 706(2)(A, D)'' [emphasis added]. See also National
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear
Regulatory Comm'n, 685 F.2d 459, 487 n. 149 (D.C.Cir.1982);
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983); and
Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 78 F.Supp. 240, 252
(N.D.Ca1.1974), aff', 621 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir.1980). These
requirements for EISs apply equally to EAs, as indicated in
the CEQ regulations' use of the term ``environmental
documents'' rather than EISs alone.
In the case of Puerto Rico, a Draft EA that is highly
technical and written in the English language is
``undecipherable'' and not ``readily understandable'' in
order be properly assessed and commented by lay persons whom
in their wide majority are not fluent in the English
language.
____________________
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER MUST RESIGN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder must
resign immediately. After months of evading tough questions and giving
unclear answers about Operation Fast and Furious, it now appears the
Justice Department's top official has contradicted his own testimony
given before Congress.
Under Operation Fast and Furious, the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, and
Firearms allowed ``straw'' purchasers to buy at least 1,400 weapons,
despite the fact it knew that these weapons would likely end up in the
hands of violent Mexican drug cartels. The ATF lost track of the guns
after they were sold to criminals. Since then, many have been used in
hundreds of crimes on both sides of the border, including the murders
of a Border Patrol agent in Arizona and an immigration officer at the
U.S. embassy in Mexico City.
Why did the Attorney General allow for the transfer of guns across
the border without working in conjunction with Mexican authorities when
he knew the ATF was unable to trace them? That's a very important
question that must be answered. This botched program should never have
been authorized in the first place. Attorney General Holder should
resign over his failure and his evasive and contradictory testimony to
the United States Congress.
____________________
THE REINS ACT AND MINE SAFETY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House,
later today, the House will consider the REINS Act, which is
legislation designed to make sure that in a Republican-controlled
Congress, no new regulations would be put into effect, whether they
deal with clean drinking water, clean air, child safety, the safety of
children when they play with their toys, the drugs that so many
citizens need to take to maintain their health, or occupational safety
at the workplace. All of that would be destroyed under the REINS Act.
You might ask yourself what would society look like? Well, we had a
preview of what that society looks like yesterday when the Mine Safety
and Health Administration released its report on the Upper Big Branch
mine. What that society looked like to these miners and to their
families was 29 dead coal miners, because the Massey Corporation was
basically allowed by its board of directors to evade the basic
regulations that were in place to protect the miners.
Although the miners don't have whistleblower protections, we saw that
Massey was able to intimidate the workers every day not to report
safety violations, not to write up safety violations, not to report
things that needed to be repaired, because the chairman of the board
told them the priority was the production of coal, not the safety of
the workers.
{time} 1010
Produce the coal or get out is what he told them. So they were not
able to participate in their own safety when they saw a violation or
they saw a problem that caused danger in the mine.
They also were able to circumvent the right of the mine safety
inspections in the mines because they gave advance warnings. They were
told if a Federal mine inspector comes onto the property, you must give
advance warning to the people in the mine so they can divert the mine
inspector away from the problems in the mine, take up their time while
we can fix them, or he'll run out of time to inspect the mine. There's
regulations against that. There's laws against. They avoided those.
Then they kept two sets of books so that the mine regulators couldn't
see the real level of violations in the mines. That's what it looks
like when you don't have regulations. That's what it looks like when
you don't have enforcement.
And it's the conclusion of the mine safety report that mirrors one
that was done by the State government. The conclusion is that the
tragic death of 29 miners and serious injuries of two others in the
Upper Big Branch mine
[[Page 19097]]
were entirely preventable--entirely preventable--had regulations been
enforced in that mine, had this company not been allowed to go rogue
and ignore the regulations that are there to protect the miners' lives.
We must now understand what that means to the American public, what
it means to these families.
What could have been contained, what could have been contained as a
mine or a coal dust explosion or a localized methane gas explosion
became an explosion that traveled 2,000 feet per second--2,000 feet per
second. There is no miner that could get out of the way of that act.
And what happens at the end of that world without regulation, where
you don't have to put up with paying fines, where you can clog the
courts with appeals? When the Massey Company was sold, the board of
directors that allowed this to happen, the executive officers that
directed this to happen, the officers walked away with $90 million in
bonuses; the board of directors walked away with $19 million in
bonuses. And Don Blankenship, the CEO of the company that wrote the
memo that said it's production of coal or get out, it's not safety,
walked away with $86 million.
And now get this: Don Blankenship, the CEO, now wants to go back into
the coal business after killing 29 miners. And whether it's the State
of Virginia or the State of West Virginia or Kentucky or anywhere else,
the suggestion is that they might be able to give him a permit to open
up a mine. Twenty-nine miners are dead, violations of law, a criminal
corporate culture, and somebody else says that they might be able to go
back into the mines.
You will not reignite the American Dream for workers in this country
if you take away their rights at work. You will not reignite the
American Dream for the middle class if they have no rights at work, if
they're subjected to this. For these families who lost the 29 members
of their families, they're crushed. They're crushed. But you can't do
that by eliminating the regulations. It's the regulations in place that
have saved miners' lives; but it's the avoidance of the regulations,
the ignoring of the regulations, and it's the failure of this Congress
to introduce tough sanctions.
When you obstruct a Federal safety investigation, it should be a
felony. Somebody should go to jail. When you obstruct the right of a
worker to blow the whistle on an unsafe procedure, there's got to be a
strict fine for that. That's how we reignite the American Dream.
We've got a lot of work to do in this Congress, but you can't do it
by stopping all regulations that protect our families, that protect our
communities, that protect the workers in America today.
____________________
PEARL HARBOR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe) for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the sun was lazily rising on the
horizon. It was around breakfast time on a stunning Sunday morning. It
was quiet, peaceful, calm. People felt secure. There was a small
tropical breeze as the American flag was being raised on a nearby
flagpole.
It was this day that Luke Trahin, a 22-year-old sailor from southeast
Texas, noticed large formations of aircraft darkening the glistening
sky. He kept watching in awe until suddenly the aircraft broke
formation, dove from the sky, and unleashed a fury of deadly,
devastating bombs and torpedoes on a place called Pearl Harbor in the
Pacific. It was this day, 70 years ago this morning, when Luke Trahin
and his fellow sailors, soldiers, and marines saw war unleashed upon
America. It was December 7, 1941.
The Japanese had caught America by surprise and took advantage of an
unprepared nation. And after the smoke cleared on that morning of
madness, 98 Navy planes and 64 Army aircraft were destroyed. Luke's
unit, Patrol Wing One, lost all but three of its 36 aircraft. 2,471
Americans, servicemen, and civilians, were killed by this unwarranted
invasion of terror from the skies.
The pride of the United States Navy, the battleships--West Virginia,
California, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Maryland, Nevada, and Arizona--
were trapped in the harbor. They made easy targets for the Japanese
pilots. The sailors onboard these battle wagons fought with the courage
of an entire legion of warriors when they were attacked by a skillful,
fanatical, and tyrannical enemy. All of these fierce U.S. Navy
battleships were sunk or damaged. Their guns, Mr. Speaker, are now
silent.
The hull of the USS Arizona became the sacred graveyard in the
peaceful Pacific for more than 1,177 American sailors and marines. I
have seen, Mr. Speaker, the oil that still seeps to the surface from
the hull of the battleship Arizona.
Luke Trahin and his Navy buddies in Patrol Wing One quickly got
organized, prepared, and waited for 2 days for the expected land
invasion by the Japanese. It never came. But America was at war. It was
World War II, and the war was long. It spread from the Pacific to
Europe to Africa to the Middle East to Asia. The Japanese, then the
Nazis, seemed undefeatable. But even the Japanese were concerned about
the spirit of America. The Japanese commander of the Pearl Harbor
invasion remarked that what Japan had done was wake a sleeping giant.
World War II was hard. Millions served in uniform overseas; millions
served on the home front; all sacrificed for the cause of America. The
Nation woke from a somber sleep of neutrality and, with our allies,
defeated the tyrants that would rule over the world. That was a time
when Americans put aside all differences and united to defend freedom
in our Nation. When the war was won, over 400,000 Americans had given
their lives for this nation.
Mr. Speaker, I'm always intrigued by the stories of those war heroes
and the folks of that generation. There isn't one of them that cannot
recall the exact moment and place they were when they heard the news of
Pearl Harbor. Both of my parents, barely teenagers at the time, still
talk about what they were doing when they heard on the radio that
broadcast that Sunday morning about the invasion.
Until September 2001, this was the deadliest attack on American soil.
``December 7, 1941, a date that will live in infamy.'' Those were the
words of President Franklin Roosevelt that became forever embedded in
the minds of patriots across our land igniting and launching a nation
into the fiery trenches of battle throughout the world.
Those of that Greatest Generation proved that when freedom of this
Nation is threatened, our people will stand and fight. They will bring
the thunder of God upon our enemies. Defending freedom and liberty was
the battle cry of the sailors, marines, and soldiers that died 70 years
ago at Pearl Harbor.
We remember December 7, 1941, and the Americans who stood tall and
kept the flame of America burning brightly. They were a remarkable
bunch of people. They were the Americans.
My friend, Petty Officer Luke Trahin, stayed in the United States
Navy for 38 years, either on active or reserve status. He wore his
uniform every Memorial Day, every Veterans Day, and spent a lot of time
speaking proudly about this country. He died 4 years ago on December 5,
2007. He was 89 years of age.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXTENSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Fudge) for 5 minutes.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the urgent need to extend
unemployment insurance for struggling Americans. Forty-five percent of
all unemployed workers--more than 6 million people--have been out of
work for more than 6 months.
Karen, from Cleveland, was laid off in March. She was laid off from a
law firm due to budget constraints. She is 62 years old and unable to
find a job in this economy. Unemployment insurance is helping her to
get by with just the basic necessities. It is allowing her
[[Page 19098]]
to pay for expensive but necessary prescriptions. She is actively
looking for work, but she is afraid that if her unemployment benefits
are cut, she will lose her house. Karen's State unemployment benefits
can run out at the end of December.
{time} 1020
If Congress fails to act to renew the Federal unemployment insurance
program, she'll become just another statistic, one of the millions of
Americans who identify themselves with the 99 percent. Karen, along
with 6 million Americans, will be cut off from emergency lifeline
saving resources unless Congress acts.
Sandra, of Cleveland Heights, lost her job in April 2011. It's her
third layoff. She is 59 years old. She never thought she would find
herself in this position at this age.
Rather than defaulting on her mortgage, she has used up all of her
retirement savings. Now she is deeper into debt. When her unemployment
funds run out, it's likely she will default. And being an older worker,
it makes it even harder.
We see this scenario all too often across this Nation, hardworking
Americans getting laid off, using up their savings, and then losing
their homes. We've seen foreclosure rates soar, and Americans are
falling behind on their mortgage payments at a very rapid rate. In my
district, more than 13 percent of homeowners are 90 or more days behind
on their mortgage.
In 2010, unemployment benefits kept 3 million Americans, including
nearly 1 million children, from falling into poverty. Extending
unemployment insurance can prevent the loss of over 500,000 jobs,
according to the Economic Policy Institute--500,000 jobs.
You know why? Because UI payments go directly into the economy. They
support local businesses. They help create jobs and reduce the demand
for public services. If we don't extend unemployment insurance, it
would be the equivalent of pulling nearly $90 billion out of the
economy in 2012.
There's one more story I'd like to tell you. It's from Molly in
Toledo. I tell Molly's story because it embodies the frustration felt
by thousands upon thousands of American across this country.
Molly has battled unemployment since October 2008. She wonders how
the rich and powerful expect people like her to survive without good-
paying jobs. ``Are we just supposed to die,'' she asks? ``Commit
suicide? Starve to death while we are homeless and on the streets?''
Molly says: ``The deck really seems to be stacked against ordinary
Americans. No one with any real power seems to care, except Warren
Buffett.''
``I'm trying to find a good job,'' she says, ``or any job for that
matter. We, the unemployed are demonized by the right and discriminated
against for being out of work. We're too old or overqualified or
underqualified, or we're the wrong color. What has happened to my
country?'' she asks.
These are the stories of everyday Americans who are struggling to get
by. This is not about Democrats and Republicans. This is about coming
together to help millions of unemployed Americans get through the worst
economic recession since the Great Depression. It's about helping our
economy grow and about creating jobs.
Americans are frustrated with the decline of the middle class and the
lack of good-paying jobs. But these honorable citizens haven't given
up, and neither can we. We must act now. We must extend unemployment
insurance.
____________________
WHY ARE WE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, when we were home during the Thanksgiving
break, like all my colleagues, I did as much as I could to be with the
people of the Third District of North Carolina. The Third District is
the home of Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station,
and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and over 60,000 retired veterans in
the Third District.
Since coming back to Washington, I've done two town meetings by
phone. What I heard while I was home during Thanksgiving and the two
town meetings: Why are we still in Afghanistan?
When I hear my colleagues in both parties talking about the problems
facing the American people--unemployment benefits, extending the tax
cuts for middle class America--we all grapple with, both parties, how
we are going to pay for it.
Well, there is a man in Afghanistan that is a crook and corrupt, who
gets $10 billion a month that he doesn't have to worry about. Poor
Americans are out here doing the best they can in a very difficult
economy, and we can't help them, but we can help a corrupt leader in
Afghanistan. It makes no sense. I hope that this Congress will come
together and say to the President, let's not wait till 2014.
How many more American boys and girls will have to die and give their
legs in the next 3 years for a corrupt leader? I've asked the
Department of Defense, and I wrote Secretary Panetta and asked him that
question. Give me your projections of how many more young men and women
will have to die and lose their legs. I hope that I get that response
soon.
That brings me to the point of a young marine I saw at Walter Reed/
Bethesda about 3 weeks ago. There were four marines from the Third
District of North Carolina. Three have lost both legs, and the one that
had lost only one leg, a corporal, mom sitting in the room, said to me,
Sir, may I ask you a question? I said certainly you may. Why are we
still in Afghanistan? And I looked at him and I said, I don't know why
we're still there.
Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense. The American people and the people of
the Third District of North Carolina are saying, we have won; bin Laden
is dead; al Qaeda has been dispersed all over the world.
Mr. Speaker, it is time, as we debate these very difficult, complex
issues for our Nation, that we get smart with our foreign policy. And
smart means, let's don't try to police the world.
History has proven you will never change Afghanistan. It will never
change, no matter what we do or any other country tries to do.
So, Mr. Speaker, beside me is a poster with a flag-draped coffin
coming off the plane at Dover. And with humility I tell you today, Mr.
Speaker, I've signed over 10,400 letters to families and extended
families who've lost loved ones in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I thank God that He has allowed me to have a heart large enough to
feel the pain of war, because I've never been to war. But when I sign
those letters, I feel the pain of the families, and I lick every
envelope that I send.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I want to close my comments by asking God to
please bless our men and women in uniform, God to please bless the
families who've lost loved ones fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. God,
please bless the House and Senate that we will do what's right for the
American people. Bless Mr. Obama that he will do what is right for the
American people.
And three times I will say, God, please, God, please, God, please
continue to bless America.
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXTENSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I want to
publicly associate myself with everything Walter Jones just said. He is
absolutely right.
Mr. Speaker, this holiday season Congress has chances, a couple of
chances right in front of them to do what's right for the American
people and to side with the overwhelming percentage of Americans
suffering out there in this economy.
For an entire year, the majority in the House has not offered a
single bill to create a single job. In fact, the only thing that the
Congress has been doing is creating an environment where public sector
jobs are cut, and where private sector jobs, though they have been
[[Page 19099]]
growing, are offset by those public sector cuts, leaving us with an
unemployment rate which we're happy to have at 8.6 percent, but within
the historical context is still a national disgrace and an outrage to
have unemployment at 8.6 percent for so very long. But we're happy to
have it because it has been as high as 10.
And now we're threatening to leave more than 2 million Americans,
including 13,000 in my home State of Minnesota, out in the cold during
the holiday season by taking away their unemployment insurance.
Right now, 14 million people are unemployed, and companies really
aren't hiring. For most of these people, unemployment insurance is the
only thing that's keeping them in their homes and not out on the
street.
According to the Census Bureau, unemployment insurance has pulled 3.2
million Americans out of poverty last year. And that's why Congress
needs to make sure that all Americans, Mr. Speaker, continue to have
this vital lifeline available.
Any credible economist will tell you that unemployment insurance
creates jobs. Every dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields a
return of $1.52 in economic growth.
At least 200,000 jobs would be lost if Congress fails to pass the
extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Congress must not leave
Washington for the holidays without extending unemployment benefits
that create jobs and put money into the pockets and on the tables of
millions of Americans.
{time} 1030
Both Democrat and Republican politicians, we together have not passed
that jobs bill. While the Republicans are in the majority, and I
believe bear the weight of the responsibility, it's a responsibility of
every Member of Congress to call for the extension of unemployment
insurance benefits and jobs at this critical time.
America can't wait. We shouldn't be leaving hardworking Americans
high and dry this holiday season. This holiday season, we can spur
economic growth, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class by doing
the right thing of extending unemployment insurance benefits.
On behalf of the good people who play by the rules and lost their
jobs because of Wall Street greed, and while this majority looked the
other way, I urge all of my colleagues to support the extension of
unemployment insurance benefits.
____________________
AFGHANISTAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger) for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. There has been a lot of talk lately about
Afghanistan. You hear it every day. You heard it just a little bit ago
about why are we in Afghanistan? What are we fighting for? Isn't it
time to go home?
I've got to tell you the easy thing to do is to stand up and say
let's just declare victory and let's leave, and then whatever happens
after we're gone, that's not our fault anymore. It's not our problem.
That's the easy thing to do.
You know, the America I grew up in and continue to grow in and live
in is not the country that always picks the easy thing. The thing about
the American DNA is, I believe we do typically the right thing.
Now, let me tell you, I'm still a pilot in the military. I still fly
for the Air National Guard, and I've had the privilege and honor of
serving overseas with my fellow men and women in uniform. Although most
of my experience was in Iraq, I remember in Iraq a time when Members of
this House stood up and said that the war in Iraq is lost, that there
is no way to win, and it's time to just come home.
And we see today that now the American troops are coming home from
Iraq but under a condition of victory. And while I have concerns about
that timetable for withdrawal, I think anybody would agree that that's
better than had we just in 2006 and 2007 folded up and taken the easy
way.
So let me ask my fellow Members of Congress and let me ask the
American people, what is it we're fighting for in Afghanistan?
I have here a very disturbing but a very appropriate picture of what
it is that we're fighting for.
The young girl you see on the top, her name is BiBi. BiBi is 17 years
old. When BiBi was 12 years old, she was sold to somebody basically as
a slave as a result of a member of her family committing a crime and
selling her as reparations for that crime. For 5 years she was beaten
by her husband until one day she decided to run away to seek freedom.
Well, she was caught. Her husband caught her, drug her back to his
house, and the Taliban, as a way to enact justice, forced him, with his
brother holding her down, forced him to cut off her nose and to cut off
her ears. She then proceeded to basically crawl to her uncle's house,
and her uncle ignored her. And somebody finally called the hospital,
and they said go to an American forward-operating base. They'll take
care of you.
You hear the stories of the major who took care of her talking about
how she showed up and talking about the fright that she had in her
eyes.
I took a trip to Afghanistan recently and saw a village where I saw a
man who was standing on a berm with an AK-47. And I talked to him
through a translator, and he informed me that not 2 days ago his
daughter fell into a well and drowned. But yet he still believes that
his village needs protecting. And he could be sitting at home mourning
the loss of his daughter, and I'm sure he mourned the loss, but he was
standing out defending his village because he wants what Americans
want, what anybody around the world wants. They want security. They
want to be able to raise their family. BiBi just wants to live her life
without being beaten and sold into slavery.
Today, because of the American presence in Afghanistan and that of
our coalition partners, you see the picture at the bottom of this, the
best part of this picture, and that is girls in school learning to read
and write, learning that there is a world out there, learning that
despite where they were raised and born, they, too, can have some of
the freedoms and some of the privileges that folks in the rest of the
world and especially in the United States have.
So let me say this. It is so easy to stand up and say this is not
worth it. But I'm going to tell you the second verse of the Star
Spangled Banner has a line that says ``Oh conquer we must, when our
cause it is just.''
Ladies and gentlemen, what we're doing in Afghanistan is not
extending an empire. It's bringing freedom to millions of people,
taking out jihadists that would kill people simply because you believe
differently than them, and we are standing up for freedom around the
globe. The greatest disinfectant to terrorism is freedom.
Ladies and gentlemen, the fight in Afghanistan, though difficult, is
worth it, and I come in today and stand up and say ``God bless you'' to
those that have gone over there and put on the uniform, and I say
``thank you'' for your service to your country. The fight is worth it.
____________________
TAKING CARE OF THOSE AT HOME
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) for 5 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. I have been so moved by the preceding gentleman's remarks
about the good work that Americans can do, especially when the argument
is which side are we on, terrorism or freedom.
I don't know how many cases in the world that the United States of
America can intercede in, but I do know that, as we see these horrible
examples of what people can do to their own people, that we have
thousands of Americans who have volunteered to support our flag and the
integrity of the United States who have been killed. And it just seemed
to me that when we're talking about the protection of a human body,
whether it's losing a limb or your sight or your face, no matter what
it is--and especially your life--that if America is going to take this
[[Page 19100]]
position, all Americans should be prepared to make the sacrifices as
the gentleman before me has.
I think it's so unfair and borders on corrupt when people talk about
where our American men and women should be, defending freedom in
foreign countries, when America hasn't spoken. Presidents haven't
declared war. And we find ourselves talking about volunteers when it's
abundantly clear that everybody does not assume the same sacrifices,
whether we're talking about taxes or loss of life.
So whether we're talking about Australia, Afghanistan, Iraq, before
the people make a decision--and that's what we're for in the House--
before they make a decision, at least say that everyone has to
participate in that decision and not those who, for economic reasons,
find themselves in communities with the highest, the very highest
unemployment.
And I laud what happens to all of us who volunteered, because when
that flag goes up, you salute the flag. The President becomes the
Commander in Chief, and there is only one thing to do. And that's win
and protect the integrity of the United States.
But I submit that we have to have a draft that's a part of--what?--
the United States, and not a plea for those people, for economic
reasons, who will have to protect themselves. I don't think I've ever
said this before, but I was thinking that my brother volunteered long
before Pearl Harbor, which today we commemorate, and so he was unable
to say, nor I, that he volunteered because we were being attacked.
{time} 1040
Several years later, in 1948, when the war was over, I volunteered,
and that was before the North Koreans invaded South Korea. I would like
to walk away by saying how patriotic we both were; but really what
motivated me was the excitement my mother would get in receiving a
check from my older brother. It wasn't a question of whether she loved
him more; it was that she needed it.
I was a teenager--11, 12 years old. The one thing I knew, I wanted to
make my mother as happy as my brother did and send her that allotment
check. Yet, today, I have medals, and I've been lorded by the Koreans
and everyone else; but when I think about it, there were economic
reasons that made me a ``hero,'' and there are economic reasons that
make the heroes that we have who defend our country and our flag so
well.
I didn't expect to talk about that; but in hearing that, 70 years
ago, we were attacked and of the American lives that were lost and then
of coming back to what has happened in Afghanistan, I am reminded of
how unfair this system is for the greatest country in the world and of
the hope and division that we're losing and of what separates us from
so many other countries in which you can be born into the pits of
poverty, and yet you can always dream that, in this great country, you
can succeed.
So many Members of Congress and so many members of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus are the first ones who ever went to college--their
parents were the first ones in generations who were able to become
professionals--and then had the great honor to represent the United
States of America in this Congress.
I am sorry to have deviated from why I came to the well. What I can
say to other Members is: God bless America. We have to keep fighting
for equality and justice for all.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE BLUE STAR MOTHERS OF AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tipton) for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Yesterday, legislation that I sponsored, along with
Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado, passed the House floor. This bill
for the Blue Star Mothers of America updated their congressional
charter for the modern era.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today, particularly on this day as we
commemorate the attack on Pearl Harbor 70 years ago, to be able to rise
to honor the Blue Star Mothers of America--the people, the women of
America, who have been providing much needed assistance to our Nation's
active duty servicemen and -women, veterans, and military families
since 1942.
Founded during the height of World War II, the Blue Star Mothers are
a nonpartisan veterans' service organization, composed of mothers of
current and former servicemembers. Today, over 5,000 dedicated women
perform a wide variety of important volunteer services for our troops,
providing transportation, supplies, food, and emotional support. More
than 225 local chapters across the United States carry out the mission
of supporting our troops, our veterans, and the families of our fallen
heroes, as well as developing individual projects to assist the
specific needs of the military in their own communities. Last month
alone, thousands of care packages were sent to our troops overseas, and
chaplains and commanders across the military received boxes of supplies
and gifts to be able to be distributed to the comrades.
The Blue Star Mothers were originally formed to bring their children
home, to ensure that they were given the benefits that they deserved,
and to provide them with a vast support network upon their arrival. The
organization has since expanded to include other forms of assistance,
including rehabilitation, family services, and civil defense. This was
chartered by Congress in 1960.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be able to recognize the Blue Star
Mothers of America, and I rise today to thank these patriotic women for
their commitment to serving the needs of America's military community
and for making a difference in the lives of those who sacrifice the
most.
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to be at the graduation at
the United States Air Force Academy. My son-in-law was graduating, and
Secretary Gates delivered the commencement address. At that time, he
noted that that freshman class was the first to enter the academy after
9/11, knowing full well that they would be putting themselves in harm's
way.
We have the finest volunteer military that the world has ever seen.
May God continue to bless this country with such men and women who will
always stand for freedom.
____________________
WALL STREET AND MF GLOBAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, numerous stories have come out over the last
few weeks, all detailing the corruption and outright fraud on Wall
Street.
First, there was the recent news about former Secretary of the
Treasury Hank Paulson's inappropriately tipping off a few key friends
from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street tycoons about the impending
collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that those friends could
hedge and make money on that insider knowledge. Then a judge in New
York threw out one of the orchestrated settlements between Citigroup,
which was a bank at the center of the wrongdoing, and the Securities
and Exchange Commission, which allowed that bank to walk away from
cases of fraud without admitting any wrongdoing.
This past weekend, ``60 Minutes'' interviewed a former executive vice
president at Countrywide Financial, a giant and duplicitous player in
the U.S. mortgage business. This woman was in charge of fraud
investigations at the company before the financial crisis.
According to her, ``Countrywide loan officers were forging and
manipulating borrowers' income and asset statements to help them get
loans they weren't qualified for and couldn't afford.'' She went on to
say that all of the recycle bins, wherever they looked in that company,
were full of signatures that had been cut off of one document and put
onto another and then photocopied or faxed. According to her, the fraud
she witnessed was systemic, taking place in Boston, Chicago, Miami,
Detroit, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and elsewhere. She was fired before she
[[Page 19101]]
could speak to government regulators about the extent of fraud she had
documented.
What is most troubling is that these stories are not isolated. The
FBI testified before Congress as early as 2004 that they were seeing an
epidemic in white collar crime. They stated the FBI did not have
anywhere near enough agents to investigate major white collar crime
like the financial crisis. There are moments when I do wonder if the
FBI has the will to prosecute; but still, today, the FBI has nowhere
near enough special agents or forensic experts to properly investigate
the level of corruption that we know occurred.
Frankly, the Congress has shorted the FBI--some might say purposely--
of the resources it needs to do the job. I have a bill, which I invite
my colleagues to support, H.R. 1350, the Financial Crisis Criminal
Investigation Act, authorizing an additional 1,000 FBI agents to
aggressively investigate the kind of fraud that has destroyed the
economic future of millions of our people and that has upset the global
financial system.
Back when we had the S&L crisis in the 1990s, we had 1,000 agents. Do
you know how many were working when this financial crisis started?
Forty-five. The others had all been reassigned to terrorism. We're only
up a little over 200 agents now investigating white collar crime. Think
about that, America. Why do you think these financial wrongdoers aren't
in jail? Frankly, this Congress has not taken its responsibility to
investigate seriously.
Despite the robust public reporting of misdeeds on Wall Street, it
has not been until the MF Global case, one of the top 10 bankruptcies
in this country, that Congress has shown some mild interest in the
magnitude of the inquiry required. In November, we got an inside look
into the stunning misdeeds--and let's be blunt--outright thievery that
occurred at MF Global in the days before it declared bankruptcy. The
total amount missing from private accounts has fluctuated over the
weeks. As much as $1.2 billion could be missing from private customer
accounts.
Congress is finally having hearings on this subject tomorrow, and
we'll see how seriously an investigation is pursued. Let me say that
the public has a right to know on what specific dates throughout 2011
money from customer accounts was wire-transferred in order to meet MF
Global's margin calls.
{time} 1050
This is the key question. Members should ask, probe, and exact the
truth. The public has a right to know on what specific dates through
2011 was money from private customer accounts at MF wire-transferred in
order to meet MF's global margin calls.
If Mr. Corzine authorized the taking of those funds, then this body
should remind him that no one is above the law, not even someone who
was a former Goldman Sachs CEO, former Governor and U.S. Senator.
Whichever friends and associates aided his actions in that company
should be brought into full sunlight, as well as other companies that
were likely involved in those wire transfers.
The fact that hundreds of millions of dollars, if not over a billion
dollars, can simply be stolen from a major banking institution from the
inside requires full investigation, not just by the Congress, but by
the FBI. I'm reminded of that book, written by Professor William Black,
``The Best Way To Rob a Bank is To Own One.'' Well, I wonder how much
of that applies in this case.
It's time that Wall Street, white collar crimes, be prosecuted
seriously, that this Congress do its job. Let's provide the FBI the
resources it needs to fully investigate and prosecute, and the
committees of this Chamber use their full authority to do no less. We
surely owe this to the American people and the cause of justice toward
all.
____________________
SUPPORT REINS ACT AND GOP REGULATORY REFORM AGENDA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or the REINS,
Act.
This bill, which I have cosponsored, restores accountability to the
regulatory process by requiring an up-or-down vote in Congress and the
President's signature on any new major rule before it is enforced on
the American people.
Over-regulation, Mr. Speaker, is devastating our economy and
hindering job growth. Of the current administration's new regulations,
200 are expected to cost more than $100 million each. Seven of those
new regulations, however, will cost the economy more than $1 billion
each. At the current pace, the current regulatory burden for 2011 alone
will exceed $105 billion.
And the Federal Government has created more than 81.9 million hours'
worth of paperwork this year alone, costing employers $80 billion just
in compliance. It's no wonder a recent Gallup Poll found small business
owners citing ``complying with government regulations'' as ``the most
important problem'' they face.
Nebraskans have not been immune to the reams of red tape being handed
down by Federal regulators. Just yesterday it was reported the city of
Grand Island, Nebraska, population 51,000, will be saddled with a $3.2
million compliance cost due to a new Federal emissions regulation. This
EPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was finalized June 1 and will be
enforced January 1.
But this is only one example. There are additional, even more costly
rules and unworkable timelines coming down the pike, all of which mean
a much longer winter for Americans struggling with high energy costs.
But it doesn't stop there. Recently, the Department of Labor proposed
a misguided rule which would restrict youth involvement in agriculture
work. Yes, Mr. Speaker, anything from milking cows and feeding calves
to hauling and detassling corn would come under fire under the
Department's current rule.
Everyone agrees the safety of these young people and workers
everywhere is of the utmost importance; but by allowing such heavy-
handed thoughtless regulation, we're greatly restricting opportunities
for rural youth. These jobs, often seasonal, teach young people
responsibility and the value of hard work; and they're able to earn a
little spending money in the process.
I'm also a proud cosponsor of the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act
of 2011, H.R. 1633, which the House is slated to consider later this
week. This bill would prevent the EPA from regulating farm dust, or the
type of dust which naturally occurs in rural areas.
Farmers and ranchers already are subject to strict Federal and State
regulations to control dust. It makes no sense for the EPA to impose
costlier requirements on top of the existing standards. While the EPA
has backed off without legislative action, nothing certainly prohibits
the agency from regulating farm dust in the future.
During a time of economic hardship, keeping the door open for
additional regulatory overreach is not the answer. Actually, I'm often
reminded of a meeting I had in southeastern Nebraska with
representatives from a Federal agency, good people they are. One of
them said it had been more than 20 years since he'd ridden on a gravel
road.
For me, this meeting certainly emphasized the disconnect between
Washington and rural America. These are only a few examples of the
regulatory burden and uncertainty facing Nebraskans who recognize
economic growth ultimately depends on job creators, not regulators.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support commonsense regulatory reforms like the REINS Act.
This is yet another step towards increased accountability, improving
the regulatory process, and providing certainty for job creators in my
home State of Nebraska and in States all across this country.
[[Page 19102]]
____________________
SMART: MORE SECURITY AT A FRACTION OF THE COST
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the violence rages on in Afghanistan.
Earlier this week, suicide bombers struck in three different cities, in
each case targeting Shiite worshipers who are observing a religious
holiday.
The death toll is at least 63, according to a news report; and a
Pakistani extremist group has claimed responsibility for the attacks.
One eyewitness told The New York Times: ``We saw 30 or 40 people on the
ground missing arms or legs.'' Another said the Kabul blast was timed
to wreak the maximum havoc, as the bomber detonated at the moment that
the crowd was largest, when one group was going into a mosque and
another was exiting.
In the 10 years of this war, it's the first attack specifically
against Shiites, adding a sectarian angle and religious tension that
hadn't previously been prevalent in the Afghanistan conflict.
Mr. Speaker, how can we call our occupation of Afghanistan a success
when, after 10 years of attacks like this and making a young woman like
BiBi who was talked about on the other side of the aisle earlier this
morning, make her victimization and her terrorization commonplace. When
this is commonplace, we cannot be having success in Afghanistan.
The truth is our continued military presence is aggravating the
violence, not containing it, and certainly not stopping it. I'm not
saying that Afghanistan will be magically transformed when the last of
our troops leaves; but our best hope for peace, for security and
stability there is a swift end to this war.
But here's another important thing, Mr. Speaker. If we do this right
and have an end to the war that is meaningful, it would mean the
beginning of an even more robust engagement with Afghanistan, an
engagement based on the principles of SMART Security, in other words, a
peaceful partnership based on mutual respect, assistance to
strengthening Afghanistan's democratic infrastructure, not with
military force, but with civilian support.
SMART Security would empower the Afghan people investing in their
hopes and dreams, instead of bringing further violence to their
country. Military redeployment out of Afghanistan can't and won't mean
a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.
So I hope that every single one of my colleagues who has eagerly
rubber-stamped war spending year after year, even while complaining
about the United States budget deficits, will show the same enthusiasm
and the same support for a humanitarian surge in Afghanistan.
I have to shake my head, Mr. Speaker, every time I hear someone say
we can't afford such generous foreign aid. Talk about penny wise and
pound foolish. Last fiscal year we spent roughly $2.5 billion on
development assistance in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, we go through that
much war spending in Afghanistan every single week. The bottom line is
that smart investments provide more security at a fraction of the cost,
pennies on the dollar compared to waging war.
Allowing extreme poverty and widespread unemployment to prevail
throughout Afghanistan imperils our national security as much as
anything else. Where there's hopelessness, that's where insurgents get
a foothold. Nothing breeds terrorism like hardship, deprivation, and
despair.
{time} 1100
Mr. Speaker, because it's the right thing to do and because it's the
best way to protect America, let's bring our troops home and make the
transition to SMART Security. And let's do it now.
____________________
REGS AGENDA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Berg) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, as I talk with North Dakotans, it's clear
we're all frustrated with Washington.
ObamaCare is a disastrous law that 70 percent of North Dakotans do
not want. Unemployment remains unacceptably high, making it clear that
President Obama's government stimulus did not work. Washington bailed
out Wall Street while Main Street continues to suffer. And Washington
persistently fails to uphold its responsibility to balance the budget.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to pursue overreaching
regulations that create more redtape and uncertainty for North Dakota's
families, farms, and small businesses. These burdensome regulations
threaten job creation, and they are the biggest challenge facing our
economy. We need to take serious steps today to halt the Obama
administration's regulatory overreach.
That's why I announced my REGS Agenda: Reduce the redtape; Empower
the States; Grow the economy, and Stop President Obama's overreach.
This agenda is the result of talking with North Dakotans and learning
about the impact of senseless regulations on North Dakota's farmers,
ranchers, and small businessmen.
During my recent regulations tour, I spoke with energy providers who
are concerned about the EPA's regional haze requirements that could
cost North Dakota over $700 million just to comply. Farmers told me
about the forever-changing fuel storage mandates that added new costs.
And I heard how the new EPA regulations on gas generators could cost a
North Dakota school district a quarter of a million dollars. This cost
is not because they are using generators more than allowed; the cost is
because the EPA simply doesn't like which hours they're using it.
The REGS Agenda is also the product of feedback I've received from
North Dakotans at 10 public town hall hearings I've held this year and
through the countless emails, letters, and phone calls. The message was
clear: Washington is not the solution, it's the problem.
To get our economy moving again and our country back on track,
President Obama and congressional leaders could learn a lot about how
we do things in North Dakota. The REGS Agenda is also the product of
legislation I've been working on. Last month, I introduced a bill that
would rein in the Obama administration's Federal takeover of the State
regional haze management, which threatens to create more business
uncertainty and stifle job creation. It will also increase the energy
costs for American families and small business. And today, I will
proudly vote in support of the REINS Act, which is a much-needed
measure to rein in this regulatory overreach.
But this agenda is not simply the sum of this past year; it's also a
path moving forward to rein in the overreaching, out-of-touch
government regulations that burden small business, farms, and ranches
each and every day. I will continue to add to this agenda to fight
against the job-killing regulations that threaten small businesses'
ability to create jobs and grow our economy.
The number one thing we can do to get our economy back on track, to
give small business certainty, to grow and create jobs, is to rein in
President Obama's overbearing regulations. They're burdening job
creation, and it adds more cost and more redtape. Through the REGS
Agenda, I'll continue fighting to bring regulatory relief to the
American people.
____________________
VOTER SUPPRESSION LAWS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, first let me take a moment to
thank the gentlelady from Ohio, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, for her
fearless and tireless leadership in protecting our democracy and the
bedrock, of course, of our country, and that is the right to vote. She
has done an amazing job keeping us very focused and pointed with all of
the information we need to try to address this in a big way.
Once again, I am here today to sound the alarm because, make no
mistake
[[Page 19103]]
about it, the fundamental right to vote which is at the heart of our
democracy, it is under attack. Republican legislators and governors are
proposing partisan laws that require voters to show government-approved
photo IDs before voting.
Now, I came to this floor years ago after the stolen Presidential
elections in Florida and in Ohio to protest the results of those two
elections that were filled with voter suppression. It worked for the
Republicans before, and so legislators in 42 States on this map of
shame have doubled down on these strategies to make it harder for
certain communities to vote.
These proposals would disenfranchise 21 million Americans. That's
over 1 in 10 eligible voters in America who do not have adequate
identification. Now, how in the world, for example, would my 100-year-
old aunt get her birth certificate to prove who she is to get a
government ID to vote? She wouldn't know where to start, nor how to pay
for it. And it's no coincidence that a disproportionate number of these
disaffected voters come from communities of color as well as the poor,
the elderly, and students.
Fully one in four otherwise qualified African Americans would be
unable to vote under these voter-ID laws. Around one in five Asian
Americans, Latinos, and young adults between the ages of 18 to 24 would
be blocked.
In my home State of California, a voter-ID bill was introduced to
suppress voter participation. It would cost $26 just to get the
required documents to qualify for a government-issued ID. Now, having
been born and raised in Texas, this certainly looks like a poll tax to
me, which those of us remember as a way to prevent African Americans
from voting. These voter-ID laws have a partisan agenda seeking to
disenfranchise and deny specific populations of voters before they have
the opportunity to elect their representatives in government. These
partisan laws are shameful, and they're a disgrace to our country.
If these Republican lawmakers were truly concerned with fighting
voter fraud, they would take on actual documented problems such as
distributing fliers with false information meant to trick voters,
improperly purging voters, or tampering with election equipment and
forms.
Instead, they are pushing laws designed to change election outcomes
by reducing voting, repressing turnout, and turning the clock back to
the days of Jim Crow. This is the exact opposite of where our country
needs to go. With almost 40 percent of eligible voters regularly
staying away from voting booths, we need to be expanding participation
in our democracy, making the ballot more accessible, not less. We
cannot and we must not allow democracy to be undermined, especially
while we're promoting democracy abroad.
We must unmask these shameful attempts to disenfranchise voters.
Let's stop this partisan effort that strikes at the very core of our
country. Let's win this war against voters. We should be about
dismantling and reducing barriers so that we can really begin to
reignite the American Dream for those who have lost hope.
So I want to thank my colleagues, especially Congresswoman Fudge, for
their calls to protect the right to vote on behalf of all the citizens
across this great Nation.
____________________
ENTREPRENEUR STARTUP GROWTH ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu) for 5 minutes.
Ms. CHU. America doesn't have a small business problem; it has a
startup problem. That was the title of a recent Washington Post
article. It pointed to the fact that self-employed startup businesses
have been the chosen alternative for millions of Americans, but we must
do more to help them. Today, one out of every three new jobs is created
by self-employed startup businesses.
{time} 1110
But we can do better. Compared to other wealthy countries, the U.S.
ranks 23rd in new businesses formed per thousand working adults. These
entrepreneurs take risks to make it on their own, but they could do
better if we help them be competitive. That is why yesterday I
introduced the Entrepreneur Startup Growth Act.
One of the most intimidating times of the year for new owners is tax
season, as they learn and navigate the different tax standards for
businesses. My bill turns this tough time into an opportunity by
offering not only affordable business tax assistance but business
development services so that these companies can get the advice they
need in order to grow.
This bill builds on the Self-Employment Tax Initiative launched by
CFED, the Corporation for Enterprise Development, a nonprofit economic
opportunity organization. According to CFED, nearly two-thirds of all
self-employed people are operating business startups.
Self-employed startups in their first year of existence create an
average of 3 million jobs per year. In fact, without business startups,
there would be no net job growth in the U.S. economy. Nearly all net
job creation since 1980 has occurred in self-employed startups less
than 5 years old. They are critical to our economy.
In my bill, community-based organizations, local governments, and
higher education institutions are eligible to apply for grants up to
$75,000 to operate this program. The IRS will work with the Small
Business Administration to ensure that the operators of the program
have expertise in both tax assistance and business development
assistance.
This is a program that works. With such a modest investment in this
assistance, 62 percent of businesses were able to get refundable tax
credits such as EITC and Making Work Pay, refunds that they might
otherwise have missed out on. The Entrepreneur Startup Growth Act will
help businesses grow and help low-income households build the assets
that they need in order to survive. They will get the economic security
they desire. With this, we will be able to help people climb up that
ladder of opportunity and reach for that American Dream.
____________________
RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) for 5 minutes.
Ms. SPEIER. I rise again today for the 13th time to talk about a
stain on the American people, a stain on the American Government. I'm
talking about military assault and rape. I'm talking about the 19,000
soldiers each year who are victims of sexual assault or rape in the
military. Those are figures by the Department of Defense. Yet only 13
percent will report because they know that if they do report, they will
be summarily removed from service. In fact, 90 percent of them are
involuntarily honorably discharged from the military after they report
a rape.
So what are we doing about it? Well, I have good news this morning to
report. A few weeks ago, not far from here, a nonprofit organization,
Protect Our Defenders, was born. It was launched to give voices to
survivors of sexual assault in our military. More than 6,000 Americans
have signed survivor Terry Odum's petition, whose story I've told here
on the floor.
Terry's petition demands Congress take the reporting of sexual
assault and rape outside the normal chain of command. I imagine many of
my colleagues have received emails and tweets or Facebook messages from
their constituents about this issue. This is a movement, and we must
address it. Our troops protect us, and we must protect them. Both
Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree that we need to fix
this system.
Today, I'm going to tell you the story of Petty Officer Amber De
Roche. Petty Officer De Roche served in the Navy from December 2000, to
December 2005. In August of 2001, Petty Officer De Roche was raped by
two shipmates in a hotel while on port of call in Thailand. One
assailant ripped off Petty Officer De Roche's clothes and held her down
[[Page 19104]]
while the other assailant raped her. The assailants repeatedly took
turns holding her down while the other would rape her. After they had
their way with her, one of the rapists threw her in the shower in an
attempt to wash off the evidence. They then kicked her out of the room
and onto the unfamiliar streets of Thailand.
The following day, Petty Officer De Roche, with the help of a friend,
went to get a medical exam. Petty Officer De Roche was bruised and
injured to such a degree during the assault that the physician had to
stop the exam and began to cry.
Petty Officer De Roche decided to report her horrific experience to
her command. What was her reward? She became the target of severe
harassment, was imprisoned in the medical ward, and denied food. I know
this sounds unbelievable, but this is going on in our military.
When Petty Officer De Roche was released from the medical ward, her
command refused to let her leave the ship and forced her to be on call
24 hours a day without receiving any counseling to help her cope with
having been raped. Petty Officer De Roche sought out the ship's
chaplain and told him she was suicidal as a result of the rapes and her
subsequent mistreatment. Petty Officer De Roche was finally permitted
to leave her ship and serve out the remainder of her duty on another
ship.
As if the horrifying assault and subsequent mistreatment of Petty
Officer De Roche is not heartbreaking enough, her predators didn't get
the punishment they deserved. In fact, something very different.
Instead of court-martialing the predators, her command decided to
handle the rapes with so-called nonjudicial punishments. The punishment
required the rapists to admit their crimes--so they admitted them. They
got 6 months docked pay and a reduced rank for only one of the rapists.
Both of the rapists were permitted to remain on active duty. When
command informed Petty Officer De Roche of the outcome, they also
advised her to ``accept the situation'' and refrain from speaking out
against the lack of punishment or accountability.
Petty Officer De Roche's story, like many others, highlights a system
that is unimaginable to so many of us and a system that is so clearly
broken. In the military, a base commander has complete authority and
discretion over how a degrading and violent assault under his command
is handled. The commander can issue virtually any punishment for any
reason. If they don't want a black mark on their record or their
friends were accused or if they simply don't know the correct way of
dealing with a case, they can issue just a simple slap on the wrist.
My bill, H.R. 3435, the Sexual Assault Training Oversight and
Prevention Act, the STOP Act, takes this issue and puts it in the hands
of others who can handle it appropriately.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 17 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
Reverend Roger Schoolcraft, Fayetteville, Arkansas, offered the
following prayer:
Almighty and most high God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, You led our
Forefathers to weave Your presence in the fabric of our Nation. Move us
also to acknowledge and trust Your presence among us daily. And
although we may face many obstacles and adversities, continue to shower
us with Your mercy that we may recover.
Today, we thank You for healing our Nation from the attack on Pearl
Harbor 70 years ago. We are grateful for all those who sacrifice their
lives to preserve our freedom. O Lord, may we not squander it. Bless
all wounded warriors, veterans and their families. Fill them and us
with Your peace and joy this Christmas season.
Give us wisdom, and lead us by Your Spirit that the choices made here
would result in our country united, an economy restored, and hearts
grateful for Your loving care through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. QUIGLEY 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 ROGER SCHOOLCRAFT
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Womack) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to introduce
Reverend Roger Schoolcraft of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Reverend Schoolcraft retired from the ministry in 2008 after nearly
40 years in the ministry, serving congregations in Iowa, Nebraska and,
most recently, in northwest Arkansas, where he led St. John's Lutheran
Church in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Reverend Schoolcraft was called to the ministry in 1953 after
accepting an invitation from a friend to attend a Sunday school class
at St. John's Lutheran Church in Rochester, Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, Reverend Schoolcraft's service extends well beyond the
walls of the church. He served as campus pastor of the Lutheran Student
Center at the University of Arkansas. He was a circuit counselor for 11
years and was assistant dean and dean for two national campus
missionary institutes. Locally, he was president of Cooperative
Emergency Outreach, secretary-treasurer of the Fayetteville Ministerial
Alliance, and treasurer for the Council of Religious Organizations.
Reverend Schoolcraft is married to Deborah Steen Schoolcraft; and
they have two children, Andrea and Aaron.
On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I want to
thank Reverend Schoolcraft for his longstanding devotion to the
ministry, the churches he has served, and his fellow man.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The Chair will
entertain up to 15 further requests for 1-minute speeches from each
side of the aisle.
____________________
WHAT A GAME
(Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the
gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Randy Hultgren, on winning our
friendly wager on the MAC football championship game last Friday. The
participants in the game, Ohio University and Northern Illinois
University, are located in the districts that we are privileged to
represent.
The game was an instant classic. Both teams left everything on the
field and gave it their all and, in the process, made their
universities and their fans proud.
[[Page 19105]]
The OU Bobcats jumped out to an early lead, but the Huskies of
Northern Illinois fought back. They showed their toughness and won the
game on the game's final play. Another way to say it is that OU won the
first half and that Northern Illinois won the second half. Both teams
were worthy of participation in the game, but it's a shame that either
team had to come out on the losing end.
I am very proud of the OU Bobcats, and I look forward to watching
both teams compete in their bowl games and represent their schools in
the same fashion they did last Friday night.
Congratulations to Congressman Hultgren.
____________________
SUPPORT THE PAYROLL TAX EXTENSION
(Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POLIS. A huge tax increase is looming unless this House takes
action immediately. Unless this House takes action in the next few
weeks, a typical American household earning $50,000, $60,000 a year
will see a tax increase of $1,000 a year on payroll taxes--yes, Madam
Speaker, a $1,000 tax increase for middle class families, many of whom
have not seen any raises or increases for several years due to the
recession.
People who are struggling to support their families will see a $1,000
tax increase if this body does not act in the next several weeks. This
is a tax increase that most families haven't budgeted for and haven't
prepared for. They haven't assumed that this Congress is as
dysfunctional as it potentially is if we fail to renew this tax
increase. We shouldn't let our dysfunction in this body harm the middle
class and the American people.
I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
renewing the payroll tax extension to make sure that middle class
families are not slapped with a $1,000-plus tax increase next year.
____________________
SIXTEEN DAYS AGAINST GENDER VIOLENCE
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, Sehar, a Pakistani woman in an
arranged marriage, was constantly raped and abused by her husband. He
accused her of becoming a doctor only to attract men. He blamed her for
the miscarriage that she had, and he constantly beat her. He was angry
when she gave birth to two girls rather than to two boys, and he was an
abuser of the girls and his wife.
Sehar and her daughters were able to escape to the United States to
find safety. She will not go back to Pakistan because her former
husband's family says they will kill her.
Violence against women, unfortunately, is too common of a plight for
women throughout the world. My grandmother used to tell me that you
never hurt somebody you claim you love. As the leader of the free
world, it is critical that the United States promote this simple truth
throughout this country and other countries:
Every person has the right to a life free of violence.
I want to thank the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for
bringing this to the attention of the Members of Congress as we reflect
on this fact during these 16 days against gender violence.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, AN AFFRONT TO AMERICA'S VALUES
(Mr. QUIGLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, in 1996 Congress passed the so-called
Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. It was then, as it still is today, an
affront to our country's values--the values we hold true as established
in the Declaration of Independence, those of life, liberty, the pursuit
of happiness, and of equality and fairness for all.
On October 7 of this year, I held a field forum in Chicago, along
with my colleague Jan Schakowsky, to hear from legal experts and gay
and lesbian couples about the real-world harm caused by DOMA. The
findings were startling. I ask that the clerk enter all of their
testimony into the Record to formally document this collection of
unfairness and inequity, burdens that are imposed on normal Americans
who are just trying to live normal lives.
It is incomprehensible that today we are still dealing with such
injustice. Congress created this injustice, and Congress should correct
it. Let the Record reflect these sentiments.
____________________
LET'S REIN IN THE REGULATORS
(Mr. HULTGREN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. HULTGREN. Madam Speaker, $1.75 trillion annually--America's job
creators are buried under the regulatory burden of about $1.75 trillion
annually.
The cost of the regulatory burden from new regulations just this year
is $67.4 billion, which is larger than the entire State budget of
Illinois, my home State. Studies and polls have shown us time and again
that the regulations are a hidden form of taxation; and just as our Tax
Code is in need of reform, so is our regulatory system.
That's why I'm proud to support the REINS Act. This commonsense bill
will require that Congress approve every new major regulation proposed
by the executive branch in order to ensure that Congress, not unelected
bureaucrats, retain control and accountability for the impact of
government on the American people.
Unless Congress acts decisively, this unchecked regulatory state will
only grow bigger and make things more complicated. Let's pass the REINS
Act, and let's give our job creators the certainty they need to grow,
expand, and put Americans back to work.
____________________
{time} 1210
TAXES
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, this year will be a very difficult holiday
season for millions of Americans looking for jobs. Sadly, these
families are not getting the help they deserve from the Republicans
here in Congress.
We have now reached 337 days of Republican control here in the House,
and we still do not have a jobs plan from the Republicans.
Benefits for over 6 million unemployed Americans are about to expire.
And now, to make matters worse, Republicans are creating uncertainty
for the 160 million middle class families by stalling and extending the
payroll tax cut.
Why are these Americans forced to wait? Because Republicans refuse to
ask those making more than a million dollars to pay their fair share.
Millionaires are not paying their fair share.
We must act now on those lifelines of the middle class and allow the
Bush tax cuts for the ultrarich to expire. No new taxes, no jobs. No
new taxes, no new jobs. We must pass a responsible tax plan that
extends the unemployment benefits and gets the economy moving again.
____________________
IMPLICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT'S ADDING ADDITIONAL RED TAPE AND ADDITIONAL
REGULATIONS
(Mr. DOLD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOLD. Madam Speaker, as a small business owner, I understand
firsthand the implications of the government adding additional red tape
and additional regulations. One clear example of this is the Dodd-Frank
bill.
The Dodd-Frank bill was supposed to impose clear rules and
regulations on the financial industry so that another economic disaster
could be averted. However, this single piece of legislation has imposed
more uncertainty
[[Page 19106]]
into the marketplace. The bill imposes literally hundreds of new rules
and regulations, most of which haven't even been written yet. As a
result, businesses are not growing and they're not creating jobs, and
this is in large part because they don't understand what tomorrow will
bring.
I did have an opportunity to talk to a smaller bank back in my
district that said, We're not growing, with the exception of adding
people into our compliance department to cross the T's and dot the I's,
but not a single person was hired in order to try to get additional
liquidity into the marketplace and help small businesses.
Rather than pile on rule after rule, we should implement smart
regulations that truly protect consumers. The last thing we want is
another financial disaster, so we should examine the implications of
the rules and regulations and ensure that the right regulations are in
place and get America back to work.
____________________
THE NEED TO PASS PAYROLL TAX CUT
(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, the majority has held 891 votes in this
Chamber, and we still see no plan for job creation.
To make matters worse, my colleagues across the aisle have now
focused their efforts on opposing a tax break for the middle class.
They are opposing the extension of the Federal tax holiday enacted
earlier this year that gave virtually all working Americans a much
needed tax cut, reducing taxes for over 160 million American workers.
Economic uncertainty both here in the U.S. and abroad makes this a
dangerous time to eliminate an important tax cut that is saving
American families an average of $1,000 a year. Failing to extend the
payroll tax holiday will raise taxes on millions of Americans, taking
over $120 billion out of the pockets of consumers and out of the
economy.
Furthermore, at the same time the majority is working to raise taxes
on the middle class, they are willing to cut off the unemployment
insurance that has been keeping millions of Americans afloat.
Madam Speaker, let's ensure that millions of Americans enjoy this
holiday season and are not forced to worry about raising taxes or
losing essential assistance.
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT HAS NOT BEEN THIS PERSISTENT SINCE 1948
(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, last Friday the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics announced November's unemployment rate
remained above 8 percent. Over 13 million American families are now
without jobs. Nearly 25 million people are looking for full-time
employment. The number of unemployed Americans has not consistently
remained at such a high percentage since 1948.
For the past 34 months, the American people have been depending upon
Congress and the President to cut Washington's wasteful spending and
enact policies targeting job creation and economic growth.
Since the Republicans regained the majority of the House in January,
legislation has passed that allows small businesses to grow and create
jobs. It is past time for the President and liberal-controlled Senate
to change course to put our hardworking American families back to work.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism, as on December the
7th we honor the heroes of World War II.
____________________
BEYOND THE BORDER AGREEMENT
(Mr. HIGGINS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Speaker, today the United States and Canadian
Governments will announce a Beyond the Border agreement to ease border
trade and travel in this era of heightened security.
I support this goal because in western New York our future depends on
integrating our economy with the booming economy of southern Ontario by
expanding the Peace Bridge that connects our two communities. The Peace
Bridge is the busiest passenger crossing at the northern border.
Passengers using the bridge spend $133 million in western New York
annually in support of our retailers, sports franchises, airports,
educational and cultural institutions.
In western New York, Peace Bridge trade impacts $9.1 billion in
business sales, supporting 60,000 local jobs and generating $2.6
billion in household income and $233 million in local tax revenue. All
of this economic activity depends on a Peace Bridge that is free of
congestion, one that is safe, reliable, and predictable.
I applaud the efforts of this agreement and call on a renewed Federal
focus on the northern border, generally, and the Peace Bridge,
specifically.
____________________
MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT SYSTEM
(Mr. FITZPATRICK asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Speaker, for decades the fundamentally flawed
Medicare physician payment system has created uncertainty and
instability, not only in the health care system but in the larger
economy.
Every year physicians face the threat of reimbursement cuts which, in
turn, hinders their ability to provide the necessary care that patients
need. The Sustainable Growth Rate rate formula has constantly called
for negative updates to physician payments with the scheduled
reductions accumulating year after year, but Congress has continually
delayed the cuts.
Congress has a historic opportunity to implement sound fiscal policy
in the Medicare program in the context of broad economic reforms. I
believe we must pursue a fair, efficient, and affordable long-term
solution to the Medicare SGR formula. I am committed to working with my
colleagues to pass commonsense legislation that promotes efficiency,
quality, and value and ensures access to medical services for Medicare
beneficiaries.
____________________
MEDICARE TOWN HALL/DOUGHNUT HOLE CLOSURE
(Ms. HOCHUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. HOCHUL. Madam Speaker, yesterday I spoke with over 8,000 of my
constituents during a telephone town hall to talk about the end of the
open enrollment period for Medicare, which occurs at midnight tonight.
We also talked about the savings they are now receiving as a result
of the closing of the legendary prescription drug doughnut hole. More
than 2.5 million Medicare recipients across the Nation have saved $1.5
billion on their prescription drugs this year alone. In New York, we
had 175,000 Medicare recipients, and they received a 50 percent
discount on prescription drugs, totaling over $113 million in savings,
an average of $650 per family.
Yesterday's call was a reminder, when I was talking about Bill from
Williamsville and Joan from Livingston County, that we have to work
hard to protect this absolutely critical program that ensures medical
care for our seniors and allows them to live their later years in
dignity.
As my seniors told me: Medicare is not an entitlement; it is a
program we spent our entire lives paying into. And I, for one, plan to
protect it.
____________________
{time} 1220
CONGRATULATING ED SNIDER
(Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Ed Snider, the
owner
[[Page 19107]]
of the Philadelphia Flyers hockey club, on being inducted into the
United States Hockey Hall of Fame. This is a special occasion, not only
for the city of Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley as a whole, but
particularly for those who love the game of hockey, myself included.
Ed's tremendous success with the Flyers franchise--winning two
Stanley Cups and reaching the finals six times--contributed to making
Philadelphia a Class A hockey town. However, the key is that he has
really given back to communities.
Through his organization, the Ed Snider Youth Hockey Foundation, he
teaches high-risk inner city boys and girls from Philadelphia the game
of hockey. But it prepares them with life skills for success in school
and life as well. Hard work, honest effort, teamwork, dedication, and a
solid work ethic are instilled in these children as life lessons and
values as part of participation in this program. It is through these
lessons that his organization helps our children become good and
productive citizens. His philanthropic cause is significant to our
region and to these young children in our area.
Congratulations to Ed Snider on this recognition.
____________________
ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join thousands of
activists participating in the 16 Days Campaign by speaking out against
violence against women.
Violence against women is a violation of fundamental human rights. It
is a global problem of epidemic proportions. One in three women
worldwide is beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused over the
course of her lifetime.
That is why I am proud to be working with Congressman Ted Poe to
reintroduce the International Violence Against Women Act. The important
bill would require a comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to
violence against women and girls internationally.
Violence against women is not just a humanitarian tragedy; it is a
global health menace and a threat to national security. The United
States can play a significant role in protecting the human rights of
all women and ending the violence against our sisters around the world.
____________________
COMMEMORATING DECEMBER 7
(Mr. CARNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CARNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate two very
important events in our Nation's history that occurred on December 7.
As we know, today is National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. We pray for
the more than 3,500 U.S. soldiers and civilians who were killed or
wounded in defense of our Nation that day. The sacrifices they made 70
years ago are not unlike the sacrifices that our soldiers and their
families are being asked to make today.
December 7 is also an important milestone for the founding of our
Nation. Today is Delaware Day, the 224th anniversary of Delaware's
ratification of the United States Constitution, making Delaware the
first State to join the Nation.
Delaware's Founding Fathers saw the vision and genius of the form of
government laid out in our Constitution. It is this vision and this
document that continues to guide everything we do today.
So let us take time today to remember the contributions every
generation has made to protect the values and freedoms upon which this
great Nation was founded.
____________________
THE SEINFELD CONGRESS
(Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOYLE. Madam Speaker, the last time the Republicans controlled
the House back in 2006, a newspaper columnist called it ``the Seinfeld
Congress,'' because like Seinfeld, which was a show about nothing, the
109th Congress was a Congress about nothing. Absolutely nothing got
done.
Now the House Republicans have upped the ante. They have an agenda
filled with Seinfeld legislation--a bunch of bills about nothing.
Tomorrow, for example, we're considering the so-called farm dust bill.
Now, ignore for a moment the fact that it's more about mines and
smelters and concrete plants than it is about farms, House Republicans
want to ban an EPA rule that the EPA administrator has said she has no
intention of issuing.
Why are we wasting time prohibiting a rule that's not being issued
when we've got real problems like a struggling economy and millions of
people out of work.
As Seinfeld might say, yada, yada, yada.
____________________
HONORING TRINITY SHAMROCKS
(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, with an average margin of victory of more
than 40 points, an undefeated season, and a win in the State
championship that Sports Illustrated called the team's ``finest
offensive performance of the year,'' there can be no more debate:
Trinity High School Shamrocks is the best high school football team in
the country.
Friday's 62-21 victory over Scott County in the 6A final completed a
25-game win streak, secured a second straight State title, and capped a
season in which Trinity didn't just beat the competition, they rocked
them.
Over five playoff games, Trinity outscored its foes by more than 240
total points. They never trailed in the second half all season. They
crushed top-tier out-of-state competition and avenged their only 2010
loss. After facing Trinity, Scott County's coach called the Shamrocks
``the best team in Kentucky football history.''
This was a true team effort, and thanks to the leadership and
dedication of 40 seniors, these student athletes have achieved a
perfect record and deserve to bring a national title home to
Louisville. I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating
Coach Beatty, the team, and the entire Trinity community on an
incredible championship and an amazing 2011 season. Way to go Rocks.
____________________
EXTEND PAYROLL TAX CUT AND EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE
(Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, we simply cannot leave Washington
before extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment assistance. With
our economy still struggling and unemployment remaining unacceptably
high at 10.4 percent in my home State of Rhode Island, now is not the
time to take more money out of the pockets of hardworking families.
Allowing the payroll tax cuts to expire at the end of this month will
mean less money in the pockets of 600,000 hardworking Rhode Islanders.
It is absolutely critical that we extend the payroll tax cut which is
saving working families an average of $1,000 per year and would add
$400 million to Rhode Island's economy next year. We have to do
everything we can to strengthen our middle class families who are
struggling to make ends meet and provide assistance to those families
who need it most.
If Congress does not extend emergency unemployment assistance,
thousands of Rhode Islanders, as well as millions of Americans who rely
on this critical safety net, will lose their assistance. This will have
a devastating impact on these families and on our economy.
Rather than providing subsidies to Big Oil companies and arguing for
more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, it's time for Congress
to
[[Page 19108]]
stand up for American families and to extend the payroll tax cut and
unemployment compensation.
____________________
EXTEND PAYROLL TAX CUT
(Ms. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, the temporary payroll tax cut is putting
money into the economy and the pockets of 160 million Americans. And
now my Republican colleagues are demanding harmful cuts to working
families and seniors to offset these middle class tax cuts.
A better idea is to cut from the $1 trillion in special interest tax
earmarks identified by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. Let's
cut the $2 million earmark for wooden arrow manufacturers. Let's cut
the $40 million earmark for the owners of NASCAR racetracks. And let's
cut $235 million in earmarks for rum producers in Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. The earmarks are unfair and unaffordable.
To the 99 percent of Americans who don't have a lobbyist, sorry, you
missed out on the special interest bonanza. Congress needs to protect
working families. Let's pass President Obama's middle class payroll tax
cut and help our families and our economy now.
____________________
SUPPORT REINS ACT
(Mr. YODER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. YODER. Madam Speaker, the American economy is crying out for
certainty. Every day the instability created by new Washington rules,
regulations, new taxes, et cetera makes it harder for the economy to
recover and harder for small businesses to create jobs.
That's why today I stand in full support of the Regulations from the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, known as the REINS Act.
As our Federal agencies churn out regulations by the truckload, it's
our small businesses, those very entities that we expect to create jobs
and are struggling to survive, that are burdened with implementing
them. In fact, regulations cost the economy $1.75 trillion per year.
New regulations this year alone will cost business over $60 billion,
all driving up the cost of doing business and putting more people out
of work.
I'm supporting the REINS Act because this legislation will provide
Americans with an additional level of accountability when it comes to
job-killing regulations from government agencies.
Madam Speaker, it's time we stand up for small business owners, and
it's time we do all that we can to remove the barriers Washington is
putting in their way. Let's come together as a Congress and help get
America back to work again.
____________________
{time} 1230
OPPOSITION TO THE REINS ACT
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, later today the House will vote on the
REINS Act. This is a terrible piece of legislation that will make it
next to impossible to protect Americans' health or the environment. It
would allow either Chamber of Congress to stop efforts to keep our
water and air clean or to protect the public from unsafe food--by
simply doing nothing.
This bill sets up a congressional approval requirement that is a
recipe for more gridlock. It would mean more bureaucracy and more
delay, generating uncertainty for businesses and weaker rules to
protect consumers.
Sherwood Boehlert, the former Republican chairman of the House
Science Committee and one of our most thoughtful former colleagues,
recently wrote a scathing piece in The Hill about the REINS Act. He
said the bill would result in ``a virtual shutdown of the system that
will leave the public exposed.''
Madam Speaker, the REINS Act is an outrageous effort to throw out a
system that has protected American families and communities for more
than 100 years. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting down this
irresponsible and misguided legislation.
____________________
VOTER SUPPRESSION
(Mr. PETERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. PETERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose nationwide efforts
to suppress voter turnout for the 2012 election, including State
legislation imposing strict photo ID requirements. These new
regulations would disproportionately burden seniors, people with
disabilities, the poor, and minorities.
In Michigan, we have seen aggressive purges of voter rules, which can
disenfranchise low-income voters who have moved to a new address. Half
a million Michiganders don't have a driver's license or State ID. How
are they supposed to make their voices heard if these rules are passed?
Let's be clear. These efforts are about one thing and one thing only:
silencing voters.
America is a beacon of democracy, and to limit voter access is
hypocritical and wrong. Madam Speaker, I don't have to tell you about
the shameful times in America's history where power and intimidation
were used to prevent Americans from voting. We must learn from our
past.
Fight voter suppression efforts in the courts, in State legislatures,
here in Washington, and, most importantly, on election day.
____________________
REMEMBERING PEARL HARBOR
(Ms. HANABUSA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. HANABUSA. December 7, 1941, ``a date which will live in infamy,''
are the words of President Roosevelt.
I represent Pearl Harbor. On this day, let us not forget the brave
people who gave their lives at Pearl Harbor. On this day, let us not
forget this act of unprovoked, dastardly aggression which propelled us
into a war. On this day, let us not forget how the people of this
Nation were unmatched in their evidence of loyalty and patriotism.
Let us remember because we need to be that people again to continue
our fight to maintain our position as the greatest Nation in the world.
Let us remember because we need to show the compassion to those who are
in need in these days.
____________________
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2055, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2055) making
appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2012, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference requested by the
Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dicks moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2055, be instructed
to recede to the Senate on the higher level of funding for
the ``Department of Veterans Affairs--Medical and Prosthetic
Research'' account.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers) each will control 30 minutes.
[[Page 19109]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The motion instructs conferees to provide the highest level of
funding for medical and prosthetic research. This program helps the
Department of Veterans Affairs develop cutting-edge treatments for
veterans and their families. It is fully integrated throughout the
medical community through partnerships with academic affiliates,
nonprofits, and commercial entities, as well as other Federal agencies.
It is unique because both the clinical care and research occur
together.
The Medical and Prosthetic Research Program plays a vital role in
advancing the health and care of our Nation's veterans. Some of the
areas that the Medical and Prosthetic Research Program focus on include
mental health research, prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, and
posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The program has emphasized
efforts to improve the understanding and treatment of veterans in need
of mental health care.
We hear a lot about the casualties of war and soldiers who have
sacrificed their lives in duty. However, over the past few years, the
VA has begun to examine the psychological wounds of posttraumatic
stress disorder. The motion will provide funding for the VA to care for
veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan who may suffer from
depression, anxiety, and substance abuse.
Funding for medical and prosthetic research in the House-reported
bill was inadequate, and during floor consideration the House majority
agreed to increase funding by $22 million. While I was pleased to see
this increase, I believe we need to do more.
The Senate-passed bill funds this program at the FY2011 enacted
level, which is $51 million higher than the House-passed level. I
believe the higher funding levels should be maintained because of the
impact this research can have on the everyday life of our Nation's
veterans.
This Nation must get its fiscal house in order. However, even in an
austere budget, we need to make room to fully fund our priorities. The
Medical and Prosthetic Research Program is a high priority.
I'm sure that all of my colleagues would agree we can never repay
America's veterans for the sacrifice they have made for our country. As
a first installment, we should make a substantial investment in health
care research for our veterans, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion
to instruct.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This motion to instruct is well-intentioned but unnecessary. The
motion would urge adoption of the Senate-passed level for VA medical
research, which is $50 million above the House-passed level.
We all support our veterans and honor their service and sacrifice.
We, of course, support the important research work the VA is doing for
our veterans in fields such as traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic
stress disorder. We provided a robust level of funding for this
research in the House-passed version of the bill at a time when our
overall funding targets were constrained. In fact, the House bill
provided a total of $531 million for VA medical research, an increase
of $22 million above what the White House and the VA requested. In
addition, the VA still has $71 million in unobligated research funding
left over from previous years that could be put to use. So even without
the increase, the program level would still be well above the 2011
level.
We all agree that medical research at the VA is undeniably important
and we want to do the best that we can for our veterans, particularly
those in need of medical assistance. On that, there's no difference
between the ranking minority member and myself and between the members
of the subcommittee.
{time} 1240
I can reassure the Members that we will work with our House and
Senate colleagues to determine the appropriate level for VA research to
continue to support and honor the service of our veterans.
While this motion is not necessary, I understand and agree with its
intent; and I will work with the ranking member. And with reservations,
I will accept the motion at this time.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I would ask for a vote on my motion to instruct, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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.
____________________
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1540, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Armed
Services, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the
bill (H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendment, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to instruct
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Smith of Washington moves that the managers on the part
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1540
be instructed to insist on the amendments contained in
subtitle I of title V of the House bill (sections 581 through
587 relating to improved sexual assault prevention and
response in the Armed Forces).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This is a very important provision of the House bill dealing with
better combating sexual assault within the military. Now, this is a
significant problem that has been documented by many studies and many
media reports. I want to particularly congratulate members of my
committee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, Ms. Tsongas, Ms. Speier, and Mrs. Susan
Davis, who have taken a leadership role in this to try to implement
policies to control sexual assault within the military. The provisions
that we've put together in the House help move us forward towards
addressing that issue, make sure that it takes on the importance that
it deserves, and empower the military to make the decisions they need
to better protect against sexual assault within the military.
I particularly applaud Ms. Tsongas. This is her motion to stick to
the
[[Page 19110]]
House provisions in this area. I urge the conference committee to do
that going forward.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, Madam
Speaker, good afternoon.
Sexual assault in the military continues to be a serious problem. It
impacts thousands of service women and men each year.
While I'm pleased with the recent improvements made by the Department
of Defense, there remains much more to be done. It is vital that we do
all we can to protect the men and women in the military who protect us.
I am very pleased that both the House and the Senate passed language
improving the military's response to sexual assault in their respective
versions of the National Defense Authorization Act.
{time} 1250
Earlier this week, I, along with Representative Turner and 45
colleagues, sent a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees asking them to strongly consider the House-passed provisions
dealing with military sexual assault.
The language contained in the House version makes necessary
improvements to protect our service women and men. Specifically, the
House-passed language strengthens the rights of sexual assault victims
by clarifying victim access to legal counsel, and record maintenance
and confidentiality, which are critically important. It also ensures
expedited unit or station transfer when a servicemember has been
victimized.
Imagine being a victim of rape, which one young soldier told me about
at a hearing, while serving in the military, and every morning she had
to salute her rapist. That's what the members of our Armed Forces have
experienced and will continue to experience if we don't do something to
change that situation.
The House-passed language also stresses the need for the NDAA to
include comprehensive training and education programs for sexual
assault prevention within the Department of Defense. The Senate version
does not include this protection, which is part of H.R. 1709, the Force
Protection and Readiness Act, which I introduced earlier this year.
I am pleased this motion to instruct conferees on the NDAA recognizes
the importance of this issue, and I ask the conferees to seriously
consider including the strongest possible language to prevent and
appropriately respond to incidents of sexual assault in the military.
Mr. McKEON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts will control the balance of the time.
There was no objection.
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
While one in six women will experience sexual assault in her
lifetime, as many as one in three women leaving military service report
that they have experienced some form of military sexual trauma.
By the Pentagon's own estimate, as few as 13.5 percent of sexual
assaults are reported. Additionally, while 40 percent of sexual assault
allegations in the civilian world are prosecuted, this number is a
staggeringly low 8 percent in the military.
The military has been slow to take the appropriate actions necessary
to protect victims of sexual assault. For example, rape victims still
do not yet have the right to a unit or duty location transfer following
an assault. This means victims of sexual assault are often forced to
live and work alongside their perpetrator, facing repeated stress and
trauma due to the constant contact they may have with an assailant who
is part of their unit.
As unbelievable as it sounds, this is exactly what happened to Marine
Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach, who accused her assailant of rape, and
then spent the next 8 months exposed to the accused rapist, who later
murdered her and buried her with the body of her unborn son in his
backyard.
Although these events happened in 2007, the Department of Defense has
not adopted provisions that would allow victims to escape constant
contact with their assailant. We ask men and women who serve in the
military to put their lives on the line for our country, and they
shouldn't fear harm from their fellow servicemembers. We simply must do
more to protect them.
In May, this House passed H.R. 1540, which included strong bipartisan
provisions that would allow victims of sexual assault the right to
transfer units, the right to counsel, the right to privileged
communications between a victim and a victim advocate, and the right to
get records of their sexual assault so they can be eligible for
veterans' benefits. These provisions came from a bipartisan bill that I
introduced with Mr. Turner of Ohio.
Our language stipulates that confidential communications cannot be
used by the defense attorney against a victim during court proceedings,
and they remain actually confidential. These provisions will encourage
more victims to come forward and get the help they need to heal, and
will encourage more victims to participate in the legal process of
prosecuting perpetrators of sexual assault, both of which are critical
to maintaining readiness and unit cohesion in the military.
These provisions also establish full-time sexual assault response
coordinators and victim advocates and ensure they are well trained for
the job and able to properly serve victims of sexual assault. The 2009
Defense Task Force Report on Sexual Assault in the Military Services
found that current victim advocates and sexual assault response
coordinators are unprepared for the duties of the position.
In the words of a current unit victim advocate, ``I would truly be
unprepared if a sexual assault were to occur and my services were
needed. It is my opinion that active duty victim advocates are not
prepared to deal with sexual assaults and could potentially deter
individuals from coming forward.''
Having full-time SARCs and VAs with extensive training and
certification will ensure that they are truly a valuable resource to
their unit and to victims who come forward.
This language also improves the retention of sexual assault records
and guarantees that victims of sexual assault will have lifetime access
to these records for a variety of purposes, such as being considered
for veterans benefits and given priority consideration for counseling
at Veterans Affairs.
Currently, survivors of sexual assault have to jump through multiple
bureaucratic hurdles to prove that their symptoms are connected to an
incident of sexual assault in the military in order to be prioritized
for mental health counseling or be eligible for benefits.
Servicemembers find it difficult to obtain documentation proving their
sexual assault once they have left the services because many of these
documents are destroyed at DOD after only a few years. This language
ensures that the documents are maintained.
This language also requires DOD to prepare a record of all court
proceedings in which a charge of sexual assault is adjudicated and
provide a copy to the victim. Because victims of sexual assaults serve
as a witness rather than an active participant in trials where their
case is litigated, they often do not understand the outcome of their
case. These records are prepared where convictions result, but when
charges are dismissed, or when a perpetrator is found innocent, the
victim has no reliable way to understand what happened and why his or
her case was dismissed.
Making sure victims understand the outcome of their case is important
to providing closure for victims and making sure they are an active,
respected participant in the legal process.
[[Page 19111]]
{time} 1300
It will help to alleviate much of the mistrust that servicemembers
and victims of sexual assault in the military harbor when it comes to
how a sexual assault case will be handled if they make a report.
Similar provisions were included in the Senate's version of the
defense authorization, but these provisions do not clearly spell out a
victim's right to counsel and do not provide for a comprehensive
education and training program.
Yesterday a bipartisan group of 47 Members, led by Ms. Slaughter and
Mr. Turner, sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of both
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in support of the
House's language. This motion simply instructs our conferees to insist
on the House language, language that will protect our servicewomen.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the motion
to instruct conferees.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California who has taken such an interest in this very
grave issue and played an important leadership role, Congresswoman
Speier.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank Ms. Tsongas and the ranking member, Mr. Smith,
for bringing this motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity
to say a few words here.
This is a cancer that is eating up our military. For 25 years, we
have debated and discussed and reported on it, and yet the numbers are
staggering. By DOD's own estimates, 19,000 men and women in the
military each and every year are sexually assaulted or raped. Only 13
percent actually report these sexual assaults and rapes, and 90 percent
of them are involuntarily honorably discharged.
There is a message in the military: Shut up, take an aspirin, go to
bed, sleep it off. These very modest elements are really very
important, but if we're really going to deal with this issue, if we're
truly going to say that you are no longer going to be more likely to be
a victim of violence in the military by a fellow officer than by the
enemy, if we're really going to be able to change that construct, then
we're going to have take the reporting of these crimes away from the
chain of command and put it in a separate office where we will have
experts, both military and civilian, that will be able to prosecute
these cases and actually investigate them.
Right now there's a huge conflict of interest. I spoke on the floor
this morning about Petty Officer De Roche who was raped by two officers
in Thailand when they were on port of call. She was raped twice by each
of these men. She then went to report it and was told to leave it
alone. She was then put in a medical hold for 24 hours, for days. And
then what happened, she was eventually allowed to leave the ship and be
put in another service setting.
But do you know what happened to those two assailants, both of whom
admitted that they had raped her?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. TSONGAS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.
Ms. SPEIER. One of them had 6 months of reduction in pay; one of them
got demoted, one of them did not; but neither of them served any time
for having admitted that they had raped her. They got what was called
nonjudicial punishment.
What a joke that in this country we give a unit commander the
authority to be judge and jury and then not even have these individuals
who commit these violent crimes have to pay anything. It doesn't go on
a record; there is no sexual assault database. That's the way we've
been running the military, and that must stop.
Ms. TSONGAS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just have to respond to the last speaker that we had.
We have this language in the bill. We have worked with Ms. Tsongas.
She's done great work with Mr. Turner. We have been out of the majority
for 4 years. We now have the majority. I'm not going to say that it
shouldn't have been fixed before; it should have. But we have this in
the bill. But to attack the military and make them like they are the
worst people in the world--19,000 is excessive. It is something that
never should have happened. This will take care of it.
We just had talk of a revered football coach we found right in their
organization of a very upstanding university that we all have thought
great things about, has all kinds of problems with sexual abuse.
I refuse to have the innuendo or the charge that the military is
corrupt top to bottom, which is what you basically inferred in what you
just said.
We support this. We put it in the bill. We think that it is very
important to take care of this problem.
Ms. SPEIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKEON. I'd be happy to yield.
Ms. SPEIER. I did not say that the military was corrupt. What I did
say was that the way----
Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time, you did charge them with some very
serious issues and besmirch the character of the military.
Ms. SPEIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKEON. I'd be happy to yield.
Ms. SPEIER. What I would say to the gentleman from California is
this: that the Congress of the United States has, for almost a quarter
of a century now, been looking at this issue. We have not done a good
job----
Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time, as the new chairman of the committee,
the first bill that we have brought forward, we have it in the bill. We
are moving to take care of it.
Ms. SPEIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKEON. No. I think we've probably said enough.
What I would say at this time is we do support this. The bill was
overwhelmingly supported out of committee 60-1, 322-96 in the House.
We're moving strongly on this issue. We will support it through the
conference and do our best to see that it remains in the bill because
it is such a very important issue.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, I did not mean to yield back my time; so
I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts?
Mr. McKEON. Reserving the right to object, I understand that I did
that once myself, yield back my time inadvertently.
With that, I would be happy to see that my colleague has the balance
of her time to close, and I withdraw my reservation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts is recognized.
There was no objection.
Ms. TSONGAS. I thank the chairman.
It has been my honor and pleasure to work in a bipartisan fashion on
this legislation that seeks to address the great challenge of military
sexual trauma. I think that we have incorporated into the House version
of the bill some very significant reforms that will help to protect
victims, unfortunate victims of this great affront to young people
serving in our military; will seek to better protect them as they seek
to bring to justice the perpetrators; will better train those who are
put in a place designed and created--these are positions created to
help victims deal with this tremendous trauma, seek out appropriate
legal remedies and do it in a way that does not further victimize the
victim.
Does that mean there is not always going to be additional work to do?
Absolutely, always; otherwise, we would all be out of a job if we
didn't have to simply come back and revisit and revisit and revisit
these issues.
[[Page 19112]]
But I want to make it very clear that this has been a great
bipartisan effort. I'm very thankful for the support we have received.
The military has made tremendous efforts. But obviously we would not be
here today discussing this if there were still not a long way to go.
I appreciate the fact that this has been recognized on both sides of
the aisle, and I thank you for allowing me to reclaim my time.
I will now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California,
Congresswoman Speier.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlelady from Massachusetts for yielding me
the time.
I would just like to say to the gentleman from California and to my
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, I am very grateful that
this language is in the motion to instruct the conferees.
My only point is that until we create an independent office to handle
these cases, we continue to place the unit commanders and the base
commanders in a conflict of interest. What happens when the unit
commander is, in fact, the assailant? That means that the rape victim
has to go to her rapist and seek to have help and to report that rape
to her unit commander.
{time} 1310
What we need to do is create an independent authority that will have
the expertise, which a unit commander is not going to have, regarding
sexual assault and rape and have investigators who have, again, the
expertise to look at these cases so that the unit commanders and the
base commanders are not flummoxed by the various issues surrounding
this very, very serious subject.
Ms. TSONGAS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to instruct will be followed by 5-minute
votes on the motion to permit closed conference meetings on H.R. 1540
and the motion to instruct on H.R. 2550.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421,
noes 2, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 892]
AYES--421
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--2
Amash
McClintock
NOT VOTING--10
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Giffords
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Richmond
Waxman
Young (FL)
{time} 1338
Messrs. CRENSHAW, CRAWFORD, BRADY of Texas, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs.
McCARTHY of California, HUIZENGA of Michigan, Ms. CLARKE of New York,
Messrs. ENGEL, and KING of Iowa changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MOTION TO PERMIT CLOSED CONFERENCE MEETINGS ON H.R. 1540, NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move
that the managers on the part of the House on H.R. 1540 be permitted to
close to the public any of the conference at such times as classified
national security information may be broached, providing that any
sitting Member of Congress shall be entitled
[[Page 19113]]
to attend any meeting of the conference.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, the yeas
and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 406,
nays 17, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 893]
YEAS--406
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--17
Amash
Blumenauer
Clarke (NY)
Conyers
DeFazio
Ellison
Farr
Grijalva
Honda
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
Olver
Paul
Stark
Woolsey
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Bishop (UT)
NOT VOTING--9
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Giffords
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Richmond
Young (FL)
{time} 1347
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. LUMMIS changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2055, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to instruct on the bill (H.R. 2055) making appropriations for
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other
purposes, offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), on
which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 409,
nays 13, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 894]
YEAS--409
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
[[Page 19114]]
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--13
Amash
Broun (GA)
Cicilline
Duncan (TN)
Flake
Flores
Huelskamp
Kingston
Mulvaney
Ribble
Schweikert
Stutzman
Walsh (IL)
NOT VOTING--11
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Hinchey
Hirono
Myrick
Nadler
Richmond
Young (FL)
{time} 1354
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 894 on H.R.
2055, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted
``yes.''
Appointment of Conferees
THE SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). Without objection, the
Chair appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Rogers of Kentucky, Young of Florida, Lewis of California,
Frelinghuysen, Aderholt, Mrs. Emerson, Ms. Granger, Messrs. Simpson,
Culberson, Crenshaw, Rehberg, Carter, Dicks, Visclosky, Mrs. Lowey, Mr.
Serrano, Ms. DeLauro, Messrs. Moran, Price of North Carolina, and
Bishop of Georgia.
There was no objection.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1540, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees:
From the Committee on Armed Services, for consideration of
the House bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference:
Messrs. McKeon, Bartlett, Thornberry, Akin, Forbes, Miller
of Florida, LoBiondo, Turner of Ohio, Kline, Rogers of
Alabama, Shuster, Conaway, Wittman, Hunter, Rooney,
Schilling, Griffin of Arkansas, West, Smith of Washington,
Reyes, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Messrs. McIntyre,
Andrews, Mrs. Davis of California, Messrs. Langevin, Larsen
of Washington, Cooper, Ms. Bordallo, Messrs. Courtney,
Loebsack, Ms. Tsongas and Ms. Pingree of Maine.
From the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for
consideration of matters within the jurisdiction of that
committee under clause 11 of rule X:
Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mrs. Myrick and Mr. Ruppersberger.
From the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for
consideration of secs. 548 and 572 of the House bill, and
secs. 572 and 573 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference:
Messrs. Petri, Heck and George Miller of California.
From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for
consideration of secs. 911, 1099A, 2852 and 3114 of the House
bill, and sec. 1089 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Upton, Walden and Waxman.
From the Committee on Financial Services, for consideration
of sec. 645 of the House bill, and sec. 1245 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Mr. Bachus, Mrs. Capito and Mr. Ackerman.
From the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for consideration of
secs. 1013, 1014, 1055, 1056, 1086, 1092, 1202, 1204, 1205,
1211, 1214, 1216, 1218, 1219, 1226, 1228-1230, 1237, 1301,
1303, 1532, 1533 and 3112 of the House bill, and secs. 159,
1012, 1031, 1033, 1046, 1201, 1203, 1204, 1206-1209, 1221-
1225, 1228, 1230, 1245, title XIII and sec. 1609 of the
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Messrs. Chabot and Berman.
From the Committee on Homeland Security, for consideration
of sec. 1099H of the House bill, and sec. 1092 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Mr. Daniel Lungren of California, Mrs. Miller of Michigan
and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of
secs. 531 of subtitle D of title V, 573, 843 and 2804 of the
House bill, and secs. 553 and 848 of the Senate amendment,
and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Smith of Texas, Coble and Conyers.
From the Committee on Natural Resources, for consideration
of secs. 313, 601 and 1097 of the House bill, and
modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Hastings of Washington, Bishop of Utah and Markey.
From the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for
consideration of secs. 598, 662, 803, 813, 844, 847, 849,
937-939, 1081, 1091, 1101-1111, 1116 and 2813 of the House
bill, and secs. 827, 845, 1044, 1102-1107 and 2812 of the
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Ross of Florida, Lankford and Cummings.
From the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for
consideration of secs. 911 and 1098 of the House bill, and
secs. 885, 911, 912 and Division E of the Senate amendment,
and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Hall, Quayle and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas.
From the Committee on Small Business, for consideration of
sec. 804 of the House bill, and secs. 885-887 and Division E
of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mrs. Ellmers and Ms. Velazquez.
From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
for consideration of secs. 314, 366, 601, 1098 and 2814 of
the House bill, and secs. 262, 313, 315, 1045, 1088 and 3301
of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Messrs. Mica, Cravaack and Bishop of New York.
From the Committee on Veterans Affairs, for consideration
of secs. 551, 573, 705, 731 and 1099C of the House bill, and
secs. 631 and 1093 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference:
Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Buerkle and Ms. Brown of Florida.
From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of
secs. 704, 1099A and 1225 of the House bill, and sec. 848 of
the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Messrs. Camp, Herger and Levin.
There was no objection.
____________________
REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2011
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 10.
[[Page 19115]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 479 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 10.
{time} 1400
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 10) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide
that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect
unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, with Mr.
Denham in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The American people today have been hit by an onslaught of
unnecessary Federal regulations. From the Obama administration's health
care mandate to the increase of burdens on small businesses, government
regulation has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation.
By its own admission, the administration is preparing numerous
regulations that each will cost the economy $1 billion or more per
year. Its 2011 regulatory agenda calls for over 200 major rules which
will affect the economy by $100 million or more each every year.
Employers, the people who create jobs and pay taxes, are rightly
concerned about these costs and the costs that regulations impose on
their businesses. In a Gallup poll conducted last month, nearly one-
quarter of small business owners cited compliance with government
regulations as their primary concern. That should motivate us to take
action today.
Rather than restrain its efforts to expand government, the
administration now seeks to accomplish through regulatory agencies what
it cannot get approved by Congress. The REINS Act gives the people's
representatives in Congress the final say over whether Washington will
impose major new regulations on the American economy.
More than once this year, the President himself has talked about the
dangers that excessive regulations pose to our economy. He has called
for reviews of existing regulations. He has professed a commitment to
more transparency. The President has stated that ``it is extremely
important to minimize regulatory burdens and avoid unjustified
regulatory costs.''
Unfortunately, the President's actions speak louder than his words.
But rather than make good on its statements, the Obama administration
has proposed four times the number of major regulations than the
previous administration over a similar time period. And the White House
has admitted to Congress that, for most new major regulations issued in
2010, government failed to analyze both the cost and the benefits.
It is time for Congress to take action to reverse these harmful
policies. With the REINS Act, we can hold the administration
accountable for its unjustified regulatory assault on America's job
creators; and we can guarantee that Congress, not unelected agency
officials, will be accountable for all new major regulatory costs.
The American people want job creation, not more regulation. The REINS
Act reins in out-of-control Federal regulations that burden America's
businesses and job creators.
I thank Mr. Davis of Kentucky for introducing this legislation. I
urge all my colleagues to support the REINS Act, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, H.R. 10 is the mother of all
antiregulatory bills. Since the House was in session during 2010 for
116 legislative days, under this bill--and I invite any of my
colleagues to make any different analysis--the Congress would be
required after 70 days after they receive a rule to act upon it. If you
only have 116 days, legislative days a year, it would be literally
impossible to handle the number of rules that we would get.
Namely, we got 94 rules last year, 116 days. If we were handling
every rule--please, use your arithmetic skills, ladies and gentlemen.
This bill would be unworkable, and it would be impossible for new
regulations to be enacted. But then, maybe that's the whole thrust of
the matter.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), who is the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman.
Two years ago, I met with the a constituent who was concerned about
the effects of unfunded EPA mandates on his water and sewer bills. He
wanted to know why Congress doesn't vote on new regulations. This
simple question inspired the legislation that we're considering today,
and it also begs a broader question: Who should be accountable to the
American people for major laws with which they are forced to comply?
Since the New Deal, every Congress has delegated more of its
constitutional lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats in
administrative agencies through vaguely written laws. This is an
abdication of Congress' constitutional responsibility to write the
laws.
This practice of excessive delegation of legislative powers to the
executive branch allows Members of Congress to take credit for the
benefits of the law it has passed and then blame Federal agencies for
the costs and requirements of regulations authorized by the same
legislation. Members of Congress are never required to support, oppose,
or otherwise contribute to Federal regulations that are major and
finalized under their watch.
Even more troubling, this practice has enabled the executive branch
to overstep the intent of Congress and legislate through regulation
based on broad authorities previously given the agency. In recent
years, we've seen examples of administrative agencies, regardless of
party, going beyond their original grants of power to implement
policies not approved by the people's Congress.
In several cases, such as net neutrality rules and the regulation of
carbon emissions, agencies are pursuing regulatory action after
Congress has explicitly rejected the concept. In fact, administrative
officials publicly proclaimed the strategy after the results of the
2010 elections, going around Congress by forcing their agenda through
regulation.
In February of last year, The New York Times quoted White House
Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer as saying, ``In 2010, executive
actions will also play a key role in advancing the administration's
agenda.'' True to their word, the administration continues using
regulations as an end around Congress.
The lack of congressional accountability for the regulatory process
has allowed the regulatory state to grow almost unchecked for
generations. Federal administrative agencies issued 3,271 new rules in
2010, or roughly nine regulations per day.
These regulations have a profound impact on our economy. The Small
Business Administration estimated that regulations cost the American
economy $1.75 trillion in 2008, and that's nearly twice the amount of
individual income taxes paid in this country that year. Small
businesses spend an estimated $10,500 per employee to comply with
Federal rules, a considerable burden on the private sector's ability to
create jobs at a time of continued economic struggles.
Today, we can choose to continue on this path, or we can vote to
restore our constitutional duty to make law and be
[[Page 19116]]
held accountable for the details. The REINS Act effectively constrains
the delegation of congressional authority by limiting the size and
scope of rulemaking permission.
Once major rules are drafted and finalized by an agency, the REINS
Act would require Congress to hold an up-or-down vote on any major
regulation. Major regulations are those with an annual economic impact
of more than $100 million, as determined by the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs. The President would also have to sign the
resolution before it could be enforced on the American people, job
creators, or State and local governments. Every major regulation would
be voted on within 70 legislative days.
The REINS Act was specifically written not to unnecessarily hold up
the regulatory process. Rather, the bill prevents REINS resolutions
from being filibustered in the Senate.
The point of the REINS Act is simply accountability. Each Congressman
must take a stand and be accountable for regulations that cost our
citizenry $100 million or more annually. No longer would Congress be
able to avoid accountability by writing vague laws requiring the
benefits up front and leaving the unpopular or costly elements to the
bureaucrats who will write those elements of the law at some later
date. Whether or not Congress approves a particular regulation, there
will be a clearly accountable vote on the subject that the American
people can see and judge for themselves.
{time} 1410
This ensures the greatest regulatory burdens on our economy are
necessary to promote the public welfare, rather than simply sprouting
from the minds of unelected bureaucrats.
The bill's name as a metaphor for the reins on a horse is fitting.
The purpose of reins is not to keep a horse at a standstill. Reins are
a tool to ensure that the horse knows what is expected of him and is
acting according to the intent and will of the rider.
Likewise, the REINS Act would not stop the regulatory process. It
would improve the regulatory process by ensuring that new major rules
match the intent of Congress and the will of the American people. The
REINS Act would foster greater upfront cooperation between agencies and
future Congresses, resulting in better written legislation and
regulation.
With greater accountability and transparency, regulatory agencies
will have no choice but to write regulations that reflect the need for
sensible standards and take into account the impact regulations have on
American businesses and families.
Similarly, agencies would no longer be able to bypass Congress with
regulations that don't match congressional intent or go too far.
Not all regulations are bad. Many provide needed public safeguards,
help to keep the American people safe, and maintain a level playing
field for businesses to compete. And so good regulations would be
approved by future Congresses, and those that could not withstand the
public scrutiny of a vote in Congress would not.
A commonsense regulatory system with appropriate checks and balances
on the most economically significant rules will help to revive our
stagnant economy and give more businesses the ability to hire thanks to
a better sense of stability and what to expect from Washington going
forward.
The question we're asked today is in effect the same I was asked by
my constituent in August of 2009: Who should be accountable for the
rules and regulations that have the greatest economic impact on our
economy? My answer is the Congress. In an era of high unemployment,
Congress can no longer avoid its responsibility to the American people
for the regulatory burden. Passing the REINS Act today would be a major
step forward in returning to a constitutional, responsible,
legislative, and regulatory framework.
I want to thank Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith for his countless
efforts on behalf of the REINS Act and his leadership, as well as the
more than 200 cosponsors of this bill in the House. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The REINS Act is the mother of all anti-regulatory bills in the
Congress. The only problem, I say to the distinguished author, the
gentleman from Kentucky, is that it won't work. There are only 116
legislative days.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Jim Moran.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the very distinguished former chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.
This Republican bill is neither effective nor responsible. To
paraphrase H.L. Mencken, eliminating Federal agency rulemaking as we
know it is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Mr. Chairman, despite what the House majority would like you to
believe, our Federal regulatory process is a model the world over.
Delegations from other countries frequently visit our government
agencies to learn how their governments can best ensure public
involvement while maximizing government effectiveness and efficiency.
Why? Because our regulatory system is the most open and the most fair
system in the world.
Current law already guarantees that proposed regulations get widely
published and receive extensive public participation. The proof of that
is that proposed Federal regulations receive hundreds, thousands, even
millions of public comments. The U.S. Forest Service, for example,
received over 1.6 million comments on its roadless rule and held over
600 public meetings.
And public involvement doesn't stop there. Federal agencies are
required by law to consider and respond to each comment received.
Commenters frequently request and receive comment-period extensions.
And when agencies learn of legitimate problems with their proposed
regulations, they change or withdraw them to address those concerns.
As an additional check on Federal rulemaking, Congress passed the
Congressional Review Act. This law already provides a 60-day waiting
period before a final rule becomes effective. And during that delay,
Congress can disapprove an agency rule by joint resolution.
The fact is that Federal agencies already have the right attitude
about regulation. I think Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke summed
up agency regulatory philosophy best: We seek to implement the will of
Congress in a manner that provides the greatest benefit at the lowest
cost to society as a whole.
This bill takes America in the wrong direction--one full of risk and
cost that will put the public's health and safety at great risk.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join Chairman Conyers in opposing
this wrong legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and
colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the House
Republican Conference.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it was just a few weeks ago that our Nation celebrated
Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, in the Obama economy, millions could not
give thanks for having a job. In the Obama economy, unemployment
remains mired at near or above 9 percent. In the Obama economy, one in
seven are on food stamps. In the Obama economy, we have seen the fewest
small business startups in 17 years.
That's why, Mr. Chairman, jobs are job number one for House
Republicans.
That's why our jobs bills have been passed; but, unfortunately, 25 of
them are stacking up like cord wood in the Democratic-controlled
Senate. After today, it will be 26 because one of the most important
pro-jobs bills is on the floor today, the REINS Act.
Mr. Chairman, whether I'm speaking to Fortune 50 CEOs out of Dallas,
Texas, where I reside, or small business people in east Texas that I
have the privilege of representing in this body, they all tell me the
same thing: the number one impediment to jobs in America today is the
Federal regulatory burden.
I hear from them each and every day. I heard from the Grasch family
in the Fifth District of Texas:
[[Page 19117]]
``As a small business, I have to bring in an additional thousand
dollars a month to break even.'' He's talking about his regulatory
burden. ``This is while consumers have less money to purchase my
services. I will not invest in any further expansion and therefore not
hiring until smarter policies are being conveyed from Washington.''
I heard from the Rossa family, also in the Fifth District, who talks
about the regulatory burden from the President's health care plan:
``My company has laid off all staff, and I myself will file for
unemployment on Monday. That's about 23 people added to the
unemployment rolls next week,'' again due to Federal regulation.
I heard from the Nixon family in the Fifth District of Texas. Federal
regulation, again:
``We are giving up this part of our business. One person's losing
their job. This is just one small example of how excessive government
regulation is stifling business.''
It's the number one impediment, and all we're asking today with the
REINS Act is that if a regulation is going to cost our economy jobs, if
it's going to cost a hundred million dollars or more, let's have
congressional approval. It's common sense. It forces accountability. It
simply weighs the benefit of a regulation to be balanced with the cost
to our own jobs.
Jobs ought to be number one in this House, and the number one jobs
bill we can pass is the REINS Act. I ask for once that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle join me, and let's put America back to
work.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia, Steve Cohen, a ranking subcommittee member in
Judiciary.
Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time, but I don't appreciate the
relocation. I am from Tennessee, the Volunteer State, and from Memphis,
in particular. But it is appropriate, I guess, that we be a little
confused with States because listening to the debate on the floor, it's
obvious we're a little confused about history and Presidents, too, for
President Obama has been Bush-whacked here on the floor of the House.
It's not the Obama economy, it's the Bush economy that President
Obama saved from going into the second Great Depression that this
country would have suffered in 100 years, saved it from depression with
great actions at a time of bipartisan action that helped save this
country from the Great Depression that it was otherwise looking at. I
think we need to commend President Obama and not Bush-whack him when we
get the chance here in the partisan discussions.
{time} 1420
This bill that has been brought up, H.R. 10, the REINS Act, would
rein in government. It would rein in the opportunity for regulations
that are promulgated by experts in our agencies, experts who have years
of expertise in subject matters, in order to come up with rules and
regulations to implement the laws that we pass.
Now, I am proud to be a Member of the United States Congress. I know
that we have good men and women in this House and that most of the
people are very good men and women. But right now, Congress has a 9
percent approval rating. This bill would tell the American public that
it should take the expertise of the people who are in the agencies and
in the administration and turn it over to the 435 Members of Congress--
535 when including those in the Senate--the least approved government
body that exists.
On the one hand, they decry Congress, and their candidate Mr. Perry
wants us to work half time, but this bill would make us the super-
regulatory commission. We would have to approve every regulation by a
positive vote in the House and by a positive vote in the Senate. We
would have to do it and have the President sign it within 70 days of
promulgation. We'd only have every other Thursday to do this, and we'd
only have debate of 30 minutes on each side. So you'd take the least
respected body of government in the entire United States of America--
maybe of the entire world--and give it a very limited amount of time to
make all of the rules and regulations for the biggest government in the
world.
Talk about clean air. We wouldn't have it. You'd have more dirty
rain. The REINS Act--it should be called the Acid Rain Act. It's
raining outside. It's raining prevarications, fabrications, and canards
upon us, none of which are appropriate for this body or for the
American people.
We've had several bills dealing with regulation in this session, all
of which basically tend to emasculate government. These bills take away
the people's rights to clean air, clean water, safe products, and to
occupational safety and health hazard protection, all of which are
almost second nature to the American public.
I'd ask us to defeat this bill and to protect our environment and our
workers.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. POE of Texas. The mere phrase ``the regulators'' brings fear and
trepidation down into the hearts and souls of small business owners
throughout the fruited plain.
Mr. Chairman, the Code of Federal Regulations is 150,000-pages long.
That's a lot of pages. Those are a lot of regulations. According to the
Small Business Administration, the annual cost of all Federal
regulations in this country was almost $2 trillion in 2008.
Now, do we really need all of those expensive regulations? Good thing
the Federal regulators weren't around when the Ten Commandments were
written--no telling what additional regulations they would have added
to those simple 10 phrases.
It is common sense that Congress should have a say on a regulation
that would have a drastic, expensive effect on our economy. So why do
my friends on the other side, who are such big friends of regulations,
not want the regulators to be regulated? I don't understand that.
Remember, we are elected.
The regulators are not.
Congress is the branch of government that is closely connected to the
people, and if Congress approves unnecessary and burdensome
regulations, we have to be accountable to our voters in our districts
for that.
Who do the regulators answer to?
No one. They only answer to their supervisors, who are also
regulators.
When the regulators go to work every day, like most people go to
work, their work assignments are a little different. In my opinion,
they sit around a big oak table, drinking their lattes, they have out
their iPads and their computers, and they decide: Who shall we regulate
today? Then they write a regulation, send it out to the masses, and
make us deal with the cost of that.
All the REINS Act does is ask that the Congress be involved in these
overburdensome regulations.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a valuable member of
the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Hank
Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the so-
called REINS Act. It's a demonstration of the reign of terror that the
Tea Party-Grover Norquist Republican Party has exacted on Americans
insofar as their health and safety are concerned, and in terms of their
ability as small businesses to compete with Wall Street and Big
Business.
You see, this is a Christmas gift. It's a gift to those who installed
this Tea Party reign in Congress, and this Tea Party reign, the
Republicans in Congress, are doing everything they're supposed to do.
This is the anti-regulatory bill, as the chairman said, that is the
mother of all anti-regulatory bills. In fact, these 25, 26 bills that
have been misnamed ``jobs bills'' that the Republicans have passed are
nothing more than anti-regulatory legislation, sprinkled with a little
antiabortion legislation in there--with not one job to be created.
You're just simply kowtowing to the wishes of those who line your
pockets with gold in order for you to get elected.
[[Page 19118]]
This anti-regulatory legislation is turning the clock back on
progress in America. We want to turn it all over to Big Business. This
is what the Wall Street occupation is all about. This is what the Tea
Party is all about.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. This bill will make it impossible to
implement critical new regulations that will place some restraints on
the excesses of the business community, and I ask that it be defeated.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10 because
greater congressional scrutiny of major regulations ensures that the
Federal Government is more accountable to the American people.
Poll after poll of small business owners and of medium-sized business
owners will show you that major regulations are holding back their
expansions and the ability for them to hire more workers. Yet you don't
have to rely on polls. You can just go down and talk to the local
businesses in your districts. I had a job forum the other week. Time
and time again, the constant refrain we heard from these business
leaders was that the overly burdensome regulatory environment is
holding back their expansions.
Several months ago, in the beginning of the 112th Congress, I had
some hope because President Obama issued an Executive order that
required agencies to review their regulations to see if we could have a
less burdensome regulatory environment. Unfortunately, what happened
was that those were just words, and were not followed up by actual
action, for, since then, the administration has continued to introduce
new regulations at a rapid rate.
In this year alone, over 73,000 pages of new regulations have been
added to the Federal Register at a cost of $67.4 billion. Mr. Chairman,
I have right here the amount of paper that has been added to the
Federal Register in one week. This is last week's regulations. It's
pretty hefty. Actually, it's 8 pounds, 13 ounces. There are 2,940 brand
new pages of Federal regulations that would stretch, if you laid them
end to end, 2,695 feet.
At this time, there are more than 4,000 new regulations in the
pipeline. Of those, 224 are major regulations that will have an
economic impact exceeding $100 million. So, at a minimum, the annual
economic impact for these new regulations will be $22 billion.
We need to change this. Some of these agencies act outside the
statutory authority granted by Congress, and we must stop this. The
REINS Act is the way to do it, and I strongly urge my colleagues to
support this measure.
{time} 1430
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a senior member of
the House Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, the
Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
I think it's important for our colleagues to understand just what is
being asked of this body. I believe it is a nullification of the
Constitution, which I like to carry, and the very distinct definition
of the three branches of government and their responsibilities.
Frankly, our friends are trying to equate this Congress and its do-
nothing record to the work of the executives, and now to create a do-
nothing pathway for the rulemaking process which, as I've indicated on
many of the bills that have already passed, there is a Federal court
process for anyone that wants to challenge the process of rulemaking or
whether or not due process has been denied. So I'd actually say that
what we have here is a complete shutdown of the Federal Government, for
it is asking this Congress to pass a joint resolution of approval for
any major rule to be passed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to you what would happen: Warnings
on cigarette packages would no longer exist; Medicare payments for
those lying in psychiatric hospitals would not be able to be paid; and
the emissions standards for boiler pollutants, hazardous pollutants out
of industrial, commercial, and institutional emissions would go flat;
and we would have a nation that small businesses, I believe, would
argue would also be a distraction from the work that they do.
It is interesting that my friends would want to use the backs of
small businesses to pretend that they are protecting them. First of
all, if they look at their facts, they will note the Obama
administration has passed less rules than the Bush administration.
As I indicated, they will also note that the 111th Congress passed
more constructive bills to help small businesses than this Congress
could ever do, and the fact that they would note that it has been
recorded that this Congress is the largest do-nothing Congress that has
ever existed. It would be helpful if we could pass the payroll tax cut
for 160 million Americans, allow them to infuse dollars, 1,000 or
$1,500, into the small businesses of America.
I will tell you that my small businesses will celebrate that. In
visiting a medical clinic owned by a doctor that had thousands of feet
that he wanted to rehab and expand, he said that payroll tax that was
part of the jobs bill that the President wanted to pass through this
do-nothing House of Representatives would have helped him greatly.
Then we have millions of Americans, 6 million, who are trying to get
unemployment insurance. Here we are down to the last wire telling those
in this blessed holiday season, whatever your faith, that you have to
wait at the door and, in fact, there may not be any room at the inn for
6 million who don't have their unemployment insurance.
I don't want to shut down the government.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
I don't want to shut down the government. I want a government that
works. Rulemaking is not the demon here; and the process of rulemaking,
if you read it, provides the input and assessment of those who are
concerned.
What this does is involve the President, the Congress, in a scheme
that is so dilatory that we will never do any work in this Congress. I
beg of you to defeat this legislation.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to debate H.R. 10 Regulations from the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). REINS would amend the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require Congressional approval of
all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is greater than
$100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the rule cannot
be implemented. This change is targeted directly at executive agencies
and does nothing to create jobs.
In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of
Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as a
member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the
Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main
functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.
If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule,
it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the
Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields.
Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific
and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of
certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become
adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal
agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to
effect the change that Americans want. For example extending
unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet,
here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our
economy.
There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation.
The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing (on H.R. 3010 a
bill based on the same false premise) clearly debunked the myth that
regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on
behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank,
stated in
[[Page 19119]]
his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to
confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment effects of
regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans
back to work. For instance, the BlueGreen Alliance notes: ``Studies on
the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found that most
regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect, and economic
growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these health and
safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining example, given that
the economy has grown 204% and private sector job creation has expanded
86% since its passage in 1970.''
Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the
Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure
``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong
economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that
increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of
more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.
REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY IS NOT WHY BUSINESSES ARE NOT HIRING WORKERS
The claim that regulatory uncertainty hurts business has been
debunked as political opportunism. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy
analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations observed
``[R]egulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that
allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda
supported by the business community year in and year out. In other
words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious
effort to deal with high unemployment.''
Regulatory uncertainty does not deter business investment. A lack of
demand, not uncertainty about regulation, is cited as the reason for
not hiring.
At a legislative hearing on regulatory reform (H.R. 3010), Professor
Sidney Shapiro similarly noted, ``All of the available evidence
contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business
investment.''
A July 2011 Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found
that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring
is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies.''
The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of
its members likewise shows that ``poor sales''--not regulation--is the
biggest problem. Of those reporting negative sales trends, 45 percent
blamed faltering sales, 5 percent higher labor costs, 15 percent higher
materials costs, 3 percent insurance costs, 8 percent lower selling
prices and 10 percent higher taxes and regulatory costs.''
Small businesses reject the argument that deregulation is what they
need. The Main Street Alliance, an alliance of small businesses,
observes: ``In survey after survey and interview after interview, Main
Street small business owners confirm that what we really need is more
customers--more demand--not deregulation. Policies that restore our
customer base are what we need now, not policies that shift more risk
and more costs onto us from big corporate actors. . . . To create jobs
and get our country on a path to a strong economic future, what small
businesses need is customers--Americans with spending money in their
pockets--not watered down standards that give big corporations free
rein to cut corners, use their market power at our expense, and force
small businesses to lay people off and close up shop.''
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I want to set the record straight. The bill is not antiregulatory but
pro-accountability. It will enable both Republican and Democratic
majorities in Congress to make the final calls on major regulations
that come from administrations of either party. Majorities of either
party can be expected to approve regulations whenever appropriate, but
the key is that Congress always be held accountable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Amodei), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. AMODEI. I thank my distinguished chairman from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, 85 percent of the land in Nevada is controlled by the
Federal Government. Perhaps no other State in the Nation lives with a
more daily, direct impact of the presence of the Federal Government and
its regulatory regime than the Silver State.
Community-driven development proposals that would generate economic
growth often take years longer than they should because of layer upon
layer of regulatory, mandatory gymnastics. Home builders, agribusiness,
mining, manufacturers, retailers, the resort and hospitality
industries, small business in general all lament the gymnastics that
they have to go through to get a permit or even to comply with existing
regulations.
All of that effort in a State, which I am sorry to have to sit up
here and remind you, 85 percent of the land controlled by the Federal
Government, highest unemployment rate in the Nation, highest
foreclosure rate in the Nation. We are trying to generate economic
development, and it's taking years to get a permit because of
regulatory regimes. There is no one that will indicate that that is not
the case.
So when we talk about this issue before us today--and I congratulate
my colleague from Kentucky. When we talk about the job of Congress in
an oversight sense, I think it is entirely appropriate that you revisit
the regulations that are promulgated not out of thin air, but as a
result of the statutes that pass these two Houses. And to revisit that
point and make sure that those regulations bear resemblance to both
sides of the aisles' legislative intent where they're supported is
something we ought to guard zealously; because, the last time I
checked, the Federal-elected officials in the executive branch numbered
two. And it doesn't matter what side of the aisle they come from or
what party they come from, I think it's appropriate for those 535 who
send those measures to those folks, check back to make sure that's
being done appropriately.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a
senior member of the Education Committee, the gentleman from New
Jersey, Rob Andrews.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, 25 days from now, if the Congress doesn't
act, every middle class family in this country is going to have a
$1,000 tax increase. Twenty-five days from now, if the Congress doesn't
act, doctors who take care of our Medicare patients are going to have a
23 percent cut in the fee they get to see Medicare patients. During
those 25 days, several million Americans who are out there looking for
a job every day are going to receive their last unemployment benefits
check.
These are the issues confronting America today, and what are we
doing? We're debating a bill that says that some regulation the
government might do someday in the future should have a procedure where
Congress can reject it. There already is such a procedure.
And for all these terrible regulations we keep hearing about that
have been introduced this year, do you know how many times the majority
has brought to the floor a resolution to reject one of those
regulations? Once.
So this is such a grave threat to the country's economy that the
majority that controls the floor has chosen on one occasion to bring a
regulation to the floor.
What we ought to be doing is canceling out this $1,000-a-year tax
increase on the middle class. What we ought to be doing is making sure
our seniors can see the doctor come January 1. What we ought to be
doing is making sure Americans who are diligent in looking for work
don't run out of employment benefits. But that's not what we're doing.
This is not only the wrong bill, it's the wrong time. Let's put on
the floor a bill that puts Americans back to work and focuses on the
real priorities of the country.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
{time} 1440
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, with so many American families struggling,
with so many Americans struggling to find work, and businesses
struggling to hire unemployed Americans, it's time to rein in the
Federal Government. It's time to rein in the avalanche of red tape
cascading out of Washington, D.C. and stifling our recovery. It's time
to enact the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011, the REINS Act.
[[Page 19120]]
I rise to commend the gentleman from Kentucky, Congressman Geoff
Davis, for his visionary and tireless efforts in moving the REINS Act
to the floor today and for his leadership in this Congress.
You know, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. They
represent 99.7 percent of employer firms, and have generated 65 percent
of net new jobs over the past 17 years. Yet today, as most American
small businesses know, our job creators are saddled with too many
regulations and too many regulatory authorities. According to the Small
Business Administration, the average small business faces a cost of
$10,585 in Federal regulation per employee each and every year. The
REINS Act will address that. It will protect jobs and promote small
business growth by ensuring that the legislative branch has the final
say on major regulations before they take effect.
This legislation reforms the rulemaking process by requiring that
Congress approve any regulation that would have an annual economic
impact of $100 million or more. For too long, Congress has delegated
its legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats and agency officials
to determine the rulemaking process. It's time to bring that authority
back into the Congress where the Framers of the Constitution intended
it to be, especially with regard to major rulemaking.
The American people are hurting. The American economy is struggling.
It's time to rein in Big Government and release the inherent power of
the American economy. Again, I urge my colleagues to join with me in a
bipartisan fashion, I hope and trust, in support of this important
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a
member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from
Connecticut, the Honorable Jim Himes.
Mr. HIMES. I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon, as I frequently do in this
Chamber, a little incredulous at what it is that I'm hearing. I'm
hearing stories about east Texas. I'm hearing about lattes, and I'm
hearing that the number one reason American businesses are not hiring
is because of regulations. It's baloney. There's not a fact in there.
Here's some facts. I wish I had more time to get into these facts.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which studies this stuff, asked
businesses that have been laying people off, why? Regulations was a
negligible answer.
I would love to talk about Bruce Bartlett, financial adviser to
President Reagan, Republican, who said that the notion that regulation
is why this economy is on its back was just plain made up.
If I had more time, I would like to talk about our former colleague,
Sherwood Boehlert of New York, who said the House is moving forward
with bills that would cripple the regulatory system, but they show how
far a party enthralled by its right-most wing is willing to veer from
what has long been the mainstream.
I've got deep problems with this crazy idea that we should have
Congress sign off on every regulation. But my biggest problem, Mr.
Chairman, is that we're standing here today talking about this. I hear
endlessly about the uncertainty associated with these regulations. Mr.
Chairman, I was shocked to look at my schedule tomorrow to see that the
Republican majority is sending me home. And I'm going to talk to people
in Connecticut tomorrow who are uncertain if after next month they're
going to have unemployment insurance available to them because they
don't have a job and they don't have money. And they may not have food
on their table.
Small businesses and an awful lot of Americans with jobs in my
district are uncertain about whether they will see an extension of the
payroll tax that we passed in bipartisan fashion.
Except we're here talking about this, a fraudulent idea followed by a
terrible legislative proposal, instead of dealing with the imminent
expiration of unemployment insurance and payroll tax. Let's talk about
those things. Let's remove the uncertainty for the people we represent.
We represent people who have a lot of uncertainty about whether they'll
have unemployment insurance or the payroll tax cut. Let's deal with
that.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the REINS Act. This
is legislation that will bring forward reform, accountability, and
transparency to the Federal rulemaking process. You know what, it's
time for Congress to act more like a board of directors where we will
have to oversee proposed rules and regulations, especially those that
have a significant economic impact. This bill will absolutely force
accountability. It allows regulations to go forward, but it's also
going to force Congress to analyze, to pay attention, and then finally
to act.
So no longer are we going to see agencies and unelected bureaucrats
being able to promulgate these rules and regulations without having an
appropriate check and balance. There are thousands and thousands and
thousands of these rules and regulations in the pipeline, and over 200,
224 specifically, that have that major economic impact threshold that
would be affected by the REINS Act. That's a cost of over $22 billion,
at a minimum, to the economy.
If we want to help small businesses grow, if we want to grow jobs, if
we want to help our economy get going and jump start it, we need to
remove that cloud of uncertainty that is hanging over the heads of
small and medium-sized businesses in that regulatory environment.
I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky for his leadership in
leading this reform. I ask for its passage.
Here's an example of a proposed guideline that is of particular
concern to me. The FTC, the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, and the
CDC have a proposal which seeks to restrict advertising, marketing and
sales of food products. As drafted, it would affect 88 of the top 100
most consumed food and would have devastating effects. If this were to
go through, one study estimates it could affect more than 74,000 jobs
in the first year alone.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlelady from Colorado, Diana DeGette, who serves on
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, do we really want to bind Congress to more
votes so we can play Monday morning quarterback for the executive
branch every time it tries to finalize a rule? Don't we have enough
gridlock around here?
Look around. The REINS Act would grind our government to a halt and
stymie the implementation of regulations to protect consumers and
protect public health and well-being.
Now, look, this bill would add a feedback loop to require Congress to
approve major rules that it has already specifically directed an agency
to promulgate. What we really need are smart people and streamlined
regulations regardless of which party is in charge of Congress.
In 2010 alone, Federal agencies finalized important rules related to
energy efficiency, community disaster loans, weatherization assistance
for low-income people, truth in lending, and better pay for teachers.
All of those rules would be considered major rules under the REINS Act,
and all of those rules would have required congressional approval. Good
luck there with this Congress.
Who would oppose final approval of these rules that protect everyday
Americans? Well, based on the track record of the 112th Congress, some
special interest group would find a way. In fact, the REINS Act would
allow special interests a back-door entrance to have their way and
weaken laws that protect the American people.
Mr. Chairman, we all know standing here today this bill won't become
law; and the majority knows it, too. Why? Because it's a bad idea.
In these last days of the year, what we should be doing is finding a
way to help the millions of unemployed Americans who are looking for a
job by extending their unemployment insurance. We should be helping
middle
[[Page 19121]]
class Americans by helping extend their payroll tax cuts so that they
can pay for the food and everything else they're putting on their
table. That's what the focus of this Congress should be, not passing
ill-conceived legislation that will only slow down the process even
more.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).
Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman.
I rise today in strong support of the REINS Act. This bill is about
representative democracy, transparency, and accountability. The concept
is simple: any new proposed regulatory rule written by the Federal
bureaucracy that has an estimated economic impact greater than $100
million must first come here before the Congress for an up-or-down vote
before implementation.
To get our economy moving, to create jobs, to strengthen the jobs we
have now, and to raise the standard of living of all, we need to
address the impediments to growth--taxes, regulations, health care
costs, and energy costs. The simple truth is Federal regulations have
increased the cost of doing business and contributed to job loss and
stifled new job creation. Even the President has acknowledged this when
he appeared in this Chamber to speak to the American people.
{time} 1450
According to the Small Business Administration, Federal regulations
cost our economy $1.75 trillion a year.
This negative impact is something small business owners, including
farmers, have told me time and again as I have traveled across the 137
towns in my district. Something must be done. It really comes down to
judgment. We want to get these key decisions right. It's about
balancing competing priorities. In the process, certainly we want to
hear the advice of our subject matter experts in the bureaucracy, but
the decision should fall to the people's representatives who can be
held accountable to them, not unelected, faceless bureaucrats.
It's far past time for some transparency and accountability. It's far
past time for the REINS Act. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of
this bill, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Government Oversight
Committee, Mr. Gerry Connolly.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend from Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, for the 173rd time this year our friends on the other
side have brought another anti-environmental, anti-public health bill
to the floor. For good reason, this House majority has been identified
as the most stridently anti-environmental Congress in history in a
tragic refutation of Republicans' heretofore historic commitment to
conservation and public safety.
The REINS Act, like the Regulatory Accountability Act passed last
week, has a poetic finality as it would block any and all progressive
regulations largely the legacy of Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Under
Teddy Roosevelt's administration, in response to appalling food
processing conditions described in Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle,''
Congress reacted and passed the first comprehensive food safety
regulation. One hundred years later, the REINS Act, on the floor today,
would block even the most commonsense regulations which Congress
mandated just last session--new standards to protect Americans from
deadly contamination by Chinese and Mexican imported foods. The REINS
Act is a worthy piece of legislation for those among us who actually
believe that Chinese factory farms should ship contaminated,
uninspected food directly to American dinner tables.
President Teddy Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act, written by a
Republican Congressman, Congressman Lacey of Ohio, to protect the Grand
Canyon--and thank God they did--when Congress at that time refused to
designate it as a National Park. The REINS Act would prevent Federal
land management agencies from issuing regulations to protect America's
greatest places from degradation by mining and off-road vehicles.
The REINS Act also would block all regulations issued subsequent to
Teddy Roosevelt's administration, including such landmark bills as the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Wagner Labor Relations Act, and
the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Along with the Regulatory
Accountability Act, which the House approved last week, the REINS Act
is the most comprehensive, radical assault on American safety and
public health in the last century.
If REINS passes, it will replace the rule of law with the rule of the
jungle. Our friends on the other side know full well that in
commonsense language they have masked the inability of the Federal
Government ever again to issue commonsense regulation to protect public
health and safety in this country. And that would be a tragedy.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the chairman.
Over the past year, I've met with hundreds of businesses throughout
the Eighth District of Pennsylvania, and from each of them I've heard a
common theme: uncertainty from constant new government regulation is
impeding their ability and willingness to invest in our economy, expand
their businesses, and to create jobs. In fact, just last night during a
town hall, one of my constituents, Gallus Obert, lamented at the fact
that new and burdensome regulations have driven small businesses--and
with them, jobs--from Bristol Township in Bucks County.
This should come as no surprise to any of us. Even President Obama
admitted on January 18 that his administration's rules have placed
unnecessary strain on businesses and stifled innovation and stifled job
growth.
Today, small businesses spend more than $10,000 per employee to
comply with Federal regulation. Compliance leads to higher consumer
costs, lower wages, and reduced hiring. At the same time, the number of
new rules and regulations continues to grow with each passing year.
Just as our Tax Code is in need of reform, so is our ballooning
regulatory system. The REINS Act will provide the American people with
both congressional oversight and congressional accountability for
regulations stemming from legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman
from California, the Honorable George Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank the ranking member
for yielding.
The legislation before us today would really destroy the ability of
the Congress to create new regulations, to create laws to protect the
health and safety of the American citizens. It would also provide a
great second bite at the apple for every special interest in this
country that doesn't like the regulations to protect clean water and
safe drinking water and the health and safety of our workers and our
children at play.
If you're wondering what it would look like when we wipe out the
health and safety protections for Americans, you need to look no
further than the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, where an
explosion ripped through the mine and killed 29 miners in April of this
year. That mine was operated as if there were no safety regulations.
They treated their workers as if there were no mine safety rules at all
because they overruled all of those regulations through criminal
activity, through illegal activity, and those miners were forced to
work with essentially none of the value of health and safety
regulations designed to protect their lives.
And what happened in that mine without those regulations and without
the benefit of those safety protections? An explosion ripped through
that mine, traveling 2,000 feet per second, and it consumed the lives
of 29 miners. Twenty-nine workers died, and their families will never
be the same.
[[Page 19122]]
That's what happens when you take away the basic worker protections
intended to make our economy function and to keep our workers safe. And
that's what this bill on the floor today would do.
Now it's even more interesting that the man who broke the laws,
created that system of no regulations for the miners in the Upper Big
Branch Mine for his own personal benefit and the benefit of that of the
corporation and at the expense of his workers, may be getting back into
the mining business. Donald Blankenship got an $86 million ``golden
parachute'' after 29 mine workers died in West Virginia. And now he
wants to open a new mine. People who live in coal-mining States like
Kentucky should be aware that a serial violator of basic mine safety
laws is coming to your State soon seeking to operate a mine. Mine
companies under his leadership have engaged in dangerous and deadly
practices that would pose a threat to mine workers in your State.
In the 2 years preceding the explosion of the Massey Company mines,
they were cited over 10,000 times a year for violations. Under this
provision, the coal mines come into Congress, they get the regulations,
they cease to exist, and they can go on their way, and there won't be
10,000 citations for the violation of occupational health and safety to
protect those miners, and other miners will lose their lives like those
in the Upper Big Branch Mine.
I say to my colleagues in this House, you must defeat this incredibly
offensive bill for every American, and you must do so in the name of
these 29 mine workers who were killed in the Upper Big Branch Mine in
West Virginia. They died because a ruthless mine owner gamed the
system. Let us not have them game the system in the Congress of the
United States.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this bill, and I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for
yielding me this time and I commend both him and the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for bringing this bill to the floor to us at this
time.
Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in his
speech to the Jobs Summit a few months ago said, ``Taken collectively,
the regulatory activity now underway is so overwhelmingly beyond
anything we have ever seen that we risk moving this country away from a
government of the people to a government of regulators.''
I want to straighten out one thing, Mr. Chairman. This bill does not
do away with any of the thousands and thousands of laws and regulations
that are already on the book. It applies only to new regulations, which
will cost businesses and the consumer over $100 million each. I think
the American people would be very surprised if they thought the
Congress did not already act on legislation and laws that would cost
our economy that much money.
We've heard estimates today by the SBA that rules and regulations
cost small businesses almost $2 trillion a year, and anywhere from
$8,000 to $10,000 per employee. We have so many thousands and thousands
of laws and rules and regulations on the books today, Mr. Chairman,
that they haven't even designed a computer that can keep up with them,
much less a human being. People are out there every day violating laws
that they didn't even know were in existence.
{time} 1500
The thousands and thousands of rules and regulations that we have
today make it more difficult to run and maintain a business than at any
other time in this country's history, and they're the cause of why so
many small businesses and medium-size businesses are going under or
being forced to merge and why the big keep getting bigger in almost
every industry.
The REINS Act is a very modest attempt to end Washington's almost
unchecked regulatory power. And it would apply only to regulations
which cost over $100 million annually, so there is nothing even close
to being radical about this bill.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, this very
moderate and reasonable bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored at this time to recognize the
former Speaker of the House, the leader, the gentlewoman from
California, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1
minute.
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today to oppose this bill, the so-called REINS Act, and to
urge my colleagues to act now on behalf of jobs for America's workers.
Jobs are the lifeblood of our economic growth and that of the middle
class, which is the backbone of our democracy.
Mr. Chairman, for more than 330 days the Republican majority has
failed to put forward a clear jobs agenda, choosing instead to propose
initiatives that undermine job creation and only benefit the special
interests. Today, as we approach the end of this year, Republicans have
again refused to vote to expand the payroll tax cut for the middle
class and unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own. They risk the economic security really
of all of us--certainly the 99 percent--but we're all in this together,
as our President has said.
Democrats have been clear: We must not go home for the holidays
without extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance
benefits. We shouldn't be leaving hardworking Americans high and dry
over this holiday season without doing their work.
This challenge poses a question: Why are we here? Republicans have
chosen to be here for massive tax cuts for people making over $1
million a year--not having $1 million; making over $1 million a year--
300,000 Americans. Democrats are here for the 160 million Americans
facing tax cut uncertainty because of Republican inaction. But
Democrats are here for everybody, for all Americans, because we all
benefit from a strong middle class with demand injected into our
economy to create jobs.
Indeed, if we fail to act now on the payroll tax cut and unemployment
insurance, consider the consequences of that reduced demand to our
economy. At least 600,000 jobs will be lost. Don't take it from me.
Respective independent economists have stated that. Over 6 million out-
of-work Americans would lose assistance in the beginning of next year.
Now, consider if we do act--and act we must--putting more than $1,500
in the pockets of the typical middle class family. And every dollar
invested in unemployment insurance yields a return of more than $1.50
in economic growth. What's important about that is what it does to
inject demand into the economy.
Money in the pockets of hardworking Americans, that's what we want
this Congress to pass, instead of being so completely wedded to the
idea that if we give tax cuts to the top 1 percent there will be a
trickle-down effect. It hasn't happened.
As we approach the end of this year, Congress has a responsibility to
address America's top priority--job creation and economic growth. It's
time for us to put the interests of working people ahead of the special
interests. We must act now to reignite the American Dream and build
ladders of success for anyone willing to work hard and play by the
rules, to remove obstacles of participation for those who wish to do
that. We must spur our economy, put people to work, and strengthen our
middle class.
Now, we should not go home for the holidays without passing the
middle income tax--the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance and
SGR. And there are other issues that need to be addressed that affect
America's great middle class.
Mr. Chairman, Christmas is coming; the goose is getting fat; please
to put a dollar in a worker's hand.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this REINS Act and to get to
work to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the
American people. Only then will we increase demand in our economy,
create jobs, promote economic growth, and put money
[[Page 19123]]
into the pockets of 160 million Americans. Think of the difference that
will make instead of putting forth legislation that has no impact on
our economic growth, is not in furtherance of job creation, is not in
furtherance of strengthening the middle class, which is the backbone of
our democracy. We can't go home without the payroll tax cut and
unemployment benefits for all Americans who need them, who have lost
their jobs through no fault of their own.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 10, the REINS Act, because America's
job creators are buried in red tape and need certainty from the Federal
Government in order to create jobs. This bill would provide that.
You know, when I travel up and down eastern and southeastern Ohio, I
hear a recurring theme from the businesses that I meet with: Government
overregulation is strangling their ability to hire new employees,
expand their businesses, innovate, and compete.
Today it costs a business over $10,000 per employee just to comply
with current Federal regulations. This administration that claims it
believes in reducing the burden on small business is in the process of
adding another $67 billion worth of new regulations this year alone.
This administration is burying small businesses, and enough is
enough. The REINS Act will simply return control of the regulatory
process to the American people, who are fed up with unelected
bureaucrats stopping job creation and delaying true economic recovery.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to our
final speaker, Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, who is
finishing out a brilliant career.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 4\1/2\
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank our great ranking member for allowing me this
time.
It is ironic; we're here today debating a bill supported by those in
the Congress who won't cut taxes for the middle class, but won't budge
when it comes to making permanent the tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Why are we not here today talking about extending the payroll tax
cuts? Why are we not here talking about extending employment benefits?
Why are we not working on a jobs bill? That's what we should be doing.
This Congress cannot--and I echo the words of our leader. This
Congress cannot leave for the holidays without ensuring jobless
Americans have the security of unemployment benefits that will make
their Christmas, their holiday, the rest of their year livable.
I know firsthand what it's like to fall on hard times and need a hand
up.
{time} 1510
Forty years ago, when I was a single mother raising three young
children--my children were 1, 3, and 5 years old--I was lucky enough to
have a job; so I didn't need unemployment benefits. But I did need Aid
for Families With Dependent Children just to make ends meet. My family
needed the compassion of the government and my fellow citizens just to
survive. Without that safety net, I don't know what we would have done.
We cannot abandon people who have been victimized by this sluggish
economy. These are proud people, who aren't just willing to work;
they're desperate to work. There are roughly five unemployed Americans
for every available job. These folks need a life preserver.
Extending unemployment benefits is not just a moral imperative. It
will pump life back into the economy. It will give people money for
their pockets that they can spend in their local communities and in the
shops and grocery stores and other businesses that they will inhabit
and support if they have some money in their pockets.
And I can't believe that there are some on the other side of the
aisle who have been resisting this extension, sticking their finger in
the eye of jobless Americans, while protecting lavish tax cuts for
millionaires and for billionaires. That flies in the face of common
sense and does violence to the very values of who we are as American
people.
One Republican Member even said just recently that, and I quote him,
he said, ``Congress ought to concentrate on paying people to work, not
paying people not to work.'' Except his party hasn't lifted a single
finger to do a single thing about creating jobs in this country. You
can't pay them to work when there is no work.
So I ask you, having experienced what it means to have little kids
that depend on you during hard times, I ask you, do not let these
families down. Extend unemployment benefits. Pass a big, bold jobs
bill. Put Americans back to work, and stop wasting time on the REINS
bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. GERLACH. I thank the chairman. I also want to thank Congressman
Davis of Kentucky for his great leadership on this important
legislation.
While our small business owners are focused on meeting payroll, and
their employees are working hard making products and delivering for
customers, unelected bureaucrats in Washington are putting in overtime
coming up with new rules and regulations.
In 2010 alone, the Federal Government issued 3,200 new regulations
and rules. That's roughly nine rules per day. Complying with all these
regulations costs small business owners, as was mentioned, an estimated
$10,500 per employee each year. At a time when we are trying to create
jobs, we need to have better accountability and transparency in
Congress for the regulatory burdens the Federal Government places on
businesses as we try to rejuvenate our economy.
The REINS Act is a commonsense measure that would do just that,
giving workers and small business owners and others a voice in the
process of approving regulations that will ultimately affect their
jobs, their families, and their communities. This legislation would
make sure that job creators don't have to worry about unelected
bureaucrats imposing regulations on them without the approval of their
elected Representatives.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the Chairman.
The REINS Act provides powerful, commonsense regulatory reform. It
reins in the costly overreach of Federal agencies that stifles job
creation and slows economic growth.
If we want to have jobs, we have to help the job creators. This bill
restores the authority to impose major regulations on those who are
accountable to the voters, their elected Representatives in Congress.
Opponents of the bill resist it for two primary reasons. They say,
number one, it takes too much time for Congress to approve or
disapprove major regulations. Secondly, they say Congress isn't expert
enough to understand whether major regulations should be approved or
disapproved. Both objections amount to one thing: their belief that
Congress cannot be responsible and accountable for major decisions that
affect America's economic life.
Fortunately, the Framers of the Constitution saw things differently,
and so do most Americans. The Constitution gives Congress the Federal
authority to regulate the economy, not the unelected bureaucrats. If
the Constitution gives the authority to Congress, then Congress should
be willing to accept the responsibility and the accountability for
these decisions.
We should and we will take the time. We should and we will hold
hearings.
[[Page 19124]]
We should and we will allow amendments on the floor and votes and, most
importantly, Mr. Chairman, transparency, something that the job
creators are not being allowed right now.
This administration has admitted its failure to consider the costs
and the benefits when it imposes major new regulations. This
administration clearly intends to force through the regulatory process
things that they cannot achieve in the people's Congress. They do not
want the transparency. They do not want the constituent input, and they
do not want to have the hearings where experts from all over the
country can give balanced testimony.
The American people struggle enough under the Obama administration's
failed economic policy. It's time for Congress to say, Enough.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the REINS Act. Let's help the job
creators and vote ``yes.''
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so called
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. Just as the
authors went through contortions to generate names with a cute acronym,
so this bill is very . . . This misguided legislation would undermine
the ability of federal agencies to promulgate and enforce safeguards
that protect public health and our environment.
Today again the Majority is showing the American public that they
don't think we have a jobs crisis in America, and that getting
Americans back to work is not their top priority. Getting the American
economy back on track and helping to create jobs is my first, second
and third priority. Unlike the Majority, I remain committed to creating
jobs immediately and expanding educational opportunity for all
Americans.
The so called REINS Act is legislation in search of a problem.
Federal agencies cannot create rules and regulations without statutory
authority that is granted by Congress, and Congress already has the
ability to overturn agency rules. The REINS Act would require Congress
to vote within seventy days on all major rules, creating an
unprecedented level of uncertainty for the vast number of businesses,
organizations, and other entities that already comply with government
protections affecting food and drug safety and air and water pollution.
The REINS Act puts politics above the safety and health of the
American people. We should let the scientists and experts in the
agencies develop and enforce rules like the Clean Air and Clean Water
Acts that protect all Americans from toxic air pollution and water-
borne illness. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, today, December 7th, is the 70th anniversary
of the brutal sneak attack by the Imperial Empire of Japan on Pearl
Harbor, which unleashed America's involvement in World War II. Victory
over Fascism would come four years later. On this day recalling Pearl
Harbor, the House Republicans are bringing to the floor their own sneak
attack on America's government, and how it works to protect the safety,
security, health and welfare of the American people.
We already have in place today an effective mechanism by which
Congress can overturn regulations by government agencies that are
judged to be unjustified, overly broad, too harsh, excessively
expensive or not in the public interest. There is in place today a
court of appeal for bad regulations. That process is called the
Congressional Review Act, and it provides expedited consideration by
Congress of a measure to veto an offending rule. If Members of Congress
have issues with regulatory overreach by an agency, there is a
constitutional remedy in place today to stop that agency. Moreover,
Congress can pass limits on the agency funding to curtail unwise
activities.
But that is not enough for the House Republicans. They want to
cripple the Executive Branch and its regulatory agencies altogether.
They do so in this bill, by changing the burden of proof in the ability
of agencies to develop and implement rules that are developed, in the
first instance, pursuant to laws enacted by Congress. These are not
rogue agencies; they are implementing policy and directives that
Congress has passed and the President has signed into law.
But H.R. 10 says that no major rule can become law unless and until
Congress passes--and the President signs--a joint resolution approving
the specific regulation. In other words, nothing happens unless
Congress says it is OK--and that means nothing will happen.
Congress is an institution where we cannot even pass all the
individual bills funding the government by the start of the fiscal
year. The last time that happened was in 1994, and it has happened only
three times since 1948. With that track record, it is not credible to
assert that Congress can process hundreds of major rules by government
agencies in a timely fashion.
The deadlock that we see in Congress this year will become perpetual
gridlock for the functioning of the Executive Branch and independent
regulatory agencies.
One suspects, in fact, that this is the true intent of those
supporting H.R. 10: to destroy the workings of our government. And it
is for this reason that I wholeheartedly oppose this bill.
No special interest should be powerful enough to eclipse the public
interest--but this bill lets the special interests who are being
regulated win every time.
If this bill were law, all of the historic legislation we passed into
law during the Obama presidency would be vulnerable to re-litigation by
powerful special interests as agencies work to put into place the rules
to implement those laws. Just this year alone, at risk would be rules
that prevent health insurance companies from discriminating against
people with pre-existing conditions; rules that ban the marketing of
tobacco products to children; rules that improve toy safety and reduce
lead in products; and rules that require higher fuel economy standards
for cars and reduce mercury and other toxic emissions from power
plants.
These are the protections the authors of H.R. 10--and their corporate
backers--want to stop.
I believe profoundly that government is a positive force that serves
its people--and this is what H.R. 10 is really attacking. This is why
H.R. 10 is so offensive to our constitutional system.
In the great debate over the size and scope and role of government--
which is a very legitimate and important discussion--the rhetoric from
the Republicans that has gained the most traction is that regulations
from Washington are ``job killers,'' and that these agencies must be
stopped before they kill more jobs again.
But this is a lie. David Brooks, a very conservative columnist,
assessed these issues this week in the New York Times:
Over the past 40 years, small business leaders have
eloquently complained about the regulatory burden. And they
are right to. But it's not clear that regulations are a major
contributor to the current period of slow growth.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics asks companies why they have
laid off workers. Only 13 percent said regulations were a
major factor. That number has not increased in the past few
years. According to the bureau, roughly 0.18 percent of the
mass layoffs in the first half of 2011 were attributable to
regulations.
Some of the industries that are the subject of the new
rules, like energy and health care, have actually been doing
the most hiring. If new regulations were eating into
business, we'd see a slip in corporate profits. We are not.
There are two large lessons here. First, Republican
candidates can say they will deregulate and, in some areas,
that would be a good thing. But it will not produce a short-
term economic rebound because regulations are not a big
factor in our short-term problems.
Second, it is easy to be cynical about politics and to say
that Washington is a polarized cesspool. And it's true that
the interest groups and the fund-raisers make every
disagreement seem like a life-or-death struggle. But, in
reality, most people in government are trying to find a
balance between difficult trade-offs. Whether it's
antiterrorism policy or regulatory policy, most substantive
disagreements are within the 40 yard lines.
Obama's regulations may be more intrusive than some of us
would like. They are not tanking the economy.
H.R. 10 is a dangerous bill. It is a direct attack on how our
government works to protect the public interest. It is based on a
completely false premise.
H.R. 10, a bill to veto regulations, deserves its own special veto by
Congress and, if necessary, by the President of the United States.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10, the
REINS Act. This misguided piece of legislation would do nothing to put
people back to work, it would do nothing to reinvigorate the economy,
and it would do nothing to rein in our debt and excessive deficit.
Worse yet, it would serve to make our government even more
dysfunctional. By prohibiting all major regulations from going into
effect unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval, the REINS
Act would put up a major roadblock for implementing important consumer
protections, including regulations which help keep our food safe and
prevent Wall Street from rascality that could bring our economy to its
knees again.
Supporters of this legislation claim that the Obama administration's
excessive regulations are crippling our economy. However, the
conservative columnist David Brooks of The New
[[Page 19125]]
York Times recently pointed out that in a recent poll by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, only 13 percent of companies said regulations were a
major factor in why they laid off workers. Interestingly, this number
has stayed steady over time. If overregulation is what is hampering our
economy, you would expect a big spike in this number. This leads Mr.
Brooks to conclude that ``Obama's regulations may be more intrusive
than some of us would like. They are not tanking the economy.'' I would
urge all members to read this column to help dispel some common myths
about the impact regulations are having on our economy today.
It is important to note that Congress already has the authority to
review regulations before they go into effect. The Congressional Review
Act of 1996 allows Congress to pass a joint resolution to overturn a
regulation to block its implementation. Additionally, all regulations
must be subject to a public comment period, giving this body and
members of the general public ample time to weigh in with their
concerns. Given that these safeguards are already in place, it makes
you wonder if the supporters of the bill seek simply to kill all
regulations, including those that keep pollution out of our air and
water, our armed forces safe, our commerce uninterrupted and our foods
safe to eat.
H.R. 10 is a crass attempt to stop important consumer protections by
those who are fundamentally opposed to any government intervention in
the private sector. I urge all members to oppose this flawed
legislation, and get back to work doing the business of the American
people--producing a balanced plan to reduce our deficit, invest in our
infrastructure, and put the American people back to work.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act). It
is unfortunate but not surprising that we are voting on this
legislation today. We are just weeks away from millions of people being
kicked off unemployment insurance and Medicare providers having their
payments cut by 27% making it difficult for seniors to find a doctor or
get access to care. Instead of dealing with those pressing issues we
are voting on another ideological Republican message bill. More false
promises from the Republican House Leadership that jobs will
miraculously appear if we just eliminate rules that keep our food safe
to eat, our air and water clean, and our cars safe to drive.
The REINS Act is aimed at making government less efficient and less
responsive to the issues facing our country. The legislation would make
it nearly impossible for the government to pass regulations. Any rule
developed by an agency through the extensive notice and comment process
that we currently use would now be forced through both houses of
Congress, where majorities would have to affirmatively vote within 70
days or the rule would disappear. Under the REINS Act, proposed rules
would be subject to even more rounds of approval in a new system biased
to ensure that these rules fail to be adopted.
Did any one of the Republican cosponsors of this legislation ever
take a class in government or civics when they were in high school?
Passing a law requires approval of the House, Senate, and then the
President. Congress then delegates the relevant rulemaking to the
agencies because these agencies have the manpower, time and expertise
to develop the appropriate rules. This legislation turns the
relationship between the three branches of government, and our entire
regulatory system, on its head.
Our economy needs a level playing field that protects consumers and
small business from corporate and other special interests. Science-
based regulation helps to create a stable and fair marketplace for
consumers and businesses alike. The REINS Act would further empower big
business to challenge regulations that they disagree with regardless of
the benefits to the public health and welfare. This is yet another
Republican attack on the American middle class intended to please their
corporate benefactors. I cannot support this legislation and I urge my
fellow members to join me in voting ``no.''
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 (REINS
Act), which will ensure that major policy decisions are made by the
people's representatives in Congress and not by unelected bureaucrats.
The bill requires that major regulations cannot go into effect until
approved by Congress. Under current law, these economically significant
regulations go into effect without further action by Congress. This
legislation's sensible reform has important implications for the
consideration of legislation that authorizes regulations that result in
mandatory spending or other budgetary effects. The Congressional Budget
Office's (CBO) longstanding policy is to score legislation providing
such regulatory authority with the full budgetary effects of
implementing that legislation. The rule governing consideration of H.R.
10 added a provision to the bill, titled the Budgetary Effects of Rules
Subject to Section 802 of Title 5, United States Code, that ensures
this practice continues.
Absent this provision, CBO has indicated that once the REINS Act is
enacted, it would no longer score the budget authority, outlays, or
receipts authorized by a statute to that statute if those budgetary
effects are contingent on the adoption of a major regulation. Instead,
those budgetary effects would be charged to the joint resolution
approving the major regulation. While this approach would maintain the
principle that the legislation that actually causes the budgetary
effects would be charged with the costs incurred, in practice it would
create potential problems. Because the REINS Act waives all points of
order against the approval resolutions, there would be a potential
circumstance where new mandatory spending or other budgetary effects
would escape Congressional budget enforcement. This provision retains
the current practice of scoring the budgetary impact to the legislation
that creates the rulemaking authority and ensures new spending created
by that legislation would be fully subject to budget enforcement.
I am pleased that this potential problem has been addressed, and I
strongly support this effort to restrain Washington's regulatory
overreach and create a more conducive environment for job creation.
Description of the Ryan Amendment to the REINS Act
The Ryan Amendment self-executed in the rule governing debate for
H.R. 10 amends section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. Sec. 907) (BBEDCA) in order to ensure
that any budgetary costs associated with approving or disapproving
regulations authorized by legislation are properly accounted for under
the congressional budget process. Section 257 of BBEDCA defines the
budgetary baseline calculated by the Congressional Budget Office and
the Office of Management and Budget. This amendment requires that the
baseline include any changes in budget authority, outlays, or receipts
resulting from regulations necessary to implement a law. Consistent
with this requirement, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office
of Management and Budget will continue to score legislation that
provides the legal authority to promulgate implementing regulations
with the budgetary implications resulting from the regulations.
Absent this provision, CBO has indicated that once the REINS Act is
enacted, it would no longer score the budget authority, outlays, or
receipts authorized by a statute to that statute if those budgetary
effects are contingent on the adoption of a major regulation. Instead,
those budgetary effects would be charged to the joint resolution
approving the major regulation. This amendment maintains the current
law practice for scoring the original authorizing legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, in recent weeks, the House of Representatives
has taken up three major bills designed to address concerns about
executive agency overreach in regulatory proposals.
I supported the first two bills--H.R. 3010, the Regulatory
Accountability Act, and H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I
believe they would have improved the current regulatory approval
scheme. The bills alternatively would have codified the use of critical
cost-benefit analyses and the consideration of less costly regulatory
alternatives, and helped to ensure the opportunity for additional
public participation, especially in regard to small businesses. Both
bills contained provisions that would have helped to address the
concerns of my State, which has felt under siege in recent months by a
raft of regulatory actions affecting the coal industry and emanating
from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Today, the House is considering H.R. 10, the Regulations in Need of
Scrutiny Act. This bill would require the Congress to approve all major
rules projected to cost $100 million or more. I believe this is, at the
very least, an impractical idea, given the number of rules that would
have to be considered in the midst of other legislative business. It
also raises serious questions about the legal status of rules
promulgated by the executive agencies and approved by the Congress,
subjecting even the least controversial rules to potential litigation
in the courts. In addition, it subjects the Congressional schedule to
the whims of the executive agencies and their regulatory agenda.
But worse still, I believe such a requirement could be detrimental to
the functions of government, the certainty required by business,
[[Page 19126]]
and the stability desired for the economy. Considering the inability of
the current Congress to pass important and even popular legislation,
the requirements of this bill would almost certainly put rules, even
rules supported by the business community that endorses this bill and
rules that may be promulgated by future Administrations more favorable
to business, in complete limbo.
In this Congress, bipartisan efforts like the surface transportation
reauthorization have become mired in partisan squabbles; the Federal
Aviation Administration suffered a partial shutdown when a mere
extension of its authority was tangled in a partisan mess. When matters
of such importance to our nation, matters that are clearly necessary to
get our country back on the right economic track, are sidelined
indefinitely, I question whether it is wise to subject so many rules to
the uncertainty of the Congressional approval process. What's more,
when one of the most stringent complaints about the current regulatory
process centers on concerns that proposed regulations are politically
motivated, it makes no sense to further subject them to the whims of an
inherently political institution.
So, while I support critical Congressional oversight of executive
agency rules, more public input in the rulemaking process, better cost-
benefit analyses of the impact on businesses large and small, and the
consideration of less costly regulatory alternatives, I must decline to
support H.R. 10.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chair, the REIN Act is the culmination of all
of the anti-regulation, anti-government and especially anti-President
Obama legislation that has been brought to this body since January
2009.
All of the political gymnastics we and the White House have been put
through has made it extremely difficult for our President who tried
very hard to craft bipartisan solutions to be able to pass much of his
agenda. I am glad that he is now doing whatever he can through
executive orders, because yes--our country cannot wait.
Even today, with only a few weeks before the deadlines, our
Republican colleagues are blocking extending the payroll tax to keep
families from losing about 1,000 badly needed dollars next year, they
are blocking the extension of unemployment benefits which not only
helps families, including children, but is clearly one of the best
stimuli for our struggling economy; and they are blocking even just a
temporary fix to cuts in fairer payments to the doctors who take care
of our elderly and people with disabilities.
But that was not bad enough, now comes the REIN Act to prevent
government from fulfilling its critical role to provide services, and
to protect the safety, health and wellbeing of people of this country.
They claim they are doing this to get Congress to do their job. Well
as far as I can see Congress was doing their job pretty well in the
recent Congresses, but that all ground to a halt with this one.
In all of the over 9 months of this Congress the Republican
leadership has talked a lot about jobs but done absolutely nothing to
create even one and they have held up or weakened laws that would have
created the jobs the American people need.
In fact they have wasted these nine months by insisting on bringing
legislation to the floor with rhetoric that would keep the fringe
elements of their party happy, but go absolutely nowhere and do
absolutely nothing.
This is yet another bad bill, with a bad intent that has wasted our
time.
The people of this country want government to be there to protect
their homes, their money and their retirement, to keep them safe at
work and in their neighborhoods, to provide them with access to quality
health care, to ensure that their children will have a sound education
and meaningful opportunities.
I ask my colleagues to do what the people are calling on us to:
create jobs, extend the payroll reduction and unemployment insurance
and pay our doctors a fairer fee for their services; and to stop
attacking these necessary functions of government. They not only
undermine the role of government, but they are weakening our country
and making us the laughing stock of the world.
They should withdraw the REIN Act, but since they won't, we need to
vote it down and get on with the important issues our fellow Americans
want us to address.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the so-
called ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act
of 2011.''
Federal agencies issue rules based on statues created when Congress
and the President enact legislation. These agencies devote months and
even years conducting research, gathering expertise from skilled
professionals, and seeking public input when crafting major rules.
Congress relies on these agencies to promulgate these rules, because
they have expertise in a given area. However, this bill would require
that congressional politics play a part in deciding complicated rules
and regulations. By preventing agencies from enacting rules, this bill
could undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public's health
and safety.
Supporters of this legislation make the anecdotal claim that this
bill is needed to stop a plethora of regulations. They forget that
Congress currently has considerable power, even the responsibility at
times, to alter and influence federal rulemaking. Congress has the
power under various means to review and reject rules issued by
executive agencies. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress may
pass a joint resolution disapproving any rule within 60 days of
receiving the rule. If the President signs the resolution of
disapproval, the regulation is not implemented. Additionally, it is
important to note that federal agencies are only issuing rules to
implement statutes that have been enacted by Congress. Federal agencies
must adhere to the statute when promulgating a rule. Congress can also
impose restrictions on agency rulemaking through the appropriations
process by preventing agencies from using funds to implement or enforce
certain rules. Congress may also revamp rulemaking procedures. In
addition to the Congressional Review Act, Congress has enacted the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the
Paperwork Reduction Act. All of these bills reform the procedures for
federal rulemaking by federal agencies.
This bill before us today is unnecessary and potentially harmful to
the public health and safety. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, as an administrator and policymaker at the
local, state, and federal levels, I have often seen the value of
common-sense regulations that save lives. I have also seen the
challenges associated with cumbersome regulations that can sometimes
appear to be bureaucracy at its worst. However, in my experience,
regulations tend to be less stringent than necessary rather than overly
strict. While I am very open to discussing how we can make regulations
more effective and efficient, I am extremely disappointed with the
anti-regulatory agenda of the House leadership.
Congress today considers yet another attack on our government's basic
ability to enforce laws that protect public health and the environment.
Every major law requires enforcement by the executive branch of
government, and enforcement requires agencies to write regulations that
explain and make public how that agency is going to enforce the law.
The bills under consideration by the House will stop the regulatory
process in its tracks. Agencies will not be able to enforce new laws or
complete updates to regulations as required by existing laws, such as
the Clean Air Act.
H.R. 10, the REINS Act, requires both the House and the Senate to
vote on every major regulation before that regulation can be enforced,
providing only seventy days to do it. This will allow either house of
Congress to effectively veto any major regulation that would enforce a
law already passed by Congress merely by taking no action.
H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, adds additional
requirements to the regulatory process and overrides standards in
existing laws that protect public health and safety. This bill would
require agencies to analyze not only the direct costs of regulatory
changes, but also vaguely defined indirect costs, as well as costs and
benefits of potential alternative rules. The bill requires agencies in
nearly every case to use the least costly rule, instead of balancing
costs and benefits as required in existing laws. This standard will
make it nearly impossible for an agency to regulate at all, because
there is always an alternative that could be less costly, even if the
public at large bears the much higher cost of less protective rules.
H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, expands the review that
agencies must conduct before issuing new regulations to include an
evaluation of all reasonably foreseeable ``indirect'' costs of
regulations, especially to small businesses. Virtually any proposed
agency action--even a guidance document designed to help a business
comply with a rule--could be subject to a lengthy regulatory process.
The additional analysis would make any change to a regulation even more
difficult. There are already more than 110 separate procedural
requirements in the rulemaking process; additional review and analysis
will not improve regulations, but merely add to delay.
These bills add additional steps on top of the current process. For
major regulations the process, from writing a regulation to its
enforcement, can already take four to eight
[[Page 19127]]
years. If Congress feels at the end of that process that a regulation
is inappropriate in any way, it already has the authority to vote to
overturn that regulation and direct the agency to start over. These
bills are unnecessary.
It's time for Congress to move beyond a debate about repealing
regulations and focus instead on how to make them more effective and
efficient. I strongly oppose these three bills that do not make any
changes for the better, but instead jeopardize important progress on
protecting health and safety.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 10, the
Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.
This bill is another instance of the Republican Majority playing
politics, rather than focusing on passing legislation that creates
jobs, grows our economy, and protects the American people. Requiring
that Congress approve all agency rules and regulations with an annual
economic cost of $100 million or more would not only handicap our
government's ability to regulate health and safety laws, it would also
distract Congress from addressing pressing issues like job creation,
national security and reducing our deficit. After an entire year in
which the Republican Majority has demonstrated an inability to take up
a productive legislative schedule--forcing last-minute votes on
critical issues and not even introducing any kind of serious jobs
agenda--it seems ludicrous to suggest that Congress should be spending
its time nitpicking federal agencies about enacting regulations that
Congress has authorized or ordered be done.
Additionally, this bill would actually harm job creation and hurt
businesses. By creating a scenario in which regulations are proposed,
and then potentially overridden, and then potentially proposed yet
again in a new form, businesses will be forced to spend significant
time and resources just keeping track of all the changes--decreasing
their productivity and bottom line. This will create uncertainty for
businesses and harm job creation--the very thing that the Republican
Majority asserts that this bill will prevent. This is nothing more than
blatant political posturing, as evidenced by the fact that Congress
already has the authority to review and override federal rules under
the Congressional Review Act.
The fact is that federal agencies need to be able to issue rules in a
timely and efficient manner to protect the health and welfare of the
American people and help grow our economy. Industries and individuals
in areas from finance to farming rely on rulemaking and regulations to
facilitate their businesses, and this bill would undermine that. I urge
a no vote.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express strong opposition to
legislation this chamber passed yesterday, H.R. 10, the Regulations
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2011.
The REINS Act requires that both chambers of Congress pass a
resolution approving every regulation with an economic impact of $100
million or more. If Congress fails to pass such a resolution, that
regulation would not take effect, and the law would go unimplemented.
I oppose this legislation, which would hurt the health, safety, and
well-being of my constituents and Hawaii's communities. We cannot let
our constituents and communities down when it comes to these vital
responsibilities.
For example, this bill would stop the rules that are being written
now to implement the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act--
which will rein in reckless behavior in financial markets. Important
rules to implement the health care law--which is already lowering drug
costs for seniors--would also be stopped. And rules relating to the
recent food safety legislation and protecting clean air and water would
be stopped.
These rules--and the laws they are implementing--were and are opposed
by various powerful corporate special interests. Those special
interests know they don't have the votes to repeal these laws--and they
know the American people don't want them repealed.
So instead, corporate special interests and their allies claim that
the costs of these types of rules are too big to be worth it.
They're wrong.
Even the Bush Administration recognized that the benefits of rules
like these outweigh their costs. In fact, in 2008, the Office of
Management and Budget--which must sign off on all major rules developed
by federal agencies--estimated that costs to the economy for major
rules it approved were between $46 billion and $54 billion. These costs
were far outweighed by the benefits of those same regulations, which
they estimated to be between $122 billion and $656 billion. Imagine if
the rules that are being written to implement Wall Street Reform had
been on the books in 2005, before the financial crisis came to a head?
I believe our country could have reined in rampant, out of control
behavior of Wall Street, and such regulations could have saved our
economy trillions of dollars in lost economic growth and hard-earned
retirement and college savings. Millions of people who have lost jobs
could still be working. And this body could be focused on matters like
improving U.S. education, economic competitiveness, and reducing our
deficit.
Not only would this bill halt our regulatory system in its tracks,
but it is also unnecessary. The Congressional Review Act already gives
Congress the ability to review and disapprove of regulations if they
are contrary to Congressional intent. This system ensures that the laws
enacted by Congress are implemented appropriately, while preventing the
law and its implementation from being hijacked by special interests on
a whim--and creating disruptive uncertainty for our economy and legal
system.
Mr. Chair, people in Hawaii are tired of these politically motivated
bills. They want the federal government to get to work helping to
create jobs, protecting health and safety, and to do so responsibly.
The REINS Act also fails miserably on that front. This legislation
would require federal agencies to conduct the rigorous analysis
required to develop a rule--a process that can take several years--only
to have that rule stopped by Congress. This is a waste of federal
resources and irresponsible at a time when Congress needs to focus on
creating jobs and reducing our deficit.
These are just some of the concerns I have with the REINS Act, and
some of the reasons that I voted against this unnecessary and ill
conceived legislation.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, the amendment in
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules,
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of
House Report 112-311, shall be considered as adopted, shall be
considered as an original bill for purpose of further amendment under
the 5-minute rule, and shall be considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 10
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 ``Regulations From the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to increase accountability for
and transparency in the federal regulatory process. Section 1
of article I of the United States Constitution grants all
legislative powers to Congress. Over time, Congress has
excessively delegated its constitutional charge while failing
to conduct appropriate oversight and retain accountability
for the content of the laws it passes. By requiring a vote in
Congress, the REINS Act will result in more carefully drafted
and detailed legislation, an improved regulatory process, and
a legislative branch that is truly accountable to the
American people for the laws imposed upon them.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING.
Chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``CHAPTER 8--CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING
``Sec.
``801. Congressional review.
``802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules.
``803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules.
``804. Definitions.
``805. Judicial review.
``806. Exemption for monetary policy.
``807. Effective date of certain rules.
``Sec. 801. Congressional review
``(a)(1)(A) Before a rule may take effect, the Federal
agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report
containing--
``(i) a copy of the rule;
``(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule;
``(iii) a classification of the rule as a major or nonmajor
rule, including an explanation of the classification
specifically addressing each criteria for a major rule
contained within sections 804(2)(A), 804(2)(B), and
804(2)(C);
``(iv) a list of any other related regulatory actions
intended to implement the same statutory provision or
regulatory objective as well as the individual and aggregate
economic effects of those actions; and
``(v) the proposed effective date of the rule.
``(B) On the date of the submission of the report under
subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule
shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to
each House of Congress--
``(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the
rule, if any;
[[Page 19128]]
``(ii) the agency's actions pursuant to sections 603, 604,
605, 607, and 609 of this title;
``(iii) the agency's actions pursuant to sections 202, 203,
204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and
``(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under
any other Act and any relevant Executive orders.
``(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph
(A), each House shall provide copies of the report to the
chairman and ranking member of each standing committee with
jurisdiction under the rules of the House of Representatives
or the Senate to report a bill to amend the provision of law
under which the rule is issued.
``(2)(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on
each major rule to the committees of jurisdiction by the end
of 15 calendar days after the submission or publication date
as provided in section 802(b)(2). The report of the
Comptroller General shall include an assessment of the
agency's compliance with procedural steps required by
paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller
General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller
General's report under subparagraph (A).
``(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall take effect upon enactment of a joint
resolution of approval described in section 802 or as
provided for in the rule following enactment of a joint
resolution of approval described in section 802, whichever is
later.
``(4) A nonmajor rule shall take effect as provided by
section 803 after submission to Congress under paragraph (1).
``(5) If a joint resolution of approval relating to a major
rule is not enacted within the period provided in subsection
(b)(2), then a joint resolution of approval relating to the
same rule may not be considered under this chapter in the
same Congress by either the House of Representatives or the
Senate.
``(b)(1) A major rule shall not take effect unless the
Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval described
under section 802.
``(2) If a joint resolution described in subsection (a) is
not enacted into law by the end of 70 session days or
legislative days, as applicable, beginning on the date on
which the report referred to in section 801(a)(1)(A) is
received by Congress (excluding days either House of Congress
is adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of
Congress), then the rule described in that resolution shall
be deemed not to be approved and such rule shall not take
effect.
``(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a major rule may
take effect for one 90-calendar-day period if the President
makes a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written
notice of such determination to the Congress.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the
President by Executive order that the major rule should take
effect because such rule is--
``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency;
``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
``(C) necessary for national security; or
``(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an
international trade agreement.
``(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under
this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under
section 802.
``(d)(1) In addition to the opportunity for review
otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any
rule for which a report was submitted in accordance with
subsection (a)(1)(A) during the period beginning on the date
occurring--
``(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days, or
``(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60
legislative days,
before the date the Congress is scheduled to adjourn a
session of Congress through the date on which the same or
succeeding Congress first convenes its next session, sections
802 and 803 shall apply to such rule in the succeeding
session of Congress.
``(2)(A) In applying sections 802 and 803 for purposes of
such additional review, a rule described under paragraph (1)
shall be treated as though--
``(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register on--
``(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day, or
``(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the
15th legislative day,
after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and
``(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress
under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
affect the requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report
shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect.
``(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take
effect as otherwise provided by law (including other
subsections of this section).
``Sec. 802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules
``(a)(1) For purposes of this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution addressing a report
classifying a rule as major pursuant to section
801(a)(1)(A)(iii) that--
``(A) bears no preamble;
``(B) bears the following title (with blanks filled as
appropriate): `Approving the rule submitted by ___ relating
to ___.';
``(C) includes after its resolving clause only the
following (with blanks filled as appropriate): `That Congress
approves the rule submitted by ___ relating to ___.'; and
``(D) is introduced pursuant to paragraph (2).
``(2) After a House of Congress receives a report
classifying a rule as major pursuant to section
801(a)(1)(A)(iii), the majority leader of that House (or his
or her respective designee) shall introduce (by request, if
appropriate) a joint resolution described in paragraph (1)--
``(A) in the case of the House of Representatives, within
three legislative days; and
``(B) in the case of the Senate, within three session days.
``(3) A joint resolution described in paragraph (1) shall
not be subject to amendment at any stage of proceeding.
``(b) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall
be referred in each House of Congress to the committees
having jurisdiction over the provision of law under which the
rule is issued.
``(c) In the Senate, if the committee or committees to
which a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has been
referred have not reported it at the end of 15 session days
after its introduction, such committee or committees shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of the
resolution and it shall be placed on the calendar. A vote on
final passage of the resolution shall be taken on or before
the close of the 15th session day after the resolution is
reported by the committee or committees to which it was
referred, or after such committee or committees have been
discharged from further consideration of the resolution.
``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee or committees to
which a joint resolution is referred have reported, or when a
committee or committees are discharged (under subsection (c))
from further consideration of a joint resolution described in
subsection (a), it is at any time thereafter in order (even
though a previous motion to the same effect has been
disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to the consideration of
the joint resolution, and all points of order against the
joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint
resolution) are waived. The motion is not subject to
amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to
proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to
reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or
disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to
the consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the
joint resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the
Senate until disposed of.
``(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on
all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith,
shall be limited to not more than 2 hours, which shall be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
joint resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in
order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to
postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution
is not in order.
``(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion
of the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection
(a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate
if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the
vote on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
``(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to
the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be decided without debate.
``(e) In the House of Representatives, if any committee to
which a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has been
referred has not reported it to the House at the end of 15
legislative days after its introduction, such committee shall
be discharged from further consideration of the joint
resolution, and it shall be placed on the appropriate
calendar. On the second and fourth Thursdays of each month it
shall be in order at any time for the Speaker to recognize a
Member who favors passage of a joint resolution that has
appeared on the calendar for at least 5 legislative days to
call up that joint resolution for immediate consideration in
the House without intervention of any point of order. When so
called up a joint resolution shall be considered as read and
shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and the previous question
shall be considered as ordered to its passage without
intervening motion. It shall not be in order to reconsider
the vote on passage. If a vote on final passage of the joint
resolution has not been taken by the third Thursday on which
the Speaker may recognize a Member under this subsection,
such vote shall be taken on that day.
``(f)(1) If, before passing a joint resolution described in
subsection (a), one House receives from the other a joint
resolution having the same text, then--
``(A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee; and
``(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the
same as if no joint resolution had been received from the
other House until the vote on passage, when the joint
resolution received from the other House shall supplant the
joint resolution of the receiving House.
``(2) This subsection shall not apply to the House of
Representatives if the joint resolution received from the
Senate is a revenue measure.
``(g) If either House has not taken a vote on final passage
of the joint resolution by the last day of the period
described in section 801(b)(2), then such vote shall be taken
on that day.
[[Page 19129]]
``(h) This section and section 803 are enacted by
Congress--
``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such is
deemed to be part of the rules of each House, respectively,
but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be
followed in that House in the case of a joint resolution
described in subsection (a) and superseding other rules only
where explicitly so; and
``(2) with full recognition of the Constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to
the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner
and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of
that House.
``Sec. 803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor
rules
``(a) For purposes of this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced in the
period beginning on the date on which the report referred to
in section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and ending 60
days thereafter (excluding days either House of Congress is
adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress),
the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows:
`That Congress disapproves the nonmajor rule submitted by the
_ _ relating to _ _, and such rule shall have no force or
effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in).
``(b)(1) A joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress
with jurisdiction.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the term submission or
publication date means the later of the date on which--
``(A) the Congress receives the report submitted under
section 801(a)(1); or
``(B) the nonmajor rule is published in the Federal
Register, if so published.
``(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred
a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has not
reported such joint resolution (or an identical joint
resolution) at the end of 15 session days after the date of
introduction of the joint resolution, such committee may be
discharged from further consideration of such joint
resolution upon a petition supported in writing by 30 Members
of the Senate, and such joint resolution shall be placed on
the calendar.
``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint
resolution is referred has reported, or when a committee is
discharged (under subsection (c)) from further consideration
of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at
any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion
to the same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to
proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution, and all
points of order against the joint resolution (and against
consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion
is not subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or
to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other
business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion
is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a
motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint
resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution shall remain
the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of.
``(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on
all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith,
shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
joint resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in
order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to
postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution
is not in order.
``(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion
of the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection
(a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate
if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the
vote on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
``(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to
the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be decided without debate.
``(e) In the Senate the procedure specified in subsection
(c) or (d) shall not apply to the consideration of a joint
resolution respecting a nonmajor rule--
``(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning
with the applicable submission or publication date, or
``(2) if the report under section 801(a)(1)(A) was
submitted during the period referred to in section 801(d)(1),
after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning on the
15th session day after the succeeding session of Congress
first convenes.
``(f) If, before the passage by one House of a joint
resolution of that House described in subsection (a), that
House receives from the other House a joint resolution
described in subsection (a), then the following procedures
shall apply:
``(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee.
``(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in
subsection (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution--
``(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if
no joint resolution had been received from the other House;
but
``(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint
resolution of the other House.
``Sec. 804. Definitions
``For purposes of this chapter--
``(1) The term `Federal agency' means any agency as that
term is defined in section 551(1).
``(2) The term `major rule' means any rule, including an
interim final rule, that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to
result in--
``(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more;
``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
``(C) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
``(3) The term `nonmajor rule' means any rule that is not a
major rule.
``(4) The term `rule' has the meaning given such term in
section 551, except that such term does not include--
``(A) any rule of particular applicability, including a
rule that approves or prescribes for the future rates, wages,
prices, services, or allowances therefore, corporate or
financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or
acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures
bearing on any of the foregoing;
``(B) any rule relating to agency management or personnel;
or
``(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
``Sec. 805. Judicial review
``(a) No determination, finding, action, or omission under
this chapter shall be subject to judicial review.
``(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a court may determine
whether a Federal agency has completed the necessary
requirements under this chapter for a rule to take effect.
``(c) The enactment of a joint resolution of approval under
section 802 shall not be interpreted to serve as a grant or
modification of statutory authority by Congress for the
promulgation of a rule, shall not extinguish or affect any
claim, whether substantive or procedural, against any alleged
defect in a rule, and shall not form part of the record
before the court in any judicial proceeding concerning a rule
except for purposes of determining whether or not the rule is
in effect.
``Sec. 806. Exemption for monetary policy
``Nothing in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern
monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee.
``Sec. 807. Effective date of certain rules
``Notwithstanding section 801--
``(1) any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes,
or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial,
recreational, or subsistence activity related to hunting,
fishing, or camping; or
``(2) any rule other than a major rule which an agency for
good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefore in the rule issued) that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,
shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency
promulgating the rule determines.''.
SEC. __. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF RULES SUBJECT TO SECTION 802 OF
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.
Section 257(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Budgetary effects of rules subject to section 802 of
title 5, united states code.--Any rules subject to the
congressional approval procedure set forth in section 802 of
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, affecting budget
authority, outlays, or receipts shall be assumed to be
effective unless it is not approved in accordance with such
section.''.
The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in order
except those printed in part B of the report. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sessions
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 25, line 18, insert ``, including an analysis of any
jobs added or lost, differentiating between public and
private sector jobs'' before the semicolon.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
[[Page 19130]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to first thank, if I can, the author of this piece of
legislation, the gentleman from Kentucky, Geoff Davis. Mr. Davis has
distinguished himself among, not only our colleagues, but also, I
believe, his strong support of free enterprise and the people of
Kentucky in doing his job, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here
to help in that endeavor today.
I believe that excessive government regulations are a significant
barrier to the creation of private sector jobs in America today. This
Congress has made job creation a priority. As a matter of fact, we had
the minority leader down talking just a few minutes ago about job
creation and the priority that it needs to represent. And as a result,
we must review regulations which stand in the way of not only having
more jobs, but also the overuse of rules and regulations that prohibit
and add to jobs and job creation.
{time} 1520
That proposal that I believe we need to look at is whether the
benefits outweigh any potential economic harm that might come.
My amendment requires the agencies submitting the report on a
proposed Federal rule to include an assessment of anticipated jobs
gained or lost as a result of its implementation and to specify whether
those jobs will come from the public or the private sector.
This assessment would be part of the cost benefit analysis. It would
be required to be submitted to the Comptroller General and made
available to each Member of the House prior to our consideration of the
rule.
I believe that what we are doing here today is positive, not only a
benefit to the country in terms of recognizing that rules and
regulations are burdening our economic engine, but also we are doing
something about it here today, and I'm very, very proud to be here in
support of this.
Earlier this year, I introduced House Resolution 72, and the House
passed it with a strong bipartisan vote in February. My bill required
authorizing committees in the House to review existing, pending, and
proposed regulations through hearings this year and to report back to
the House with their findings.
The REINS Act today before us is an extension, I believe, of H. Res.
72 and is an important measure to ensure that the government does not
compete against the free enterprise system. And if it does, Congress
should understand that at the time that we pass our laws.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this important addition.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. I want to merely start off by recognizing that somewhere
buried in this amendment is the gentleman from Texas' recognition that
regulations could or might create jobs. I want to thank him for that.
There's no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation.
Now, we've talked about this for 2 days. But at our hearing in the
Judiciary Committee, one of the anti-regulatory bills that we
considered, we had an American Enterprise Institute witness,
Christopher DeMuth, from the conservative think tank that AEI is, and
he stated in his prepared testimony that focus on jobs can lead to
confusion in regulatory debates and that the employment effects of
regulation, while important, are indeterminate.
I must say to my colleagues that that is exactly the same impression
that I came out of my Judiciary Committee hearing with, and it's the
same impression that I've come to realize is probably accurate in the
debate for the last few days on the floor of the House itself.
I'm concerned about this amendment because it would add to the
analytical burdens of agencies, the speculative assessment of jobs
added or lost, and how many of those jobs would be added or lost in the
public and private sectors.
For these reasons, I conclude that this amendment would not be
helpful, and I am unable to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my Texas colleague for
yielding me time, and I also thank him for offering this amendment.
The bill restores to Congress the accountability for the regulatory
decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. As Congress makes
those decisions, one of the most important facts to consider is whether
new regulations produce jobs or destroy them.
The amendment guarantees that when agencies submit new regulations to
Congress, their cost benefit analyses will be made available.
The amendment also assures that agencies will specifically identify
regulations' impact on private and public sector jobs. With that
information, Congress will be in a position to determine whether to
approve the rules. And the American people will be in a postilion to
hold Congress accountable for those decisions.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I believe that the case which we're bringing forth today to Congress
is that we believe that jobs should be priority number one for this
United States Congress and for the American people--not just the middle
class, but investors and people who want to have great jobs in this
country, for us to be competitive with the world. For us to do that, we
need to recognize that people in Washington, D.C., who probably
wouldn't recognize the free enterprise system if they saw it put rules
and regulations on people; they don't understand the business; they
don't understand how they operate; and they sure as heck don't
understand why it's important to have a free enterprise system, one
which is nimble and prepared and ready for competition.
I spent 16 years without missing a day of work in the private sector
prior to coming to Congress. During those 16 years, I learned firsthand
about how rules and regulations by the Federal Government and others
can impede not only us and our ability to add jobs but perhaps more
importantly, for us to be competitive. And I want to know today those
people who will support us making sure that we look at a rule and
regulation and understand what the impact on jobs would be.
That's what this vote will be. All Members will have an opportunity
to come down to say, We think that there should be a consideration or
should not be a consideration, at the time a rule will be written by an
agency, what will be the impact of that rule. It would elude me to
understand why someone would not want to include that as part of a cost
benefit analysis.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 45, line 22, insert after the first period the
following:
``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules
``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule that the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget determines
will result in net job creation. This chapter, as in effect
before the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in
Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after
such enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the
item relating to section 807 the following new item:
808. Exemption for certain rules.
[[Page 19131]]
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise to support my amendment to this dangerous bill, the REINS Act.
My amendment is simple. It would exempt any rule that the Office of
Management and Budget determines would promote job growth from the
bill's congressional approval requirement, which is very cumbersome.
The Republican majority claims that job growth is its top priority,
and if that's the case, then my Republican friends should support this
amendment. In reality, we all know this bill will not create a single
job, and as part of the majority's anti-regulatory agenda, will make it
virtually impossible to implement rules for our health and safety.
This bill does not fine-tune the regulatory process, as the
Republicans say. It will do nothing but make the regulatory process
more bureaucratic and impose unnecessary hurdles for the agencies
seeking to enact rules that protect our health and safety.
The majority has a scare tactic--that is that regulations kill jobs,
and that's nothing but a myth. The National Federation of Independent
Businesses, which describes itself as the leading small business
association representing small and independent businesses, does a
regular survey of small businesses. And it found that the single most
important problem facing small businesses is poor sales, not
regulations.
The REINS Act would delay, if not halt, regulations that are
necessary for the health and safety of our constituents. Further, the
bill would slow down regulations that may actually foster job growth.
Thus, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are truly
concerned about job growth, I would encourage them to support this
amendment.
I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment because the
regulations that will help put unemployed Americans back to work should
take effect without unnecessary delay.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I could not disagree with the gentleman from Georgia more. It's
obvious which one of us has run a business and which one is talking
about a business.
The reality of the regulatory impact on businesses is huge. All you
have to do is ask small business owners in any of our congressional
districts if they can get credit because of the newly improved FDIC
rules on lending. They will tell you they can't. They can't get credit
because of the new regulations, and banks are being consolidated and
are going under now. We're finding a rash of environmental regulations
throughout the Ohio Valley. Machine tool operators, steel mill
operators and other manufacturers say over and over that they will be
out of business if the cap-and-trade carbon regulations are imposed by
the EPA. These are facts. Health care right now is imposing hiring
freezes with the Affordable Care Act.
Once again, there is no reason under any circumstances that we should
exempt major regulations that do, indeed, have a real impact on hiring,
investment, job creation, and especially on an individual who wants to
take the risk to start a business.
Congress should not abdicate its authority any longer regarding these
rules. We should step up to the plate and be accountable. If we do so,
jobs will be created as a result.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In response, no, I've never operated a
business on Wall Street, and I'm not really concerned about Wall Street
as Wall Street has been getting all of the breaks. This party, the Tea
Party Republicans, seem hellbent on shifting everything in their
direction.
I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am pleased to join my dear friend and
colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, in
offering this amendment as the Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment.
I hold a sign that, I think, speaks to the gist of this amendment,
``Make It In America.'' A number of us have been on the floor of the
House on a regular basis talking about creating jobs and about making
it in America. My good friend from Texas just passed an amendment
without opposition, and I see no reason why the Jackson Lee-Johnson or
Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment cannot be accepted in the very same way.
Bruce Bartlett, one of the senior policy analysts in the Reagan and
George H.W. Bush administrations, observed that regulatory uncertainty
is a canard, an invented canard, that allows those who use it to use
current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business
community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of
opportunism because regulations don't stop you from creating jobs. In
actuality, they provide cleaner air; they provide clean food; they
provide the opportunity of a roadmap so that small and large businesses
can do their work.
The Clean Air Act is a shining example. A lot of regulations came out
of the Clean Air Act. Given that the economy since the Clean Air Act
was passed in 1970 under Richard Milhous Nixon, a Republican, it shows
that the economy has grown 204 percent and that private sector job
creation has expanded 86 percent.
I would ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the Johnson-
Jackson Lee amendment. Let's make it in America. Let's ensure there is
a regulatory process that exempts any regulation that creates jobs. I
ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment #2, that I offered
along with my esteemed colleague Mr. Johnson, to H.R. 10 Regulations
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). Our amendment would
exempt the Office of Management and Budget once it is determined that
the rules they offer will result in net job creation.
REINS would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require
Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an economic
impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act
within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted
directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs.
In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of
Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as
member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the
Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main
functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.
If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule,
it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the
Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields.
Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific
and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of
certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become
adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal
agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to
effect the change that Americans want. For example extending
unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet,
here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our
economy.
As we consider REINS, it is important that we not forget that federal
agencies have their own oversight process in place to ensure that
proposed regulations are thoroughly vetted.
For every proposed regulation, agencies are required to issue notice
of proposed rulemakings to the industry and market over which they
regulate. Those entities then comment on the rules, and they go through
many rounds of changes before a final order is enacted.
[[Page 19132]]
Furthermore, rules enacted by Federal agencies are subject to
Congressional oversight and review, and must meet standards of judicial
review. Arguably, rules and regulations issued by Federal agencies go
through just as much, if not more, review as bills considered and
passed by Congress.
Implementing this rule would put a tremendous burden on Congress, and
to be frank, as members elected by our constituencies to represent
their interests, our time could be utilized in a much more effective
manner.
Instead of debating about oversight authority that Congress already
has, we should be focusing on the issues that most concern the American
people, particularly, creating jobs. As our country rebounds from one
of the most severe economic downturns in our history, it is imperative
that we make decisions that will enable our economy to grow and, most
importantly, create jobs. We should be using our judgment in a manner
that would create American jobs by comprehensively reforming our broken
immigration system. We should be working to implement an orderly
process for immigration that eases the burden on employers, improves
documentation, and complements our enforcement efforts to make them
more effective.
Healthy market competition not only protects consumers, but will help
our economy to prosper. Congress should be examining the consolidation
taking place in certain industries to ensure healthy competition is
alive and thriving.
America is a free enterprise society, and small businesses are part
of the backbone of our economy, employing a vast portion of Americans.
We should be ensuring that any consolidation taking place in the
marketplace does not push out small businesses and render them unable
to compete.
In the last couple of years, some sweeping mergers and acquisitions
have taken place. Just recently, it was reported that 500 jobs are
being cut as a result of last year's United-Continental merger. As we
face a high unemployment rate, and Americans struggle to make ends
meet, every job counts. We should be investigating the outcomes of
mergers such as United-Continental, amongst others, to ensure that no
more precious jobs are being lost.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood up
here and emphasized the importance of jobs for American workers--
especially in the context of immigration debates. However, one of the
largest contributors to the lack of employment opportunities here in
American is the outsourcing of jobs to other countries where the labor
is less expensive. We should be focusing our efforts on ways to return
outsourced jobs to American soil.
Bottom line, Congress has a large responsibility. We carry on our
shoulders the needs of the American people. Our time here is valuable
and our work load is great. We should not further burden this body with
the work that an entire branch of government has already been
commissioned to do, especially since Congress still has oversight
authority.
For each one of us, the needs of the constituents in our districts
should be our priority. The needs of the American people as a whole
should be our priority.
There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation.
The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing clearly debunked
the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who
appeared on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative
think tank, stated in his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs .
. . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the
employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans
back to work. For instance, According to the BlueGreen Alliance, notes:
``Studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found
that most regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect,
and economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with
these health and safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining
example, given that the economy has grown 204% and private sector job
creation has expanded 86% since its passage in 1970.''
Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the
Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure
``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong
economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that
increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of
more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.
The claim that regulatory uncertainty hurts business has been
debunked as political opportunism. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy
analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations observed
``[R]egulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that
allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda
supported by the business community year in and year out. In other
words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious
effort to deal with high unemployment.''
Regulatory uncertainty does not deter business investment. A lack of
demand, not uncertainty about regulation, is cited as the reason for
not hiring.
At a legislative hearing on regulatory reform (H.R. 3010), Professor
Sidney Shapiro similarly noted, ``All of the available evidence
contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business
investment.''
A July 2011 Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found
that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring
is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies.''
The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of
its members likewise shows that ``poor sales''--not regulation--is the
biggest problem. Of those reporting negative sales trends, 45 percent
blamed faltering sales, 5 percent higher labor costs, 15 percent higher
materials costs, 3 percent insurance costs, 8 percent lower selling
prices and 10 percent higher taxes and regulatory costs.''
Small businesses reject the argument that deregulation is what they
need. The Main Street Alliance, an alliance of small businesses,
observes: ``In survey after survey and interview after interview, Main
Street small business owners confirm that what we really need is more
customers--more demand--not deregulation. Policies that restore our
customer base are what we need now, not policies that shift more risk
and more costs onto us from big corporate actors . . .
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to create jobs and get
our country on a path to a strong economic future, what small
businesses need is customers--Americans with spending money in their
pockets--not watered down standards that give big corporations free
reign to cut corners, use their market power at our expense, and force
small businesses to lay people off and close up shop.''
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would point out that Gallup has released a survey that shows that
one in three small business owners is worried about going out of
business; and overwhelmingly, the response to this survey across the
United States points to the uncertainty and the unpredictability caused
by regulations.
This bill, the REINS Act, is not antiregulation. It is about more
transparency and accountability in regulation, and it is about having
Congress step up to the plate. It's important that we work together to
restore that trust and confidence in the Congress--that we do our jobs,
that we stand firm, and that we exercise restraint over the executive
branch so that it cannot act in scoring itself on whether jobs are
created.
Let that be done by the Congress, which is held accountable. Let us
stand for the vote and be accountable to our citizens.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The amendment carves out of the bill regulations that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) determines will lead to net job creation.
The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives OMB to
manipulate its analysis of a major regulation's jobs impacts. Far too
often, OMB will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the bill's
congressional approval requirement.
In addition, regulations alleged to create net new jobs often do so
by destroying real, existing jobs and ``creating'' new, hoped-for jobs
associated with regulatory compliance. For example, some Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act rules will shut down existing
power plants. EPA and OMB may attempt to justify that with claims that
more new, ``green'' jobs will be created as a result.
In the end, that is just another way in which government picks the
jobs winners and the jobs losers. And there is no guarantee that all of
the new, ``green'' jobs will ever actually exist.
[[Page 19133]]
The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It
does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose
between new jobs and old jobs.
Instead, the REINS Act chooses between two ways of making laws. It
chooses the way the Framers intended, in which accountability for laws
with major economic impacts rests with Congress. It rejects the way
Washington has operated for too long, where there is no accountability
because decisions are made by unelected agency officials.
The amendment would undermine that fundamental choice.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 25, line 9, strike ``and''.
Page 25, insert after line 9 the following (and redesignate
provisions accordingly):
``(v) a cost-benefit analysis of the rule; and''.
Page 26, insert after line 11 the following:
``(D) Not later than the later of January 1, 2013 or the
date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011, each Federal agency shall submit to Congress
appropriate criteria for conducting cost-benefit analyses
under subparagraph (A)(v) for each rule for which that agency
may be required to submit such an analysis.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment is pretty straightforward. The goal here is to
actually codify some of what has been done here just by Executive order
to make sure Congress' intent is actually done regardless of what the
executive branch is considering.
It basically codifies the cost-benefit analysis in statute that we
would like to have. As we all know, a lot of times some of our agencies
get a little overzealous, and some of the cost-benefit analyses that
they do or don't do do not actually reflect a lot of the real-world
criteria by which American men and women in businesses actually
operate. So our goal here is to actually follow through on what is
already existing law but to just codify it so it's not a huge change.
There is a little bit more to it. Right now a lot of the independent
Federal agencies are not subject to this Executive order. Of course,
this amendment would actually codify that they should be. There is no
reason any Federal agency should be exempt from giving Americans the
idea of what it's going to cost and what sort of benefit we're going to
get out of this at the end of the day.
Last but not least, I think one of the big pieces that is very, very
important to know as a veterinarian, a man of science a little bit, are
the assumptions by which these cost-benefit analyses are done. That
oftentimes influences the outcome. It's important for the agencies, the
businesses and, again, others in this country to look at what
assumptions are being made when these cost-benefit analyses are being
done. Sometimes they deserve to be challenged, and sometimes questions
need to be raised. So I think it's extremely important that any cost-
benefit analysis assumptions should be made public and transparent.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I also oppose the amendment. The amendment leaves it to each agency
to determine how we will conduct the cost-benefit analyses of any
regulations. This is regrettable. Each agency will be tempted to design
rules that it can manipulate to claim that benefits routinely outweigh
costs. In past administrations when we've seen this attempt done, there
was a divergence of standard; there was no continuity and virtually no
reduction in the regulations or understanding of this across the whole
of government.
The Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House passed on December
2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-
benefit analyses. This improves quality, and it prevents deceptive
actions by rogue agencies. The amendment undercuts that effort.
Similarly, under executive order 12866, the President has long required
agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit analyses. The
amendment undermines that requirement, too.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The amendment leaves it to each agency to determine how it will
conduct cost-benefit analyses of new regulations. This is regrettable.
Each agency will be tempted to design rules that it can manipulate to
claim that benefits routinely outweigh costs.
The Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House passed on December
2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-
benefit analyses. This improves quality and prevents deceptive actions
by rogue agencies. The amendment undercuts that effort.
Similarly, under Executive Order 12866, the President has long
required agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit
analyses. The amendment undermines that requirement, too.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will be postponed.
{time} 1540
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McKinley
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 42, line 23, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert
``$50,000,000''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would reduce the threshold for a major rule from $100 million or more
to $50 million. This would ensure greater accountability.
Let's keep this in perspective. I base this amendment on legislation
that has already been adopted by the House--in 1995--with bipartisan
support which lowered the threshold to $50 million. It passed with a
vote of 277-141 with much of today's leadership who were here at the
time supporting it.
Also, in perspective, in fiscal year 2011, only 2.6 percent of all
the rules were classified as ``major,'' and in 2010 it was only 3
percent that met that criteria. Keep that in consideration. Would you
be satisfied with only 2 or 3
[[Page 19134]]
percent of your food being inspected or 2 or 3 percent of the aircraft
which we fly?
According to the Small Business Administration, in 2008 it cost the
economy $1.75 trillion in regulations. We just went through a gut-
wrenching supercommittee that tried to reduce $1.5 trillion, but yet we
let, every year, hundreds of billions of dollars pass through without
involvement of Congress.
Since January of this year, we have already seen 67,000 more pages of
regulation, 88 million hours, man-hours, have been lost by businesses
and employers trying to respond to the regulatory reform. None of this
has had congressional oversight or approval.
Canada realizes there needs to be more accountability, and they
require all rules and regs of $50 million or more to come before their
legislative body.
Congress, having jurisdiction of only 2 or 4 percent may be better
than nothing, but I believe America deserves better. We need a system
of checks and balances. No wonder the American people have lost their
confidence in Congress and the Federal Government. I'm hopeful that the
chairman will see the issues that I have raised here today and work
with me on future legislation to correct that.
With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for
yielding me time.
I share my colleague's desire to bring more congressional scrutiny to
major regulations and appreciate his interest in the subject.
I know that recent major regulations have hit West Virginia and the
gentleman's constituents particularly hard. The Environmental
Protection Agency's major regulations that affect energy sources and
power production are among the most troubling.
I look forward to continued discussions with the gentleman on these
and other issues of interest to him.
Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your willingness
to work with me on these issues.
Since Congress deserves to have more specific numbers that have not
been available from GAO and the CBO relative to lowering this threshold
from $100 million to $50 million, I ask unanimous consent, for now, to
withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 45, line 22, strike the quotation marks and second
period.
Page 45, insert the following after line 22:
``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules
``Sections 801 through 807, as amended by the Regulations
From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall not
apply in the case of any rule that relates to the safety of
food, the safety of the workplace, air quality, the safety of
consumer products, or water quality. The provisions of this
chapter, as in effect before the enactment of the Regulations
From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall
continue to apply, after such enactment, to any rule
described in the preceding sentence.''.
Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the
item relating to section 807 the following new item:
``808. Exemption for certain rules.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. McCarthy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise today to offer an amendment to the deeply flawed bill before
us right now.
Today we continue the majority's politically motivated attacks on
regulations. For the past 2 weeks, we have considered bills designed to
slow down and stop the regulatory process.
The bill before us today doesn't target just the rules that the
majority might like you to believe are problematic; it would hamper all
rulemaking, even those rules that are essential to public health and
safety.
My amendment today seeks to address that issue by exempting the REINS
Act regulations relating to food safety, workplace safety, air quality,
consumer product safety, or water quality.
These issue areas are too important to be impeded by the majority's
need to generate political talking points. Consumers can't be put at
risk because one House of Congress can't get its act together to pass
food safety regulations.
Children at risk from being exposed to toxic substances in toys can't
wait for 535 new regulators to weigh in--that's us, the Members of
Congress. People getting sick from tainted water supplies shouldn't be
put further at risk by a legislative vote from one half of one-third of
the branches of the government.
Today's bill, the REINS Act, would amend the Congressional Review Act
to prohibit a majority rule from going into effect unless Congress
enacts a joint resolution of approval, specifically approving the rule.
This is a bizarre, backwards, and unnecessary piece of legislation.
The majority claims to be aiming to streamline the regulatory process
and reduce the negative effects of a bureaucracy on the American people
and on American businesses.
Ironically, however, this bill has the effect of growing the
regulatory process by effectively adding 535 of us additional
regulators to the process. Each Member of Congress will now have to
perform the role of a regulator. Congress will be forced to review the
rules and regulations regarding highly technical matters currently
handled by subject area experts.
This technical complexity is precisely why we have professionals in
the executive branch with subject matter expertise to work on these
rules and regulations. This divide has been the fundamental cornerstone
of the principal of separation of powers.
But Congress is intended to represent the people and enact laws. The
executive branch is intended to implement those laws. That
implementation takes the form of issuing rules, regulations, and
specific guidance on how the law will be implemented.
The REINS Act inappropriately puts Congress into duties that should
be carried out only by the executive branch. Congress does have
oversight responsibility and a duty to monitor implementation, but we
currently have methods to address the problems when they do occur, and
we do not need this bill. The bill also will lead to confusion,
uncertainty, and more gridlock.
Thanks to the REINS Act requirement that Congress affirmatively
approve of every major rule, one House of Congress will essentially
have a legislative veto over any major regulation issued.
The worst time for businesses is uncertainty, and the REINS Act
increases it in the regulatory process. After engaging in the process
of helping to shape the regulations through the rulemaking process,
citizens will have to wonder what actions will Congress take. What
legislative deal-making will occur? Will Congress approve of the
regulation? When will Congress approve the regulation?
This uncertainty keeps businesses from investing and from hiring new
workers. More uncertainty under the REINS Act is the opposite of what
we need. Congress should spend more of its time thoroughly considering
enacting legislation. We should have the implementation where it
belongs, in the executive branch. We should continue to monitor
implementation and exercise proper oversight. And in the cases where
correction is needed, use the current legislative tools that we have at
our disposal to address those issues.
I do urge all of our Members to vote for my amendment to protect the
American people.
We don't need more gridlock here in Washington. That's why everybody
back at home is mad at everybody. We
[[Page 19135]]
need to go on with our work. We have to make sure that there is a
streamlined process so that we can get small businesses growing again,
get people back to work. That's what the American people want from all
of us.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1550
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major
regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace
safety, consumer product safety, clean water, and clean air.
In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the
most cost, do not produce enough benefits, and do not faithfully
implement the intent of the people's representatives in the Congress
and in the Senate.
A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's recent
proposal to control mercury emissions from coal and oil-fired power
plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to
achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits.
That is an 1,833 to 1 cost-benefit ratio. Most of the benefits EPA
identified to justify the rule had nothing to do with the control of
hazardous air pollution. Proponents of the regulation have nothing to
fear from the REINS Act. When agencies prepare good major regulations,
Congress will be able to approve them. This provides agencies with a
powerful incentive to get major regulations right the first time.
Think about this from the perspective of the mercury regulation that
had the 1,833 to 1 cost-benefit ratio. Who do you think is going to pay
for that? The mistake that is made in the arguments saying that it's
the rich on Wall Street who benefit are entirely wrong. It's
hardworking taxpayers. It's the middle class, the working poor, and the
elderly whose utility rates will be driven through the roof as a result
of a regulation that was imposed against the intent of the Congress.
When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be
able, under the REINS Act, to correct the agency and send it back to
the drawing board. In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a
good regulation that Congress will approve.
It will improve the dialogue between the executive branch and the
Congress. But until it does, those who must pay for regulations will
not have to pay for the cost of a misguided major rule made by people
who are not accountable to our voters.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.
The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major
regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace
safety, consumer product safety, clean water and clean air.
In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the
most costs, do not produce enough benefits and do not faithfully
implement Congress' intent.
A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent
proposal to control mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power
plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to
achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits.
That is a 1,833:1 cost-benefit ratio.
Most of the benefits EPA identified to justify the rule had nothing
to do with the control of hazardous air pollution.
Proponents of regulation have nothing to fear from the REINS Act.
When agencies prepare good major regulations, Congress will be able to
approve them. This provides agencies with a powerful incentive to get
major regulations right the first time.
When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be
able to correct the agency and send it back to the drawing board.
In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a good regulation
that Congress approves. But until it does, those who must pay for
regulations will not have to pay for the costs of a misguided major
rule.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 45, line 22, insert after the first period the
following:
``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules
``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule made by the
Secretary of Homeland Security. This chapter, as in effect
before the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in
Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after
such enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the
item relating to section 807 the following new item:
808. Exemption for certain rules.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
What America wants and what I believe is important to the institution
that we have such great respect for is for Members to work together.
There are a number of amendments that were allowed by the Rules
Committee, and I thank them; and the idea should be that these
amendments improve a bill.
It is obvious that I disagree with this bill because I think it will
literally shut down government. If you cannot pass simple bills that
have been passed out of the House of Representatives to the other body
and they have not yet passed, we've finished one year of the 112th
Congress, how do you think we can manage what is called major
rulemaking? Eighty different rules would have to be approved by the
President, the House, and the Senate. Literally, the American people
would be held hostage.
So this amendment is a cooperative amendment. I think it makes the
bill better. The reason why, we have our soldiers, most likely on the
front lines of Afghanistan. On account of a heinous act of terrorism on
9/11, our soldiers were dispatched to defend this Nation in
Afghanistan. In doing so, they had as their backup the Department of
Homeland Security, a Department whose responsibility is to secure the
homeland. Simply ask the 9/11 families how serious it is to secure the
homeland.
My amendment would simply say that Homeland Security regulations or
regulations dealing with securing the homeland, making America safe,
would be exempt from this dilatory, long-winded process of approval. We
need urgency when we speak of securing the homeland.
For example, it is well known that we deal not only with a terrorism
potential from around the world, but it is also possible to have a
catastrophic event that deals with a domestic terrorist attack.
I cannot believe that my colleagues would not want to act in a
bipartisan manner and, in particular, with the REINS Act that requires
a voted-on resolution of approval, otherwise the
[[Page 19136]]
security amendment does not go into place. I cannot believe that we
would not in a bipartisan way accept the Jackson Lee amendment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I would point out, first of all, that in a
national emergency, the President of the United States does have the
ability to enact an emergency rule. But what this amendment seeks to do
is shield the Department of Homeland Security from Congress's authority
to approve regulations under the REINS Act. That shield should be
denied.
For example, take the Department's rule to extend compliance
deadlines for States to issue secure driver's licenses under the REAL
ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 when hijackers used fraudulent licenses to
board airplanes to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, DHS continues to
extend the deadline.
Another example is the Department's 2009 rule to recall the Bush
administration's no-match rule. That regulation helped companies to
identify illegal workers and comply with Federal immigration law. When
the Obama administration issued its rule to repeal no match, it put the
interests of illegal immigrants above those of millions of unemployed
Americans and legal immigrants.
This is the kind of decisionmaking that takes place at the Department
of Homeland Security. Congress should use every tool it can use to
reassert its authority over the legislation rulemaking functions it has
delegated to DHS. The result will be to streamline communication, to
improve communication in crisp and focused pieces of legislation and
regulation. The REINS Act is available to do that.
The point of the REINS Act is accountability, and each Congressman
must take a stand to be accountable for regulations that cost our
citizenry $100 million or more annually.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his explanation, but I think he plays right
into the reason why he should join me and make this a bipartisan
amendment.
Frankly, I don't think we would want to throw out or delay any
process of rulemaking dealing with securing the homeland. I think when
the gentleman was citing licenses, he was speaking
9/11. It is now 11 years, and we have passed a number of rulemakings
that have improved securing the homeland. As a member of the Homeland
Security Committee, I'm quite aware of the progress we've made, such as
not having to address that kind of, if you will, mishap--more than a
mishap--but that kind of lack of communication that we had on 9/11.
The point I want to make is our soldiers are on the front line in
Afghanistan. They are asking, as someone would say on the playing
field, Have you got my back? The Department of Homeland Security is
that Department created from the Select Committee on Homeland Security
which I was on, now in the Homeland Security Committee, to in fact
provide for the security of the Nation. With that in mind, I think it
is untenable to think of thwarting that process.
What we have here in the REINS Act is truly the REINS Act. It is a
stranglehold on moving the Nation forward on good regulations, clean
air, clean water, but in this instance securing the homeland. I believe
that having the President, the Senate, and the House come together in a
reasonable period of time to approve a rule dealing with securing the
homeland while soldiers are on the front line defending us is an
atrocious position to put the securing of the Nation in.
Let me just say this, Bruce Bartlett is a Republican. He said that
the regulatory uncertainty that Republicans talk about is a canard
invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic
problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year
in and year out. That's from a Republican.
The question is let's separate the special interests. The REINS Act
is here. They have the majority. More than likely it will pass. But
they're going to ignore our war and our fight to secure the homeland.
{time} 1600
Here on the front line, what are we doing? We're putting a
stranglehold on the rulemaking that will come forward that's attempting
to help the American people. If we have to do something for the
Transportation Security Administration and the security checkpoints and
we need a rule, it's going to be held back because of this process.
I ask for the support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #6, to H.R. 10,
``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny'' (REINS). This
bill amends the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to require Congressional
approval of all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is
greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the
rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted directly at
executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs. Under current law
Congress can provide oversight and disapprove of a promulgated bill.
My amendment would exempt all rules promulgated by the Department of
Homeland Security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and
Ranking Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very
concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of
Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency.
The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and
complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second-
guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal
challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and
delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health
and safety of millions of Americans at risk.
The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to
be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when
the safety and security of the American people are at risk.
According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute,
public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly
impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last
several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly
outweighed their costs.
There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of
my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it
more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the
case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of
our citizens.
In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top
priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies
foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to
protect our country. DHS cannot react to the constantly changing threat
landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.
Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we
have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have
been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11
do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped
push the United States forward in how protect our nation. Continuing to
make advance in Homeland security and intelligence is the best way to
combat the threats we still face.
The Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a wide variety of
duties under its mission. One example of an instance where DHS may have
to act quickly to establish new or emergency regulations is the
protection of our cyber security.
In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically.
The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating
disruption of the operation of information systems for critical
infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and
national security of the United States.
We are all affected by threats to our cyber security. We must act to
reduce our vulnerabilities to these threats before they can be
exploited. A failure to protect our cyber systems would damage our
Nation's critical infrastructure. So, we must continue to ensure that
such disruptions of cyberspace are infrequent, of minimal duration,
manageable, and cause the least possible damage.
Like other national security challenges in the post 9/11 era, the
cyber threat is multifaceted
[[Page 19137]]
and without boundaries. Some cyber attackers are foreign nations that
utilize their military or intelligence-gathering operations, whereas
others are either operating alone or are connected to terrorist groups.
In addition, there are cyber threats that are international or domestic
criminal enterprises.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number
of cyber incidents reported by Federal agencies to US-CERT has
increased dramatically over the past four years, from 5,503 cyber
incidents reported in FY 2006 to about 30,000 cyber incidents in FY
2009 (over a 400 percent increase).
The four most prevalent types of cyber incidents and events reported
to US-CERT during FY 2009 were malicious code; improper usage;
unauthorized access and incidents warranting further investigations
(unconfirmed malicious or anomalous activity).
Critical infrastructure in the Nation is composed of public and
private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public
health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base,
information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and
finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping.
With cyberspace as their central nervous system--it is the control
system of our country. Cyberspace is composed of hundreds of thousands
of interconnected computers, servers, routers, switches, and fiber
optic cables that allow our critical infrastructures to work. Thus, the
healthy, secure, and efficient functioning of cyberspace is essential
to both our economy and our national security.
In light of an attack that threatens the United State's cyber
protection, Homeland Security officials may need to issue emergency
regulations quickly. Attacks can be sent instantly in cyber space, and
the protection of our critical infrastructure cannot be mitigated by
cumbersome bureaucracy.
As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about
vulnerabilities in security firsthand. Of the 350 major ports in
America, the Port of Houston is the one of the busiest.
More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston
in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for
the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports
in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of
Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along
our Nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the
direction of DHS.
If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the
port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able
to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without
being subject to the constraints of this bill.
The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only
because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new
information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency
preparedness and response.
Take for example U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which
identifies prosecutorial discretion as ``the authority of an agency
charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the
law against a particular individual.'' When ICE favorably exercises
prosecutorial discretion, it ``essentially decides not to assert the
full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a
given case.''
In the civil immigration enforcement context, prosecutorial
discretion may take the form of a broad range of discretionary
enforcement decisions, including: focusing enforcement resources on
particular administrative violations or conduct; deciding whom to stop,
question, or arrest for an administrative violation; deciding whether a
suspect will be detained or released on bond; and granting deferred
action, granting parole, staying a final order of removal, or other
alternative to obtaining a formal order of removal.
Let me be clear; prosecutorial discretion is not amnesty; it is done
on a case by case basis to ensure that the limited resources ICE has to
work with are put toward removing those who pose a threat to the safety
and security of the American people. Allowing ICE to identify and focus
on priorities strengthens immigration enforcement by targeting the
right individuals.
Furthermore, ICE Director John Morton issued a memorandum in March of
2011 that outlined the enforcement policies for the agency. Among the
priority enforcement cases were aliens posing a risk to national
security or public safety, recent illegal entrants, and those who are
fugitives or have a history of violating U.S. immigration law.
Director Morton's memorandum indicates that prosecutorial discretion
is by no means widespread, blanket amnesty for undocumented aliens; it
is a law enforcement method used by many agencies, including ICE, under
Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, prosecutorial
discretion allows ICE to allocate its resources to ensure their
enforcement efforts provide for the safety and security of the nation.
Why would this rule need additional scrutiny?
And another major impact rule deals with the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services Fee Schedule the final rule will provide DHS with
an average of $209 million in FY2010 and FY2011 annual fee revenue,
based on a projected annual fee-paying volume of 4.4 million
immigration benefit requests and 1.9 million requests for biometric
services, over the fee revenue that would be collected under the
current fee structure. The increased revenue will be used to fund the
full cost of processing immigration benefit applications and associated
support benefits; the full cost of providing similar benefits to asylum
and refugee applicants; and the full cost of similar benefits provided
to others at no change. These are the sorts of rules that are going to
be needlessly hindered by this Legislation.
Again, instead of focusing on jobs we are focusing on regulations
that Congress already has the power to review and prevent its
implementation if and when necessary.
There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted
with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is
important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with
hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist
attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a
nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.
On any given day the city of Houston and cities across the United
States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as:
terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.
Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats.
Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the
interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as
operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and
territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private
sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to
protect the safety and security of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to
ensure that regulations that save lives that are promulgated by the
Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this
legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I would like to reiterate that the point of the REINS Act is
accountability. It would not impinge, but I believe it would actually
improve our ability to manage rulemaking and regulation that relates to
security, indeed. The strongest authority in the House of
Representatives who could speak on that very issue spoke in favor of
this bill earlier, Congressman Chris Gibson from New York, who
commanded a brigade in Afghanistan, where that picture was taken, and
also a battalion in Iraq in 2005. And I would defer to his authority
and military experience on that fact.
The real issue is accountability and restoring transparency and
checks and balances to the executive branch so that the American people
do not have the reach of government into their back pockets, into their
personal lives, into their schools, into their communities, and
frankly, in northern Kentucky, even into our sewer pipes, without the
consent of the governed.
With that, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.
The amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) from Congress' authority to approve regulations under the REINS
Act. That shield should be denied.
For example, take the Department's rule to extend compliance
deadlines for States to issue secure drivers' licenses under the REAL
ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent licenses to
board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, DHS continues
to extend the deadline.
Another example is the Department's 2009 rule to recall the Bush
Administration's ``no-match'' rule. That regulation helped companies to
identify illegal workers and comply with Federal immigration law.
When the Obama Administration issued its rule to repeal ``no-match,''
it put the interests of illegal immigrants above those of millions of
unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.
[[Page 19138]]
This is the kind of decision making that takes place at the
Department of Homeland Security. Congress should use every tool it can
to reassert its authority over the legislative rulemaking functions it
has delegated to DHS. The REINS Act is available to do that.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Moore
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 7 printed in part B of House Report 112-311.
Ms. MOORE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 45, line 22, insert after the first period the
following:
``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules
``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule that relates to
veterans or veterans affairs. This chapter, as in effect
before the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in
Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after
such enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the
item relating to section 807 the following new item:
808. Exemption for certain rules.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is very straightforward. It would exempt our Nation's
veterans from the burdensome layers and hurdles that H.R. 10 imposes
and adds to the administrative rulemaking process and would
specifically remove veterans from the bill's so-called ``reining''
provisions that require a joint resolution of Congress before an agency
puts forth a major rule to help our men and women in uniform when they
become veterans and after they return home from service.
Many of my colleagues and I disagree with this bill for a variety of
reasons, including the author's premise that reducing the
administration's ability to regulate and promulgate rules will result
in job creation. But whether or not we agree on the direction and
approach to best help and promote America's future, we all agree on
some things. We all agree that the last thing we want to do is to pass
legislation that will delay assistance to those veterans who have
selflessly chosen to fight for our country and deserve every ounce of
assistance we can provide them when they come back home.
Veterans deserve educational opportunity, rehabilitation for
sometimes very severe disabilities, Mr. Chairman, mental health
treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder, employment opportunities,
and housing opportunities. Delaying rulemaking authority will have dire
consequences for our veterans.
For example, Mr. Chair, one very disturbing issue for me has been the
high rate of suicides among our servicemembers. We can't delay this
kind of assistance. In fact, last year there were more deaths among our
troops from suspected suicide than deaths from hostile combat.
We're facing an epidemic here at home, too. A recent report from the
Center for New American Security noted that 1 percent of the population
has served in the military, and yet those servicemembers represent 20
percent of all of the suicides in the United States.
Resources for the military are sparse. According to a recent Veterans
Health Administration survey of mental health providers, 40 percent
responded that they could not schedule a new appointment at their
clinic within 14 days; 70 percent of surveyed facilities cited an
inadequate number of staff to treat veterans; and 70 percent said that
they just simply lacked space.
We also know that there's a serious unemployment barrier among our
veterans as they return to civilian life. The unemployment rate among
vets who served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 is 12.1 percent,
substantially higher than the national average that we're so concerned
about now. Unemployment among vets will spike as we end the war in
Iraq. The last 20,000 troops are expected to arrive by the end of the
year from Iraq. We can expect about an additional 10,000 veterans from
Afghanistan to come home before the end of the year, and 23,000 by the
end of 2012.
We just can't delay assistance to our veterans. This has been an
area, Mr. Chairman, where Democrats and Republicans have typically come
together and agreed. Yet H.R. 10, the REINS Act, will have unintended
consequences and dangerous consequences for veterans who, of course,
have received our undying gratitude and support.
I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and support my
amendment because this is not an area where we want to delay services
to them. We don't want to subject our vets to the politics of
Washington and a gridlocked, hyperpartisan Congress that struggles even
to extend unemployment insurance in a recession or the payroll tax to
middle class people, let alone a credit default by something ``so
historically difficult'' as raising the debt ceiling.
I just think that Americans will agree with me that our Nation's
veterans deserve to be excluded from the gridlock that this will
invariably cause. Let's come together once more to adopt this
amendment, Mr. Chair, not just for the troops that need help, but for
the troops that will be here in the near future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I respect my friend from Wisconsin with whom I have worked on
numerous pieces of legislation related to child homelessness and
affordable housing; but in this case I'm going to respectfully disagree
with the premise of the legislation, as a veteran, as a former Army
Ranger, as a flight commander of an assault helicopter unit in the 82nd
Airborne Division and who served in the Middle East.
The one thing that I would say is that nothing in the REINS Act would
in any way inhibit or impede the delivery of services to our veterans,
of whom I have been a champion in my time in Congress on numerous
pieces of legislation. What I would say is the REINS Act would provide
a framework for discussion were there a rule to arise that hit that
cost threshold to assure crisp, clear improvement, particularly in
dealing with backlogs.
When we deal with the VA specifically, I have had area managers of
the Veterans Administration point out specific rules that cause
increased queuing and waiting time that were not being addressed. This
amendment would actually prevent us from being able to address such
things, were they to hit the threshold.
The amendment carves all regulations that affect veterans and veteran
affairs out of the REINS Act congressional approval procedures.
Frankly, the REINS Act supporters honor America's veterans. We have had
America's veterans speaking in favor of this bill throughout the
afternoon.
I believe that ultimately we are going to make decisions that will be
in keeping with the will of the American people and in the best
interests of those veterans as we move forward.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for responding, even though he
doesn't agree with me. I'm just looking at
[[Page 19139]]
about at least 14 rules that have been implemented very expeditiously
on behalf of our veterans since September 11. It is chilling to think
about the delays that may be caused by an extra process.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. That's a point that the gentlewoman and I will
agree to disagree on. I believe that we have seen the Congress move in
an expedited manner in national security in dealing with our veterans,
and there would be no difference under this legislation.
Ultimately, we know that Congress must approve all legislation
relating to every agency of the Federal Government, and we'll be doing
our constitutional duty, as I remind everybody listening, to restore
transparency, accountability, and a check-and-balance so that our
citizens and our voters can hold somebody in the government accountable
instead of faceless bureaucrats.
{time} 1610
It's a solution that everyone should support. Congress will be more
accountable.
I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
112-311 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Schrader of Oregon.
Amendment No. 5 by Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 236, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 895]
AYES--187
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Gohmert
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Wilson (FL)
Young (FL)
{time} 1637
Messrs. BILBRAY, HERGER, CANTOR, FITZPATRICK, STIVERS, and SCHOCK
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Schrader) on which further proceedings were
[[Page 19140]]
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 238, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 896]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Bachmann
Castor (FL)
Conyers
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Gohmert
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Paul
Wasserman Schultz
Young (FL)
{time} 1642
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina changed his vote from ``present'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. McCarthy) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 246, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 897]
AYES--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--246
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
[[Page 19141]]
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Brady (TX)
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Watt
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1645
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 242, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 898]
AYES--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--242
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Bachmann
Barton (TX)
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Hinchey
Hirono
Kind
Myrick
Nadler
Watt
Webster
Woolsey
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1649
So the amendment was rejected.
[[Page 19142]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Moore
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 240, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 899]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--240
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Bishop (UT)
Castor (FL)
Cummings
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1653
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. West). There being no further amendments, under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. West, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10) to
amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major
rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a
joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, and, pursuant to
House Resolution 479, reported the bill, as amended by that resolution,
back to the House with a further amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. DeLAURO. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. DeLAURO moves to recommit the bill H.R. 10 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Page 45, line 22, insert after the first period the
following:
``Sec. 808. Protection of Food Safety and Consumer's Right to
Know through Country-of-Origin Labeling
``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule regarding
country of origin labeling. This chapter, as in effect before
the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in Need
of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after such
enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that would exempt
country of origin labeling from the regulations affected by this
legislation. This is the final amendment to the bill, which will not
kill it or send it back to
[[Page 19143]]
committee. Instead, we will move to final passage on the bill, as
amended.
We have had a heated debate over this act. I have very strong
concerns about it. But however one feels about the legislation before
us, we should all be able to agree on fundamental principles.
First, that it is the responsibility of this institution and of
government to see that the health and the safety of American families
are protected. This includes protecting Americans from unsafe and
contaminated food. And, second, the consumer should be able to know
where the food and products they buy come from so that they can make
informed decisions about their purchases, as they should be able to in
a free market.
That is what country of origin labeling does, and it is why my final
amendment simply exempts country of origin labeling from the underlying
bill before us. It gives us an opportunity to come together in a
bipartisan way to protect the health and safety of our constituents and
to give the American public the information they need and clearly want
to make informed decisions for their families.
More than 40 other countries we trade with have a country of origin
labeling system in place, and the majority of American consumers
continue to support country of origin labeling.
We know that food-borne illnesses are a major public health threat.
They account for roughly 48 million illnesses, 100,000 hospitalizations
and over 3,000 deaths in this country every year. Every year one in
every six Americans become sick from the food that they eat. Our
youngest and oldest Americans are the most vulnerable to these
illnesses, and right now roughly 80 percent of the seafood and 60
percent of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States have
been produced outside our borders.
Amid all this imported food, our ability to ensure that food products
are safe and not contaminated is dwindling. The FDA inspects less than
2 percent of the imported food in its jurisdiction. Yet, 70 percent of
the apple juice we drink was produced in China, roughly 90 percent of
the shrimp that we eat was produced outside of the United States.
Across this 2 percent, the FDA finds a frighteningly large number of
shipments with dangerous food safety violations, including the presence
of pathogens and chemical contamination.
Families should be able to know where their food is coming from. Just
this morning, a Japanese food producer announced the recall of 400,000
cans of infant formula after traces of radioactive cesium were found in
the company's milk powder. And after the Fukushima disaster earlier
this year, Americans were concerned about the safety of seafood
imports.
I do not want to single out any one country. Sadly, food-borne
disease outbreaks are frighteningly normal, both here and abroad. We
recently experienced a listeria outbreak in cantaloupes which sickened
at least 139 people and killed 29 more. Germany saw an E. coli crisis
this summer that killed dozens and sickened thousands. In 2010, we saw
a salmonella outbreak in crushed pepper that sickened 272 people, and
another salmonella outbreak that resulted in the recall of over half a
billion eggs and almost 2,000 Americans becoming ill.
Country of origin labeling does not lead to American job losses or
bankrupt the food industry; it simply lets consumers know where their
food comes from.
That is particularly important in this economy, when not only food
inspectors, but food producers are stretched thin. Consumers should be
able to know when they are buying foods that were grown, raised, or
produced right here in America.
{time} 1700
They have the right to know where their food was produced and to make
their own choices about the food that they buy.
In the past, there has been a bipartisan consensus that country-of-
origin labeling is a good idea, that it keeps families safe, and that
it supports American farmers. In fact, the chairman, my counterpart on
the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Congressman
Rehberg of Montana, has been a leader in ensuring strong country-of-
origin labeling. We should continue that bipartisan commitment today.
Exempt country-of-origin labeling from the REINS Act.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for public health, consumers' right
to know, and American businesses. Support this final amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this motion is a distraction. It
misses the point of this legislation entirely. We are here today to
restore accountability for the regulations with the biggest impact on
our economy.
Good, bad or ugly--and our regulatory code includes all three--
Congress should be accountable for regulations that cost the American
people $100 million or more annually.
The REINS Act simply says that Congress must vote on these
regulations, these major rules, before they can be enforced on the
American people. Essentially, this motion to recommit repeats part of
an exclusion already attempted in the McCarthy amendment that the House
just voted down. It's purely a political motion.
The REINS Act has been the subject of two hearings and a markup in
the Judiciary Committee and was subject to an additional markup in the
Rules Committee. Today, we have had a robust debate on the bill and
seven amendments, five of which were offered by colleagues in the
minority.
Congress has a bipartisan bad habit writing vague legislation that
sounds nice, but leaves the dirty work to unelected bureaucrats in
administrative agencies. This practice has allowed the Congress to
claim credit for popular aspects of laws, and blame regulatory agencies
for increased costs or the otherwise negative effects of the
regulations.
Agencies are also starting to bypass Congress by writing regulations
that stretch the bounds of their delegated authorities. The
administration has declared an intent to pursue their agenda by pushing
items they could not get through Congress through regulatory actions
instead. Indeed, laws they could not pass in Democratic supermajorities
in the last Congress are now being attempted, against the will of the
Congress, to be implemented by regulation.
What we have proposed in the REINS Act is very simple: Congress
should at the very least be accountable for regulations with $100
million of annual economic impact or more. These rules are classified
by the administration as major rules.
The REINS Act is not anti-regulation, and it is not pro-regulation.
What we're saying is let's have a transparent and accountable process
for implementing new regulations.
According to a recent Gallup Poll, small business owners cited
complying with government regulation as the biggest problem facing them
today. Public Notice did a poll recently that found that a majority of
Americans believe Congress should approve regulations before they can
be enforced.
Our economy is struggling to recover, and more than 13 million
Americans are still out of work. Congress needs to do a much better job
of creating a pro-growth environment that increases our competitiveness
and rewards entrepreneurship and ingenuity.
Everyone agrees that regulations can have a significant and
detrimental impact on jobs and our economy. Even President Obama
described regulations that stifle innovation and have a chilling effect
on growth and jobs in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal earlier this
year.
The REINS Act lays down a marker to say that Congress should be
directly accountable for the most expensive regulations that could
stifle innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.
In the words of the great Speaker from Cincinnati, Ohio, Nicholas
Longworth, I ask all of my colleagues to
[[Page 19144]]
strike a blow for liberty, to vote for accountability. I oppose the
motion to recommit. Vote against the motion to recommit. Support the
REINS Act.
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
Ms. DeLAURO. 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 183,
noes 235, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 900]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Castor (FL)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Conyers
Diaz-Balart
Fudge
Giffords
Hinchey
Lee (CA)
Myrick
Nadler
Payne
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1723
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. SCOTT of Virginia. 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 241,
noes 184, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 901]
AYES--241
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
[[Page 19145]]
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--184
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Bachmann
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Young (FL)
{time} 1730
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1633, FARM
DUST REGULATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2011
Mr. WEBSTER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 112-317) on the resolution (H. Res. 487) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1633) to establish a temporary
prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standard
applicable to coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal regulation of
nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regulated under State,
tribal, or local law, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
HOUR OF MEETING ON TOMORROW
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
____________________
ELECTING A MEMBER TO A CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I
offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 486
Resolved, That the following named Member be and is hereby
elected to the following standing committee of the House of
Representatives:
Committee on the judiciary.--Mr. Polis.
Mr. BECERRA (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Renacci). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the
rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on
which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule XX.
Any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later.
____________________
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL ACT OF 2011
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1254) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to place synthetic
drugs in Schedule I, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1254
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 ``Synthetic Drug Control Act
of 2011''.
SEC. 2. ADDITION OF SYNTHETIC DRUGS TO SCHEDULE I OF THE
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.
(a) Cannabimimetic Agents.--Schedule I, as set forth in
section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
812(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Unless specifically exempted or unless listed in
another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or
preparation which contains any quantity of cannabimimetic
agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of
isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and
salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical
designation.
``(2) In paragraph (1):
``(A) The term `cannabimimetic agents' means any substance
that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist
as demonstrated by binding studies and functional assays
within any of the following structural classes:
``(i) 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol with substitution at
the 5-position of the phenolic ring by alkyl or alkenyl,
whether or not substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any
extent.
``(ii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 3-(1-naphthylmethane)indole
by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring,
whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any
extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl or
naphthyl ring to any extent.
``(iii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the
nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring, whether or not further
substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent, whether or not
substituted on the naphthoyl ring to any extent.
``(iv) 1-(1-naphthylmethylene)indene by substitution of the
3-position of the indene ring, whether or not further
substituted in the indene ring to any extent, whether or not
substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent.
``(v) 3-phenylacetylindole or 3-benzoylindole by
substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether
or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent,
whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent.
``(B) Such term includes--
``(i) 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497);
``(ii) 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol or CP-47,497
C8-homolog);
``(iii) 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018 and AM678);
``(iv) 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073);
``(v) 1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019);
``(vi) 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole
(JWH-200);
``(vii) 1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-250);
``(viii) 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (JWH-
081);
``(ix) 1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-122);
``(x) 1-pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-398);
[[Page 19146]]
``(xi) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM2201);
``(xii) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (AM694);
``(xiii) 1-pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole (SR-19 and
RCS-4);
``(xiv) 1-cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole
(SR-18 and RCS-8); and
``(xv) 1-pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (JWH-
203).''.
(b) Other Drugs.--Schedule I of section 202(c) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended in
subsection (c) by adding at the end the following:
``(18) 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone).
``(19) 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV).
``(20) 3,4-methylenedioxymethcathinone (methylone).
``(21) Naphthylpyrovalerone (naphyrone).
``(22) 4-fluoromethcathinone (flephedrone).
``(23) 4-methoxymethcathinone (methedrone; Bk-PMMA).
``(24) Ethcathinone (N-Ethylcathinone).
``(25) 3,4-methylenedioxyethcathinone (ethylone).
``(26) Beta-keto-N-methyl-3,4-benzodioxyolybutanamine
(butylone).
``(27) N,N-dimethylcathinone (metamfepramone).
``(28) Alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (alpha-PPP).
``(29) 4-methoxy-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (MOPPP).
``(30) 3,4-methylenedioxy-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone
(MDPPP).
``(31) Alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone (alpha-PVP).
``(32) 6,7-dihydro-5H-indeno-(5,6-d)-1,3-dioxol-6-amine)
(MDAI).
``(33) 3-fluoromethcathinone.
``(34) 4'-Methyl-a-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (MPBP).''.
SEC. 3. TEMPORARY SCHEDULING TO AVOID IMMINENT HAZARDS TO
PUBLIC SAFETY EXPANSION.
Section 201(h)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 811(h)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``2 years''; and
(2) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``1 year''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
General Leave
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 1254 was introduced by my friend and colleague from
Pennsylvania, Representative Charlie Dent, in response to a frightening
trend of synthetic drug use in our communities. These synthetic drug
substitutes, made from chemical compounds that are sold legally in most
States, mimic the hallucinogenic and stimulant properties of drugs like
marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines. While these synthetic drugs
are just as dangerous as their traditional counterparts, they are not
illegal.
Many families and young people in our communities do not realize the
destructiveness of these synthetic drugs because of their legal status
and their wide availability and often harmless-sounding names such as
``Bath Salts'' and ``Plant Food,'' both cocaine substitutes.
H.R. 1254 would, first, ban synthetic drugs that imitate marijuana,
cocaine, and methamphetamines; and, second, allow the Drug Enforcement
Administration to temporarily schedule a new substance for up to 3
years. Currently, DEA can only temporarily schedule a substance for up
to 18 months.
I would like to thank Congressman Dent for working with the DEA on
this important issue, and I would urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense and bipartisanly supported legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to support H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act.
This bill enjoys bipartisan support and is aimed to eliminate
commercial availability of harmful synthetic narcotics. Under this
proposal, hallucinogenic drugs would no longer be able to hide behind
misleading aliases.
During committee consideration, I was quite alarmed to hear some of
the stories shared by the bill's sponsor, Representative Charlie Dent,
as well as other Members. Around the country, constituents have been
able to utilize synthetic products to the detriment of their mental and
physical health and, in some cases, costing them their lives.
Unfortunately, these imitation drugs are not illegal, and there is a
critical need to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to keep
these harmful and dangerous drugs off the street. The Synthetic Drug
Control Act adds specific synthetic versions of drugs of abuse to
Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These designer drugs mimic
some of the effects of drugs such as marijuana and can be very unsafe,
causing convulsions, anxiety attacks, and dangerously elevated heart
rates, among other conditions.
Under current authority, the Drug Enforcement Agency has difficulty
taking action against these drugs because they've been designed to fall
outside existing statutory descriptions of Schedule I drugs. H.R. 1254
will enable the Drug Enforcement Agency to take appropriate enforcement
actions to get them off the street and away from our Nation's youth.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this
legislation, and I hope the way we work together on it can prove a
model for our efforts on future legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. PITTS. I yield 5 minutes to the prime sponsor of the legislation,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I certainly appreciate the support of Mr. Pitts and Mr.
Pallone for their leadership on this issue. It's deeply appreciated.
This issue of synthetic or designer drugs was first brought to my
attention by a woman, a mother in my district whose son had been
abusing legal substitutes for marijuana. These synthetic cannabinoids,
as they're referred to, or synthetic marijuana, affect the brain in a
manner similar to marijuana, but can actually be even much more
harmful.
Synthetic marijuana, or canna- binoids, are just one category of
designer drugs. Even more potent substances have properties similar to
cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, and other hard street drugs. These
substances are marketed as innocent products like bath salts, plant
food, incense, and they're sold under brand names familiar to their
users, such as K2 Spice, Vanilla Sky, or Ivory Wave. However, these are
total misnomers designed to facilitate their legal sale. These drugs
have no legitimate purpose, period.
H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act, drafted in consultation
with Federal law enforcement, has three principal components:
First, a prohibition of broad structural classes of synthetic
marijuana or the cannabinoids;
Two, a prohibition of synthetic stimulants and other designer drugs,
such as bath salts, mephedrone, MDPV, C2E, et cetera, several of those;
Third, an expansion of the DEA's existing authority to temporarily
ban a new substance from 1\1/2\ to 3 years. Under current law, if the
DEA and Department of Health and Human Services can prove that a
substance is, one, dangerous and, two, lacking legitimate value while
it is temporarily banned, the prohibition will become permanent.
Over the past year there's been a sharp increase in the number of new
reports detailing horrific stories of individuals high on synthetic
drugs. A man in Scranton, Pennsylvania, stabbed a priest, and another
jumped out a three-story window, both high on bath salts. Several
deaths from West Virginia to Florida to Pennsylvania to Iowa have been
attributed to abuse of synthetic drugs.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has introduced a companion bill with
provisions very similar to H.R. 1254, named after one of his young
constituents who tragically took his own life while high on synthetic
marijuana.
[[Page 19147]]
{time} 1740
A man in my district was arrested this past May for firing a gun out
of his window in a university neighborhood. Police charges indicate
that he injected himself with bath salts, and he later told police he
thought there were people on the roof watching him.
Finally, I was approached by another distraught mother from my
district whose son was hospitalized for over 2 weeks after suffering
liver failure and other complications after injecting himself with bath
salts. These substances pose a substantial risk, both to the physical
health of the user as well as to the safety of those around them when
these drugs contribute to dangerous, psychotic behavior, suicide, and
public endangerment.
The fact that these drugs are legal in many States contributes to the
misconception that they are safe. And the use of easily recognizable
brand names and logos on the packaging promotes the concept of a
consistent product.
Significant variations of potency from one unit to the next have led
recurrent users to inadvertently overdose. One of the major
difficulties in combating these designer drugs is the ability of the
producers to skirt the law with different chemical variations. By
modifying the formula in some minor way, producers can generate a new
compound which circumvents legal prohibitions but has similar narcotic
events. DEA needs enhanced authority to temporarily schedule new
variations when they hit the market, and they usually hit Europe first,
and then they enter the United States.
A growing number of States, including Pennsylvania, have enacted bans
on many forms of synthetic drugs, but Federal action is necessary to
prevent these drugs from being obtained by simply crossing State lines
or, increasingly, ordering them over the Internet.
I believe over 30 States have passed bans, if my memory serves me
correctly. State-by-State differences in which individual substances
are controlled and how strongly makes for a confusing legal patchwork,
and Federal legislation certainly will facilitate enforcement.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced its support of H.R. 1254 as
amended by the House Judiciary Committee in a letter dated September
30, 2011, and I would submit that for the Record.
I also want to point out, too, that the American College of Emergency
Physicians, which notes the devastating physical and psychotic effects
of these drugs, has also endorsed this bill, and I think that's quite
significant as well.
Finally, go to a hospital like Children's Hospital of Philadelphia--
they'll tell you they get a case every day with individuals who are
suffering from these particular drugs. A year ago at this time, they
probably got no calls. And now every day, and that's not just typical
in Philadelphia but throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
You will also hear some folks here today who might actually argue
that medical research will somehow be impeded. Nothing could be further
from the truth. This legislation does not in any way impede medical
research. I would be happy to get into that at some point.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, September 30, 2011.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. This letter provides the Department of
Justice's views on H.R. 1254, as amended by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, titled the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act
of 2011.'' The bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA) to address the growing use and misuse of synthetic
drugs by placing a number of substances in schedule I and by
extending the length of time that a drug may be temporarily
placed in schedule I.
We support the bill as drafted, but believe it can be
strengthened with the addition of the ``2C family'' of drugs
listed in an appendix to this letter and in S. 839. The
Department also supports the goals of S. 605, Dangerous
Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011 or the ``David Mitchell
Rozga Act''; S. 839, Combating Designer Drugs Act of 2011;
and S. 409, Combating Dangerous Synthetic Stimulants Act of
2011. H.R. 1254 already contains many provisions included in
S. 605 and S. 409, and we urge that the bill be expanded to
include the provisions of S. 839.
The Threat of Synthetic Drugs
In recent years, a growing number of dangerous products
have been introduced into the U.S. marketplace. Products
labeled as ``herbal incense'' have become increasingly
popular, especially among teens and young adults. These
products consist of plant materials laced with synthetic
cannabinoids which, when smoked, mimic the deleterious
effects of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), the
principal psychoactive constituent in marijuana. To
underscore the scope and breadth of the synthetic cannabinoid
problem, a recent report prepared by the United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) notes that more than 100
such substances have been synthesized and identified to
date.''
There is also growing evidence demonstrating the abuse of a
number of substances labeled as ``bath salts'' or ``plant
foods'' which, when ingested, snorted, smoked, inhaled, or
injected, produce stimulant and other psychoactive effects.
These synthetic stimulants are based on a variety of
compounds and are purported to be alternatives to the
controlled substances cocaine, amphetamine, and Ecstasy
(MDMA). These drugs have been distributed and abused in
Europe for several years and have since appeared here in the
United States. According to a recent National Drug
Intelligence Center report, poison control centers and
medical professionals around the country have reported an
increase in the number of individuals suffering adverse
physical effects associated with abuse of these drugs.
There are other newly developed drugs that also pose a
significant threat to the public. This includes the ``2C
family'' of drugs (dimethoxyphenethylamines), which are
generally referred to as synthetic psychedelic/hallucinogens.
Recently, a 19-year-old male in Minnesota died of cardiac
arrest after allegedly ingesting 2C-E, one of the substances
within this class of drugs. We note that the 2C substances
listed in the attached Appendix are included in the list of
substances covered by S. 839. The Department supports the
addition of the 2C family of substances listed in the
Appendix to H.R. 1254.
Products containing synthetic drugs are dangerous and
represent a growing challenge to law enforcement. Apart from
the wide array of harmful or even lethal side effects of many
of the listed substances, neither the products nor their
active ingredients have been approved by the Food and Drug
Administration for use in medical treatment, and
manufacturers and retailers of the products containing these
substances do not disclose that there are synthetic drugs in
their products. Synthetic drug abusers may endanger not only
themselves but others: some become violent when under the
influence of these substances, and abusers who operate motor
vehicles after using synthetic drugs likely present similar
dangers as those under the influence of controlled
substances.
With the exception of the five substances recently
controlled by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
pursuant to its temporary scheduling authority, the listed
synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic stimulants are not
currently in any schedule under the CSA.
Efforts to control Synthetic Drugs
Congress created an interagency process for placing new and
emerging drugs into one of five schedules of the CSA (21
U.S.C. 811 et seq.). One such mechanism, temporary scheduling
(21 U.S.C. 811(h)), was specifically designed to enable the
Department to act in an expeditious manner if such action is
necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
In response to the growing threat posed by known synthetic
cannabinoids, on March 1, 2011, the DEA temporarily placed
the following five synthetic cannabinoids in schedule I: JWH-
018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47, 497, and CP-47, 497 C8
homologue.
The DEA is currently gathering scientific data and other
information about synthetic cathinones as well as evaluating
their psychoactive effects to support administrative action
to schedule these substances under the CSA. To temporarily
schedule these stimulants, the DEA must find that placement
in schedule I is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the
public safety, a finding that requires the DEA to consider
the following three factors: history and current pattern of
abuse; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and
what, if any, risk there is to the public health, including
actual abuse; diversion from legitimate channels; and
clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. Once
data have been gathered to meet the statutory criteria to
temporarily schedule these cathinones, the Department will
initiate an action to temporarily place them into schedule 1.
In fact, on September 8, 2011, the DEA published a notice of
intent in the Federal Register (21 FR 55616) to temporarily
place mephedrone, methylone and MDPV in schedule I.
Unfortunately, however, the distribution and abuse of
synthetic drugs cannot be fully addressed by temporary
scheduling because as law enforcement investigates,
researches,
[[Page 19148]]
and develops evidence to support such action, illicit drug
makers create new synthetic drugs for the purpose of evading
federal law. Scheduling via legislation is an additional tool
to promote public health and safety.
Purpose of Legislation
Placing synthetic carnnabinoid and synthetic stimulant
substances in schedule I would expose those who manufacture,
distribute, possess, import, and export synthetic drugs
without proper authority to the full spectrum of criminal,
civil, and administrative penalties, sanctions, and
regulatory controls. Unless authorized by the DEA, the
manufacture and distribution of these substances, and
possession with intent to manufacture or distribute them,
would be a violation of the CSA and/or the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act.
H.R. 1254, as well as S. 409, would amend the CSA by
expanding the list of substances in schedule I of the CSA (21
U.S.C. 812(c)). To address synthetic cannabinoid abuse, the
bill names 15 unique substances that would be placed in
schedule I; this list includes those temporarily scheduled by
the DEA. Additionally, the bill creates five structural
classes of substances collectively referred to as
``cannabimimetic agents.'' In order for a substance to be a
cannabimimetic agent, the substance must: (1) bind to the CB1
receptor; and (2) meet any of the definitions for those
structural classes. If both criteria are met, that substance
will be a schedule I cannabimimetic agent controlled
substance.
To address emerging synthetic stimulant abuse, H.R. 1254
names 17 unique substances that would be placed in schedule
I. These substances have either been encountered by law
enforcement here in the United States or are most likely to
be encountered by law enforcement in the United States based
on their use and misuse in Europe, which is likely where the
use and misuse originated.
Finally, the bill seeks to double the amount of time
allowed for the Department to temporarily schedule new and
emerging drugs by amending 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In this regard,
the bill seeks to enhance the tools available to the
Department to combat the abuse of new drugs that will appear
in the future.
For these reasons, the Justice Department supports H.R.
1254 and recommends that the Committee consider strengthening
it in the ways we have proposed.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. The
Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the
perspective of the Administration's program, there is no
objection to the submission of this letter.
Sincerely,
Ronald Weich,
Assistant Attorney General.
Appendix
Additional Synthetic Drugs for Inclusion in section 202(c)
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)):
Redline of H.R. 1254, as amended by Energy and Commerce on
July 28, 2011--
``(35) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-E).
(36) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-D).
(37) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-C).
(38) 2-(4-lodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-I).
(39) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]
ethanamine (2C-T-2).
(40) 2-[4-(lsopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl
-[ethanamine (2C-T-4).
(41) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H).
(42) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)
ethanamine (2C-N).
(43) 2-(2.5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-P).''
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Michaud).
Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of
this bill. The spread of synthetic drugs like bath salts has quickly
reached crisis levels in many communities throughout our country. This
year in Maine, the Bangor Police Department has responded to hundreds
of bath salts-related incidents.
In October, I organized a meeting of local, county, State, and
Federal law enforcement officials to discuss the spread of bath salts
in our State. The message they shared with me was clear, and the
message they shared with the ONDCP Deputy Director Ben Tucker was also
clear: We need to give our law enforcement officers more tools to
combat this epidemic.
While Maine has banned bath salts, a national law will build upon
that good work and help make this a bigger impact all across the
country. So I urge my colleagues to support the Synthetic Drug Act.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Florida, Congresswoman Sandy Adams, who was formerly in law
enforcement.
Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Congressman Pitts.
Mr. Speaker, in October 2010, a 31-year-old Texas man hanged himself
in the bedroom. At the top of his suicide note the man wrote, ``Thanks,
bath salts.''
January 2011 in Panama City, Florida, a daughter tried to attack her
sleeping mother with a machete before fleeing the scene. Police said
she had spent several days taking drug-altered bath salts.
June, 2011, a 38-year-old Army sergeant murdered his wife and killed
himself following a police chase. Both had chemically altered bath
salts in their systems. Later in the day, the couple's 5-year-old son
was found dead with a plastic bag over his head and bruises on his
body.
Horrific cases just like these have been documented across the
country. These incidents led many States, including my home State of
Florida, to outlaw these often dangerous and deadly substances.
Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to add MDPV and
mephedrone, chemicals added to bath salts to induce a drug high, to
Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These substances are not
marketed for human consumption.
It also is why I have joined Representative Charlie Dent in his work
to bring H.R. 1254, which includes a bill I introduced in April, to the
floor today. You have heard no research can be conducted if this
passes, but those claims are false. It can be conducted. Research is
being done and will continue to be done on Schedule I chemicals. Just
listen to the ER doctors and the poison control centers that have both
asked for this bill, that both want this bill to save lives.
Too many lives have been lost and too many violent acts have been
already committed due to these drugs. These dangerous substances are
being packaged and marketed to our children by using innocuous names
like Ivory Snow, Bliss, and Vanilla Sky. Today I urge support for H.R.
1254. Let's get the substances off the streets and out of the hands of
our children.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Virginia will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will place over 40 chemical compounds on
Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act at a time when only eight
of these substances can even be found in the United States. And it does
so in a way that circumvents the normal process, that skirts scheduling
substances, and does so without any scientific or medical research or
evidence to support it.
Congress has a process for placing substances on drug schedules. The
Criminal Code sets forth a process that the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services must engage in to determine the
propriety of scheduling substances. The Secretary must conduct a
scientific and medical evaluation and provide recommendations about
whether the substances being analyzed need to be controlled. And this
needs to be a scientific study, not a compilation of anecdotes.
In this there is a mechanism for addressing emergencies. In the case
where the Attorney General on his own determines that there is an
emergency, the Code provides that substances may be placed on Schedule
I for up to 1\1/2\ years while the evidence is being developed to
permanently schedule them.
Moreover, the Judiciary Committee during our consideration received
numerous statements from pharmaceutical and medical researchers
imploring us not to hamper their ability to determine possible medical
uses of these substances by placing them on Schedule I, which makes it
illegal to possess these substances without a permit even for research
purposes.
[[Page 19149]]
This includes promising research on the cure for Parkinson's disease
that would be compromised by this bill. Now, even with a permit, the
restrictions placed on researchers once they are placed on Schedule I
are unduly onerous. So there are legal uses of these substances.
Mr. Speaker, when Congress established a process for the Secretary
and the Attorney General to do their due diligence and study the
propriety of placing substances on Schedule I, we've had a very
thoughtful process. And if we want to establish good crime policy, we
need to follow that thoughtful process. H.R. 1254 circumvents that
process. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1254.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1750
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa,
Congressman Tom Latham.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for this
opportunity today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug
Control Act. This bill addresses an alarming danger to our kids that
many American families may not be aware of.
Many American teenagers are experimenting with synthetic drugs that
supposedly mimic the effects of marijuana or other types of drugs.
These products, known as K2, Pure Evil, Cloud Nine, and other names,
can often be bought legally at convenience stores or at so-called
``head shops'' where they're passed off as incense or bath salts. In
reality, the users of these substances can experience unexpected
anxiety attacks, extreme paranoia, hallucinations, and thoughts of
suicide; and the users are at serious risk of harming themselves.
Our experience with this issue in the State of Iowa illustrates why a
Federal ban on these dangerous substances is so important. A year and a
half ago yesterday, 18-year-old David Rozga, from Indianola, Iowa, shot
himself after taking K2. In response to the tragedy, David's parents,
Mike and Jan, have led a campaign to outlaw synthetic drugs like K2.
They testified before Congress about the dangers of the drug and
enlisted the help of their elected Representatives in cracking down on
the sale and abuse of these substances.
My colleagues, we must act on this issue to protect our kids. And the
time is now. The threat posed by synthetic drugs is dangerous, and it's
growing. In the past 2 weeks alone, there have been several cases where
teens have been injured or hospitalized after taking synthetic drugs.
In Polk County, three teens were involved in a high-speed crash after
smoking one of these substances. In central Iowa, a teenage boy was
hospitalized after taking synthetic drugs. He became violently ill--
having seizures, vomiting, and hallucinations.
I really want to thank the Rozga family for their selfless
willingness to relive the tragedy they've experienced, and I want to
thank them for their efforts to prevent other families from
experiencing the same heartbreak. This legislation and other efforts to
address this threat to our children would simply not have occurred
without the Rozgas' courage, strength, and leadership.
I am heartened today that Congress has listened to their message and
is taking action. It is time to recognize how dangerous these
substances are and to ban their sale in the United States by clarifying
their status as Schedule I controlled substances. As a cosponsor of
H.R. 1254, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this most
important piece of legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. We are all opposed to the damage that
these drugs can do to the American people, but I have to express my
opposition to this bill.
My concern about the bill is its effect on scientific research. When
a drug is placed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, it
becomes difficult to obtain not only for illegal purposes but for
researchers who wish to study its pharmaceutical and medical potential.
While this may be justified for some drugs, it isn't a restriction that
should be implemented rashly. That's because it becomes very difficult
for scientists to get permission to obtain these molecules even for the
scientific study that we need.
For example, in the United States, only 325 researchers have been
able to obtain Schedule I licenses at this moment. Congress established
the procedure for scheduling drugs, and it requires a scientific and
medical evaluation. This bill would bypass that process rather than
relying on scientific and medical experts. I've heard from faculty from
a range of universities, and they've shared their concerns about the
impact.
Here is what Warren Heideman, Ph.D., professor of pharmaceutical
sciences and associate dean for Research, School of Pharmacy, at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison writes:
``The bill is an irrational, simplistic response to a social problem
of great complexity. As such, the world will get significantly less
medical and technical help with a low probability of helping anyone
with a substance abuse issue. The list is too broad and does seriously
restrict what would otherwise be important and easy experiments.
Paperwork problems are already a serious campus concern.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Here is what Dr. Neal Benowitz, M.D.,
the chief of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of
California, San Francisco, writes:
``While we support restrictions on the sale of these chemicals for
purposes of illicit use . . . scheduling so as to impede access to
precursor chemicals in small quantities has the potential to seriously
hamper medical research. On balance, the faculty are against this
measure.''
John Arnold, the faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Green
Chemistry, writes:
``This effort is well-intentioned, but it will cause more problems
than it solves.''
We are all against drugs that harm our people; but we had no hearings
in the Judiciary Committee on this, and I think the placing of these
molecules on Schedule I is evidence of that lack of scholarship. These
drugs need to be controlled, but they need to be controlled in such a
way that there is no harm done to the vital scientific and medical
research that we count on.
I join the gentleman from Virginia in urging a ``no'' vote on this
bill in the hopes that we can come back with a measure that
accomplishes the worthy goals without doing damage to scientific
research, which will save so many lives.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, a former prosecutor, Congressman Pat Meehan.
Mr. MEEHAN. I rise in support of H.R. 1254 for the very practical
reason that, as a prosecutor, I have seen the impact of what can be
done when children are lured into the false promise, into the sense
that somehow, because it's synthetic, it doesn't present the same kind
of danger as the drugs that are often believed to be the most
dangerous--the heroins, the cocaines. These are luring kids into a
false sense of security.
As has been suggested, this evidence isn't anecdotal. I have had the
chance to visit an emergency department at one of the leading
children's hospitals in the Nation where we have seen a dramatic rise
in families who are being affected because their children are coming in
and are under the control of these synthetic substances. For that
reason, the American College of Emergency Physicians supports this
bill.
Lastly, I think we have it backwards. If what we're trying to say is
that somehow we've got to let these children be exposed while we wait
with the potential that there could be research done, the fact of the
matter is I have worked with pharmaceutical companies and with the DEA
to be able to get access to drugs that have been held under control.
That can be done in
[[Page 19150]]
working with the DEA. That's the solution. It's not the solution to put
our kids at risk.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia for yielding the
time.
I rise in opposition to this particular bill. It's not that I am,
indeed, in favor of any of the particular drugs that are here; but just
like Mrs. Adams, my colleague from Florida mentioned, the State of
Florida has already criminalized it, as many States have, and it's
really a State issue.
It seems interesting. When the subject du jour comes up, the item of
the day, there is a rush to action and a rush to forget States' rights.
There is a desire on gun bills to overlook the States and to have a
Federal law on the interstate shipment of guns or on the interstate
transportation of guns by people with permits. In this situation, drugs
that should be criminalized are criminalized at the State level, but
all of a sudden we're doing it more at the Federal level.
This bill would place more than 40 chemical compounds on Schedule I,
the most punitive and restrictive schedule, without any independent
scientific evidence that doing so is necessary or warranted. It is a
rush to legislate before we know all the facts.
This bill essentially bans these substances without any study
whatsoever. I've read the press reports of young people who have been
harmed by these substances and by others, and I'm very sympathetic as
that's certainly wrong; but we shouldn't legislate on the basis of
anecdotal evidence. It's typical of the ``shoot first and ask questions
later'' approach that we have taken to drug policy in this country for
decades.
Our national drug policy should be driven by science, not politics.
We've already gotten a well-deserved reputation here as a do-nothing
Congress; but bills like this and our attitudes towards clean air,
clean water, global climate change, and other environmental issues have
made this the no-respect-for-science Congress as well.
{time} 1800
The DEA has already taken steps to temporarily place certain
synthetic substances on Schedule I while it conducts a review. If there
is an emergency that requires temporarily scheduling the other
substances in this bill, the DEA can review them and do that just as
well.
But we shouldn't circumvent the process established in law. I don't
think this is a responsible way to legislate. I know the sponsors of
this bill know about the emergency review process because the bill
doubles the length of time a bill can be put on emergency review on a
schedule from 18 months to 3 years; it doubles it. Yet there's been no
hearings or evidence that 18 months was insufficient, none whatsoever.
It was just a knee-jerk way to respond to the issue du jour.
This is a very serious issue and deserves serious study and
consideration before we act, as all bills before Congress should. I
fear that this bill continues the misguided policies that we've created
towards drugs in this country.
Just look at our experience with marijuana, which Congress placed on
Schedule I in 1970. According to the criteria of the Controlled
Substances Act, it supposedly has a high potential for abuse, has no
currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and
there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical
supervision.
Let's put aside for a minute the question of whether it has a
potential for abuse. Certainly there's a lot of evidence that it does
not. But I think thousands of people who depend on marijuana to treat
the effects of such diseases as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple
sclerosis would take issue with the notion that it has no medical use,
and 15 or so States have legalized it for medical use. It increases
appetite and eases pain in a way that has helped countless people in
the last stages of life.
But we treat our approach to drugs as a law enforcement matter, not a
scientific matter, and we've placed marijuana in Schedule I, the most
restrictive schedule. Meanwhile, the scientific community is urging
that we reschedule marijuana so we can continue to conduct important
research and make it available to those in need.
Recently, the California Medical Association called for cannabis to
be legalized and regulated, primarily so that scientists can gain
access to it and conduct further research. They advocated wider
clinical research with accountable and quality-controlled production of
cannabis. None of this can happen with the tight restrictions we've
placed on cannabis. That's exactly the situation we may find ourselves
in with the substances named in this bill.
I know that licenses are available for research in the Schedule I
drugs, but there's no reason to make researchers go through such hoops.
It is nearly as easy to get permission to do research on a Schedule I
drug as it would be to go to the Vatican and ask for a grant to study
birth control.
We don't know what medical benefits these substances may contain and
we don't know the true risk they pose. Perhaps they belong in a lower
schedule. And Schedule II would certainly deter young people from using
them and others and set a penalty stage. But we have no idea. We just
decided to throw the book and make it Schedule I.
Perhaps they shouldn't be scheduled at all. I suspect they should be
scheduled, maybe Schedule II. But the scientists should decide this and
not politicians. We have no basis to believe they belong in Schedule I.
Haven't we learned from this Nation's 40-year experiment with the war
on drugs?
Prohibition does not work. It is an expensive and counterproductive
policy that fills up our prisons and places a mark on our citizens that
can make jobs, housing, and education nearly impossible to obtain. We
should focus our efforts on educating young people about the substances
and continue to do research about their benefits and risks.
Instead of basing our drug policy on science, we are letting it be
driven by politics. This bill continues that trend, and regrettably I
must urge its defeat. We need to send this bill back to committee and
take a careful, considerable review so that we can have Congress make
this decision on a scientific basis with help from the scientists.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. COHEN. The DEA can use its emergency powers to temporarily
schedule these substances while letting the scientific process play
out. Let's put science first and politics second. Let's defeat this
bill.
If we put science first and politics second, maybe we won't be in
single figures in the public's mind as an organization that they
support as an institution. Part of the 9 percent level is because we do
things sometimes in a rush to judgment and politics and the issue du
jour rather than allowing the scientific process and doing what is
logically best for our Nation to prevail.
I urge the defeat of this bill.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleague that I am
prepared to close.
Mr. PITTS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Marino), a former prosecutor.
Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I recently coauthored a letter with my colleagues,
Representative Sandy Adams and Representative Trey Gowdy, concerning
this very issue, and I'd like to read just a paragraph:
``As of October 4, 2011, the DEA has 325 researchers conducting
research with Schedule I controlled substances. These researchers
include research centers and universities who seek to better understand
the effects of Schedule I controlled substances. Additionally, as
[[Page 19151]]
of October 4, 2011, the DEA has 3,983 active registrants who
manufacture, research, and conduct chemical analysis with Schedule I
controlled substances.
``In fact, many researchers who would conduct research to better
understand the compounds controlled in H.R. 1254 are already registered
with the DEA, which means there would be virtually no impact on ongoing
research.''
Mr. Speaker, as a former prosecutor for 18 years at the State and
local level, I have seen firsthand the disaster this drug causes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. MARINO. I have seen firsthand what this drug does. If it doesn't
kill our children, it makes them suicidal; it makes them incredibly
violent.
And I still get calls, as a former prosecutor, from hospitals and
emergency service personnel telling me the violence that a child under
this influence causes, not only on him- or herself, but emergency
personnel. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I had another speaker that
arrived unexpectedly.
Mr. PITTS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia
for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the proposed multistate mortgage settlement
currently being negotiated between the country's major mortgage
servicers and the State attorney generals.
Before we haphazardly rush into a settlement, we need to pause for
what I call station identification, so to speak.
I'm speaking on the wrong bill.
But I also rise in opposition to the synthetic drug bill. I think
there is not enough research. I think there's information still needed.
I don't think that we are in a position to allow this action to take
place, and so I join in opposition to passage of this legislation.
Mr. PITTS. I am prepared to close; so I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill circumvents
the normal thoughtful process for scheduling drugs. Most of the drugs
in this bill can't even be found in the United States. And to the
extent there is an emergency and a need to place these on a schedule,
the Attorney General has the emergency process where he can just put a
drug on the schedule for a year and a half.
Medical researchers have asked us not to pass the bill because it
will disturb promising research, particularly on Parkinson's disease,
and so they have asked us not to pass this bill.
We should follow the thoughtful process for scheduling drugs and
defeat this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the prime
sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I do want to address a few of the statements I heard on the
floor from my friends from Tennessee and Virginia.
My friend from Tennessee made some comments, but I want to be very
clear, these drugs are dangerous, have a high potential for abuse and
no accepted medical use, which is why they belong on Schedule I.
Schedules II and V are reserved for drugs used in legitimate medical
procedures.
So we're talking about Schedule I here, not Schedules II through V.
Let me be very clear on that point.
{time} 1810
Second, the FDA has stated that the drugs listed in H.R. 1254 have no
medical use, and there are no INDs--that is, investigational new drug
applications--for these substances pending with the FDA. This is from
the FDA. H.R. 1254 will not prevent further research into synthetic
drugs. It's simply false to say that it will.
DEA has a routine, well-established procedure in place to facilitate
scientific study of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, and
heroin. Currently the DEA has licensed nearly 4,000 individuals and
other entities, including universities, manufacturers, researchers, and
labs to handle Schedule I drugs for scientific and investigational
purposes. These are facts.
I also want to point out, my friend from Virginia made some comments
about I guess eight compounds having been found in the United States.
Actually, dozens of compounds have been found in the United States.
Many bath salt chemicals currently are in the United States, but only
three synthetic stimulants and five synthetic cannabinoids have been
emergency scheduled by the DEA because they have to go chemical by
chemical in order to act on this matter. They have to deal with this on
a chemical-by-chemical basis.
We need Congress to give the DEA authority to be more effective and
get ahead of this problem. We know that these drugs are coming into
this country from Europe. That's where they're coming from, these
compounds. There are some in Europe right now. Our goal is to get out
in front of this before they have a chance to be exported into the U.S.
Another comment I heard about 325 researchers, well, 325 researchers
because that's all who have applied to do this type of research. DEA is
not in the business of turning researchers away, so I want to be clear
on these points.
There's so much more that can be said on this. But again, research
will not be impeded in any way. There is a mechanism, there is a
process in place to do research on these Schedule I drugs. It's well
established. This has nothing to do with the medical marijuana debate.
I heard that argued earlier, too. We're talking about synthetic
marijuana and synthetic cocaine. This stuff is dangerous. And, in fact,
some would argue worse than the real stuff, so let's get to it.
This is about public safety. This is about the health of our
constituents. We know what's going on. In fact, somebody pointed out to
me today that a store in Washington, D.C., a few blocks from the
Capitol, somebody is selling this stuff. My State and over 30 other
States have seen this problem. They know what's happening across this
country. We need to do something about it. DEA is alarmed by this.
Justice is on board. DEA is on board. Let's do something for the good
of the American people. Please pass H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug
Control Act of 2011. It's in the best interest of the American people,
and the best interest of our children. We're doing the right thing.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Synthetic Drug Control Act adds
specified synthetic versions of drugs of abuse to Schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act. These designer drugs generally mimic the
effects of marijuana or of stimulants and can be unsafe, causing
convulsions, anxiety attacks, dangerously elevated heart rates, and
bizarre and dangerous behavior, among other conditions. Under current
authority, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has difficulty
taking action against these drugs because they fall outside existing
statutory descriptions of Schedule I drugs. H.R. 1254 will enable DEA
to take appropriate enforcement actions to get them off the street and
away from our Nation's youth. I therefore believe it is critical that
we deal with the threat these drugs pose.
I wish to note however that I have concerns with the basic underlying
statute that would now apply to these listed substances through this
legislation. In particular, I do not support the mandatory minimum
sentencing provisions of the Controlled Substances Act for Schedule I
drugs, provisions that under this legislation will apply to the listed
synthetic drugs as they apply to all Schedule I drugs. Mandatory
minimum sentencing inappropriately applies a one size fits all
approach, eliminating the ability of judges to exercise discretion in
determining an appropriate sentence in light of individual
circumstances. The sentencing judge is in the best position to
determine a fair sentence, having considered all of the evidence and
having heard from the parties and the defendant.
I also believe that the administrative process for scheduling
controlled substances should be improved, so that the Attorney General,
with the help of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, can make
scheduling decisions without resorting to help from Congress.
[[Page 19152]]
I do not know whether such improvement requires legislation or
regulation. I do know, however, that it is rarely a good idea for
Congress to make scientific determinations such as are required to make
good scheduling decisions.
Additionally, I believe it is incumbent upon DEA to reevaluate the
recordkeeping and other regulatory requirements it imposes upon
scientists who use controlled substances for legitimate research. The
agency should ensure that such research is not impeded or discouraged
through unnecessarily onerous requirements.
I recognize that it is not a simple task to strike the right balance,
to exercise enough control to discourage abuse but not so much as to
discourage research that may lead to important therapeutic advances and
treatments. I intend to send a letter to DEA Administrator Michele
Leonhart asking for a report on the restrictions imposed upon
researchers, particularly those in academia who work with amounts of
scheduled substances too small to pose a serious risk of diversion. I
would like to know what if any improvements can be effected to
eliminate or modify those requirements whose costs in time and
resources outweigh their potential benefits in hindering research
scientists from becoming drug abusers. I hope the Chairman of the
Energy and Commerce Committee and others will join me on the letter.
Finally, however, while I remain concerned about aspects of the
underlying statute, the question before us is whether these substances
should be controlled as would be accomplished through passage of this
legislation. I believe the answer is yes, because of the danger to
public health posed by the listed synthetic drugs.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter from one of my
constituents with respect to the debate on H.R. 1254 that occurred on
December 7, 2011.
Dear Congressman Latham: Regarding the Synthetic Drug
Control Act, as you know I am a mother who lost her son to
these drugs and I can't stop myself from reacting to the
opposition on the floor yesterday.
Hundreds of chemical compounds are used to make synthetic
drugs manufactured under the guise of bath salts, plant food,
k2 and various names of synthetic marijuana--with the sole
purpose being to ingest. These drugs are smoked, snorted,
injected, or put into drinks. The label may say they are not
for human consumption, but they are implicitly being sold as
such.
Yet those opposing H.R. 1254 argue that not enough research
has been done to prove whether or not these already banned
and potentially future banned chemicals would bear any
medical benefit.
To the contrary, not only have the synthetic drugs included
in this legislation failed to show medicinal promise, but the
Controlled Substances Act would still allow research on these
synthetic drugs to continue if H.R. 1254 were enacted.
Under current law, researchers, universities and labs may
register with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to obtain
Schedule I controlled substances for scientific study. DEA
allows thousands of labs to handle Schedule I drugs for
scientific and investigative purposes. Chemicals with ``a
high potential for abuse'' and ``a lack of accepted safety''
under the Controlled Substances Act should be placed under
Schedule I--available for scientific study but not sold on
convenience store shelves.
The reality is that without H.R. 1254, our society will
continue to allow informal, unsupervised and unethical
medical experimentation--with our kids as the subjects. It
begins with unscrupulous manufacturers obtaining unknown
chemical compounds from other countries. It is either
manufactured overseas here or in our own backyard. These
drugs are openly sold to those ``18 years or older'' and can
be purchased at gas stations, convenience stores and head
shops around this country. Its availability is rampant on the
internet as well. It is difficult if not impossible to find
out who the people really are that sell the chemicals or
premade products. When it's all said and done, it is American
teens who are being endangered and experimented with.
Let's be bold and put a stop to the newest drug trends that
are sweeping across our nation like a tidal wave--Jan Rozga,
Indianola, IA
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this legislation because,
like the rest of my colleagues, I want to see an end to the illegal
manufacture, sale, and use of synthetic drugs that mimic the properties
of illegal drugs. Many of these drugs are extremely dangerous and
warrant control. In fact, some 30 states, including Hawaii, have laws
that address the manufacture, sale, and use of synthetic drugs.
I am concerned, however, that we may be moving too fast. I would
prefer to see a bill that is as important as this considered under
regular order, with members having an opportunity to offer amendments.
I am hoping that the Senate will take a more measured approach in
considering this legislation.
I am especially concerned about the application of mandatory minimum
sentences and Schedule I penalties that are included in this bill. I
support judicial discretion, especially when the lives and futures of
young people are involved.
I know too that there are concerns that this could impede legitimate
scientific research of chemical compounds listed in this bill.
Adjustments to this legislation may be needed to ensure that we don't
hinder development of future biomedical breakthroughs.
We need to make sure the legislation targets those most responsible
for widespread distribution of these drugs. Most important, we need to
find ways to keep our young people from using synthetic drugs.
Education of parents and young people is badly needed as is market
regulation to reduce the availability and misuse of certain household
and industrial aerosol products. Adding to our already crowded prisons
is not a real solution to the very real problem of synthetic drugs.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 1254,
the Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.
While I support sensible restrictions on dangerous substances, I am
concerned about the unintended consequences this bill could have on
medical research. This bill has the potential to make these kinds of
substances extremely difficult for researchers to obtain. In fact, many
researchers have expressed concern that the list in this bill is too
broad and would restrict their ability to conduct important
experiments.
Additionally, this legislation would bypass the scientific and
medical review process that is in place for adding substances to
Schedule I. Making decisions without scientific review is problematic.
It is important to note that states are free to make decisions
regarding these kinds of substances. I supported the reasonable step
New Jersey took when it banned the synthetic drugs known as ``bath
salts'' this summer.
Since this bill would bypass scientific review and could hinder much-
needed research, I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify my position on H.R.
1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act.
My vote in support of H.R. 1254 is not without reservations. I
support this legislation because the health and safety of our citizens
is my primary concern. This legislation will protect our communities,
and particularly our youth, from more than forty new and dangerous
synthetic drugs. These substances have been the cause of violent
incidents and numerous deaths around the nation and it is preferable to
immediately list them as Schedule I as opposed to allowing them to
continue to be abused in our communities.
Criminalizing these substances, however, will not solve the root
problem of drug abuse in our communities. I have serious concerns about
the over-criminalization of drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences lead to
over-capacity criminal justice and prison systems at significant burden
to taxpayers. I have long advocated for a comprehensive approach to
drug abuse treatment, including education, prevention, treatment,
research, and enforcement. In fact, I have authored legislation to
expand accessible treatment, especially for underserved communities,
and research into cutting edge treatment therapies. Responsible law
enforcement is just the way to address this issue, and it must be
executed in conjunction with a robust and multifaceted approach that
targets the root of drug abuse problems.
I also have concerns about the impact of penalties in H.R. 1254 on
our scientific research processes. While, it is regrettable that H.R.
1254 circumvents the process for listing drugs as laid out in the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), it is necessary in this circumstance.
The evidentiary procedure in CSA has worked well for determining the
listing of new substances. Unfortunately, it can be time-intensive and
the law enforcement community, including the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) and the Department of Justice, supports the
immediate listing of these synthetic drugs because of the harm they
inflict on our communities. This bill increases the length of time that
a new substance can be temporarily scheduled by the DEA, thereby
allowing more time for the usual CSA listing process to be carried out.
Throughout my career I have supported scientific research. The study
of synthetic drugs is important for understanding their impact on
health and their potential beneficial uses. Unfortunately, most of the
substances included in this legislation have not been subjected to
extensive scientific study, and I am concerned that listing them as
Schedule I drugs may inhibit the study of these drugs. While the DEA
has a procedure for scientists to study Schedule I controlled
substances, it presents greater barriers for scientists to work with
these drugs.
[[Page 19153]]
As of October 4, 2011, the DEA has 325 researchers conducting research
with Schedule I controlled substances. These researchers include
research centers and universities who seek to better understand the
effects of Schedule I controlled substances. Additionally, as of
October 4, 2011, the DEA has 3,983 active registrants who manufacture,
research, and conduct chemical analysis with Schedule I controlled
substances. I encourage the scientific community to continue their
efforts to understand these and other drugs.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 1254, the
``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.''
I share the concerns that supporters of this bill have about the sale
of synthetic drugs that are determined to be harmful. The issue here is
what process should be used to determine whether a drug is harmful and
should be banned. I oppose this bill because it circumvents the
established process for scheduling controlled substances as illegal for
any uses without proper scientific review. This bill short-circuits
that process and substitutes the less-informed judgment of Congress for
the more considered view of scientists and experts.
We already have a process for banning drugs temporarily on an
emergency basis. Indeed, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has
temporarily prohibited the sale or manufacture of many of the compounds
banned in this bill as more in-depth scientific reviews are conducted.
I also support Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's
decision to ban the sale of many of these drugs in the State. I believe
that the temporary ban by the DEA and the State bans of these drugs are
sufficient at this point to protect our society from the harms caused
by these synthetic drugs. Congress should only act to add these drugs
to the list of Schedule I controlled substances after the process laid
out in the Controlled Substance Act is completed.
The process established in the Controlled Substance Act requires that
the Attorney General request from the Secretary of Health and Human
Services ``a scientific and medical evaluation, and his
recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substances should be
so controlled. . . .'' This process is important for many reasons and
should not be circumvented by this bill. Without proper scientific
review this bill could create significant hurdles for medical research
of cures and treatments for various diseases. During the bill mark up
in the Judiciary Committee, statements from medical researchers were
submitted stating that this bill could hamper their ability to
determine lawful uses of these substances by making them illegal to
possess. R. Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the Office of the National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), stated that these drugs are dangerous, but
acknowledged that there is ``a lack of sufficient data regarding the
prevalence of bath salt stimulant drugs.'' Additionally, the penalties
for possessing and distributing Schedule I drugs are serious. Adding
over 35 additional substances to the list of Schedule I drugs, for
which people can be incarcerated, should not be taken lightly by
Congress.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1254, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H.R. 944, de novo;
S. 535, de novo;
H.R. 2360, de novo;
H.R. 2351, de novo;
H.R. 1560, de novo;
S. 683, de novo;
S. Con. Res. 32, de novo.
____________________
CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT CONSOLIDATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 944) to eliminate an
unused lighthouse reservation, provide management consistency by
incorporating the rocks and small islands along the coast of Orange
County, California, into the California Coastal National Monument
managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and meet the original
Congressional intent of preserving Orange County's rocks and small
islands, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT LEASE AUTHORIZATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill (S. 535) to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands within Fort Pulaski
National Monument, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR OUR WORKFORCE AND ENERGY RESOURCES ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 2360) to amend the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to extend the Constitution, laws, and
jurisdiction of the United States to installations and devices attached
to the seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf for the production and
support of production of energy from sources other than oil and gas,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX FISH STOCKING ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 2351) to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to continue stocking fish in certain lakes in
the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area,
and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 19154]]
____________________
ALLOWING YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO TRIBE TO DETERMINE MEMBERSHIP
REQUIREMENTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 1560) to amend the
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas
Restoration Act to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribe to determine
blood quantum requirement for membership in that tribe.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
BOX ELDER UTAH LAND CONVEYANCE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill (S. 683) to provide for the
conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Mantua, Utah.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
CORRECTING ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 470, HOOVER POWER ALLOCATION ACT OF 2011
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and concurring in the concurrent resolution (S.
Con. Res. 32) to authorize the Clerk of the House of Representatives to
make technical corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 470, an Act to
further allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power
generated at Hoover Dam, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and concur in the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1820
EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
General Leave
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today we're here to talk about the need to
extend unemployment insurance. The numbers are staggering. If we do not
act by the end of this month, in January well over a million people
will lose their unemployment insurance, by mid-February the total will
be well over 2 million, and by the end of next year, if we do not act,
over 6 million people. As I said, these numbers are staggering. But the
people behind these numbers are overwhelming.
We're here today to talk about the numbers and also talk about the
people who are involved. When we've had emergencies like this, we have
never failed to act. Today, we face an emergency beyond any we've seen
since the Great Depression, and it's absolutely vital as a result that
we act.
I'm joined by some of my colleagues. I want to call on them. As I do
so, I want to read stories. I'll start by reading just one story and
then call on one or more of my colleagues.
Let me start by reading what came in from a person in Amherst, New
Hampshire, Jackie: ``Unemployment benefits helped me make ends meet
while I was using my savings and 401(k) to keep up with everything. Now
they are gone. My savings are long gone. My 401(k) is almost gone. I'm
watching everything I worked so hard for my entire adult life slip away
from me. I am 50. I will never recover from this.''
I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Texas, if he would
like to join me.
Mr. REYES. I want to thank my colleague for yielding and some time to
speak on this very important issue here.
Mr. Speaker, recently, the Department of Labor reported that the
national unemployment rate fell to 8.6 percent in November, its lowest
point in nearly 3 years. Coincidentally, in El Paso in the 16th
District of Texas, the unemployment rate has also declined. This is
very good news and very positive news for not just our respective
districts but for our country.
We have been told by economists that once our economy gets going and
operating at full strength, it can literally drive the economies of the
rest of the world. These positive signs make it evident that, in fact,
our economy is moving forward and that we are on the road to recovery.
However, as our economy continues to heal, we cannot afford to become
complacent. Instead, we need to immediately pass legislation that will
help create jobs and put more people back to work.
First, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must pass the American Jobs
Act. My district, as well as the districts of my colleagues, in talking
to them here, would greatly benefit from the President's Jobs Act. For
instance, El Paso would receive over $66 million to upgrade and
modernize our schools to meet 21st-century needs. In addition, school
districts in the El Paso region would receive funding to keep teachers
from being laid off.
For example, our largest school district, the El Paso Independent
School District, would receive an estimated $45 million to keep
teachers from being laid off and to perhaps hopefully continue to hire
desperately needed teachers in our classrooms. These are smart
investments on our part for the future which will also boost our
economy in the immediate future.
Second, we must extend unemployment benefits. I want to thank my
colleague for highlighting this and make sure that we extend
unemployment benefits to those that are in desperate need. In fact,
these benefits are the only thing that stand between them and
homelessness and going without. During this downturn, unemployment
benefits have kept over 3 million people in food and clothing and the
basic essentials. It has also served as a booster to our struggling
economy. We must protect these families who are still struggling and
help them by the Jobs Act to find a stable source of income.
I have heard, like many other of my colleagues here, many stories
from those in my district that have had difficulty in the last months
and years in finding a job. So today we cannot and we must not turn our
backs on the American people--the American people that need our help
and need the passage of the American Jobs Act. They also need for us to
step forward, stand with them, and pass the unemployment insurance.
Rather than being distracted and being misled by our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, we must focus on our priority, which should be
the creation of jobs, the passage of the unemployment insurance, and
getting this economy going.
So I pledge to my colleague and my colleagues here that we must
continue
[[Page 19155]]
to work together to create jobs not just for El Paso and not just for
Texas, but for our country. And when we talk about the United States
economy that literally drives all other economies, people around the
world are waiting for us to work together to get this done. With that
commitment, we can turn things around. We're seeing some very positive
signs. We must continue to work for all the people that have sent us
here to do that work.
With that, I want to thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for joining us and
explaining what this means in his State and throughout the country.
We're determined to tell the stories and, as I said, to put faces on
these numbers. And to do that, I have joined with other Ways and Means
Democrats to launch an extend unemployment program e-call Web site. As
of this week, 2,590 Americans have joined the e-call, and we have
received 501 stories from jobless Americans.
Before I call on the gentleman from Illinois to join, I would like to
read, if I might, just a couple more. This is from Nick of Clinton
Township, Michigan. ``I was unemployed from August 2008 until March
2010 after working for 23\1/2\ years at my job.
{time} 1830
``My job was sent to Sao Paulo, Brazil. Had it not been for extended
unemployment benefits, I would have lost my house.'' Nick of Clinton
Township.
And let me read what was said by Peter of Warren, Michigan: ``I was
permanently laid off from American Axle. I worked there 15 years and
our jobs were sent to Mexico. As of this time, I have not found a job.
I have been looking over 2 years now, and nothing in Michigan. I am in
the TRA/TAA program to be reeducated, but my benefits will run out
before I finish my school, and I will not get the degree in my field.''
Again, from Peter of Warren, Michigan.
I now would like to call, if I might, on the gentleman from Illinois
to join us. And then, if I might, the sponsor of this legislation, Mr.
Doggett of Texas.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Let me thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding, but I also want to commend him for his many years of
excellent service to this body that we know as the United States House
of Representatives. And I want to commend him for the tremendous
leadership that he provides as the ranking member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is December 7, and Republicans still have not enacted
legislation to protect the millions of Americans hardest hit by one of
the worst economic crises in our Nation's history. The well-being of 6
million Americans, including 100,000 from my home State of Illinois,
hangs in the balance. Our Nation is in an unemployment crisis, and we
must act now to help our citizens.
At this time last year, Republicans emphasized that the economy was
so horrible that the wealthiest Americans needed 2 years of tax cuts,
yet they only saw the need to help the unemployed for 1 year of
emergency assistance. Now, 1 year later, as the emergency assistance
runs out, Republicans remain comfortable with the $180 billion in tax
breaks for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans, but they cannot
support $50 billion in 2012 to help millions of the neediest
Americans--and never mind any consideration of helping the millions of
Americans who have exhausted their Federal benefits and still can't
find a job.
Our Nation, yes, is indeed in an unemployment crisis. Over 45 percent
of all unemployed workers--more than 6 million people--have been out of
work for more than 6 months. There are approximately 6.4 million fewer
jobs now than at the beginning of the Great Depression. The Department
of Labor data showed that there are over 4.2 unemployed Americans for
every one job. Even if every job were filled, 8.9 million citizens
would remain unemployed.
During this protracted storm of economic hardship, unemployment
benefits are a critical lifeline for our citizens and for our economy.
Unemployment benefits have kept 3.2 million Americans--including nearly
1 million children--from falling into poverty in 2010 alone. New
research shows that the current Federal unemployment programs provide
$2 in economic stimulus for every $1 in unemployment benefits
circulating in the economy. The Federal unemployment programs saved or
created 1.1 million jobs as of the fourth quarter of 2009 alone. And
the Economic Policy Institute estimates that preventing unemployment
benefits from expiring could prevent the loss of over 500,000 jobs.
Our Nation is indeed in an unemployment crisis, and we must act now
to help our citizens. We cannot protect the wealthy while ignoring the
millions of Americans hardest hit by one of the worst economic crises
in our Nation's history. We cannot deliver a windfall to the privileged
and deny the poor. Such a position is not responsible leadership, and
such a position is not consistent with American values.
So I join with my colleagues in urging the Republican leadership to
protect vulnerable Americans by extending the unemployment benefits.
I want to thank you, Mr. Levin, again for the opportunity to
participate.
Mr. LEVIN. And I thank the gentleman from Illinois for your
distinguished service and your passion that you bring to this and so
many other issues.
I want to yield to the gentleman from Texas, who's the lead sponsor
and ranking member on the relevant subcommittee. But before I do that,
since you're from Texas, I want to read one of the hundreds that we've
received, a word from people who are the unemployed.
This is Jessie of San Antonio, Texas: ``I have submitted over 350 job
applications and have only been called for two face-to-face interviews
and five over-the-phone interviews. I am a disabled Navy veteran whose
appendix ruptured in October 2010 and was filled with cancer cells. My
State benefits expired at the end of August, and now my Federal
benefits will expire in 6 weeks.
``It seems that no one is hiring adults over 56 years of age. I'm a
very good, positive employee, and I feel that with every job
application I'm due to get hired soon. Please help me in any way
possible.''
It's now my privilege to yield to the lead sponsor of this
legislation, Lloyd Doggett from the great State of Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I still call you ``Mr.
Chairman,'' though the formal leadership of the committee has changed
with the change in the majority here in the House. And I guess if you
were in fact still the chairman with full authority we would not be
here, nor would there be any unemployed individual in the United States
among the millions whose benefits would expire next year who would be
wondering the night before Christmas what would happen the day after
their unemployment coverage expired next year.
We face a great challenge, and as you have been pointing out in
describing individuals like Jessie, a retired--not voluntarily retired,
but retired, removed from the workforce by unemployment in San Antonio,
these are very real human beings, not just unemployment statistics.
With over 6 million fewer jobs than when the recession began and more
than four workers competing for every job opening, too many Americans
have nowhere to go. They are like the lyrics from that working man song
of the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band:
Had me a job until the market fell out;
Tried hard to borrow, but there was no help.
Now I've got nowhere to go.
I need a job for these two hands;
I'm a working man with nowhere to go.
And if our Republican colleagues continue to insist that unemployment
is caused by the unemployed instead of by the troubling economy we
have, there will be about another 5 million Americans with nowhere to
go, looking as to where they will find the resources to put food on the
table, make the car or pick-up truck payment, take care of the kids and
meet the other necessities of life if their unemployment insurance
expires.
[[Page 19156]]
While the Republicans continue to have a really factless finger-
pointing at the unemployed, I think it is past time for us to lay the
facts straight out on the table and respond to some of these myths that
they've been promoting.
Fact: An unemployment check is not a substitute for a paycheck.
People like Jessie know that. An unemployment benefit usually amounts
to a fraction of what a worker was making before someone lost his or
her job.
Fact: Unless you are actively searching for a job, getting job
training for a new job, or are on temporary layoff, you're not likely
to be entitled to an unemployment check.
{time} 1840
I'm not for just paying people to be idle; but these are individuals
who are either getting training, who are actively involved in a job
search, or the few that are in the temporary layoff category. There is
little evidence to support the Republican claim, repeated again and
again, that unemployment insurance benefits are a significant factor in
discouraging folks from going out and looking for work.
Fact: to receive extended benefits, an unemployed person is required
to accept reasonable offers of employment. Two out of three of the
unemployed respondents in the Heldrich Center survey, and 80 percent of
those who were receiving unemployment benefits, said they were willing
to take a pay cut in order to get a new job, as so many Americans have
had to do with the challenges in our economy.
Fact: one economist estimates that for every $1 dollar we spend on
these unemployment insurance benefits, about a $1.61 in economic
activity comes back. In fact, some of the estimates from one group that
began its survey back during the Bush administration for the Department
of Labor say it's even higher than that in terms of the economic
rewards.
So I believe that we must create jobs. Certainly, we must do the
kinds of things that this Congress has failed totally to do in terms of
job creation and promoting economic recovery. But we also must provide
a vital lifeline for those folks who are out there actively searching
for work and the jobs are just not there for them.
The facts are clear. The time for us to extend unemployment coverage
is now, not to wait until next year, not to wait until Christmas, and
not to wait until these families are faced with the critical situation
of not having the unemployment insurance coverage that they should have
to meet these basic necessities, but to act right now in the next few
days.
It's for that reason, as you well know, that we're working together
to try to get this unemployment insurance coverage extended, as it has
been done often on a bipartisan basis in the past whenever the
unemployment rate was at a level near what it is today.
So, hopefully, in our sounding the alarm here again tonight, in your
telling these stories about individual Americans and what a loss of
this coverage means, we can begin to involve and get the support of
more of our colleagues to do what we really need to have accomplished
just as soon as possible.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. What we're trying to do, as you say, is to
bring America into this debate because if the faces are shown and the
voices heard, our faith is that somehow we'll act.
And as you say, Republicans tend to blame the unemployed instead of
blaming themselves for inaction. And we're not going to leave here,
we're not going to leave here until there's an extension of
unemployment benefits; isn't that correct? That's your pledge.
Mr. DOGGETT. It is our pledge, because there's just too much at stake
here. This Congress has been incredibly unproductive. You might think
it had been unemployed for much of the past year. And we need to stay
and complete the work.
This is work that was done practically on Christmas Eve last year,
when this extension was in jeopardy again. And we ought not to go right
down to the wire like that again. There's no reason that this could not
be done in the coming week, but for this ideological commitment saying
that unemployment insurance coverage is not good for the economy. The
facts don't bear that out.
The individual stories that you're telling us about tonight, those
are the individuals, those are the families that have so much at stake.
And of course, because of this economic effect, those unemployed
families, when they get a dollar of unemployment insurance, they have
to spend that dollar. They may be spending it at the grocery store.
They may be paying a landlord or a mortgage company. They may be paying
on their credit card or their car, just to have the basic necessities
of life; and that's why the economic impact on small businesses is so
significant from doing what we would need to do in order to support
these families engaged in an active job search or getting the
retraining and the retooling they need to have an opportunity for a job
in the future.
Mr. LEVIN. It's so important that you've talked about the facts. The
more we discuss the facts about unemployment insurance, and the more we
talk about the unemployed, the more persuasive is the need for action.
There's so much mythology, and the stories help to blast the mythology.
I just would wish that we could get into the shoes--there are 6
million whose benefits are threatened here. If you lined up the 6
million from here, they'd go, I think, to Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
But it's hard for us to receive the stories or to obtain them
because, under the Privacy Act, we don't know the names; and that's why
you and I and others have joined to, essentially, have a Web site so
people can tell us how to reach them.
But your recitation of the facts is so important because, in the end,
I think the facts will prevail. The stories will be telling.
And so, Mr. Doggett, you've been such a lead person on this. You're
the lead person on this legislation. So many of us have been working on
this.
As you said, one of the facts is we have never failed to act, and
this is a deeper recession than we've known. In fact, one of the facts
is that there are now nearly 7 million fewer jobs in the economy today
compared to when the recession started in December 2007. Seven million
fewer jobs. And so when people search, they're often hitting a wall.
By the way, this gentleman, Jesse, refers to his age. And it's very
true that the older--they're not very old--people are having trouble.
I had a forum in Michigan, and it was so heartbreaking that a person
said to me--I would guess in her fifties--that I've taken all of the
years off of my CV, when I went to college, when I graduated, when I
first had a job, and the date of every position she had because she's
afraid that when these resumes come in, people look at the age and a
stone wall is hit.
It's my privilege, Mr. Doggett, to join with you. I'd now like to
have join us a very distinguished Member from California. And if you
give me a minute, Barbara Lee, the very distinguished woman, I want to
find a story from California. And so if I might just read this before I
yield to you.
This is Benjamin of Los Angeles, California:
``I've been actively looking for work for 8 months now. Unemployment
insurance has been crucial in my survival. It has literally kept me
alive. It's allowed me to buy food and pay all my bills. Bills have no
conscience. They come, regardless if one is working or not.
``I really feel for and extend my empathy to those who are unemployed
and have children. I wholeheartedly support the emergency extension of
unemployment insurance.''
Benjamin of Los Angeles California, your home State.
You do such honor to your State and the whole Nation, and it's my
privilege now to call upon the gentlelady from California, Barbara Lee.
{time} 1850
Ms. LEE of California. Thank you so much.
First off, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan for those very
kind
[[Page 19157]]
words, more importantly for your leadership on so many fronts and for
caring about those who are falling through the cracks at this point,
and also for this very sobering Special Order tonight, because this is
very sobering on the need for an immediate extension of unemployment
benefits for the millions of Americans who are struggling to find work.
While we received some welcome news on the unemployment rates from
last week with the national unemployment rate falling to 8.6 percent
from 9 percent, we cannot stop. We cannot abandon the millions of job
seekers during the middle of a faltering recovery.
In fact, failing to extend these critical benefits would really
cripple our recovery and cost the economy over half a million jobs.
The slow pace of private sector job creation is not because of
regulations or uncertainty in the Tax Code. If you speak to nearly any
business person, they will tell you that they are not hiring because
they don't have customers.
Abruptly ending unemployment benefits during the holiday season,
first of all, it's mean and it's morally wrong. It would strip 2
million customers out of the economy by March, and over 6 million
customers out of the economy by the end of the year. But again, more
importantly this is just morally wrong. This is just not who we are as
Americans.
We could not make a worse decision than to cripple our economy by
failing to protect millions of families and children from poverty
because that is just what unemployment benefits do. It keeps 1 million
children from falling into poverty. So we absolutely must extend this
critical benefit to workers who were laid off through no fault of their
own before the end of this year.
Hidden, though, within the positive 0.4 percent drop of unemployment
is the discouraging news that over 300,000 Americans dropped out of the
workforce and that the long-term unemployment picture is not improving,
with the average length of unemployment now rising from 39 weeks to 40
weeks.
So not only must we immediately extend the emergency unemployment
benefits, but we should also immediately pass legislation that
Congressman Bobby Scott and myself have introduced, H.R. 589, which
would add an additional 14 weeks of tier I unemployment benefits for
the millions of Americans who have already completely exhausted their
benefits. And I hope that the Republican leadership will bring that
bill to the floor for an up-or-down vote.
We can't ignore the needs of people who have hit the 99 weeks,
because unfortunately when we extend unemployment benefits, there will
be 2 to 3 million people who still won't be covered because they've hit
the 99 weeks. So we can't ignore the needs of the millions of Americans
who have run out of time and who are now losing their homes, falling
out of the middle class, and relying more and more on our help.
In addition, there was a startling rise in the African American
unemployment rate from 15.1 percent to 15.5 percent in the same period.
There can be no clearer reminder of the ongoing racial and ethnic
disparities that continue to plague our Nation and keep minority
communities suffering disproportionately than higher rates of
unemployment, poverty, near poverty, and tragic health disparities like
unconscionably higher rates of HIV infection.
When the national employment picture improved significantly for the
first time in months, African Americans faced a marked increase in
their unemployment. That means we must take immediate and bold action
to implement targeted programs and policies to ensure that we truly are
a Nation that provides equal opportunity and leaves no one behind in
terms of accessing the American Dream.
Now, Congressman Levin, I held a job fair in my district a few months
ago. Thousands of people showed up in Oakland for the few jobs--four
people for every job--that were available.
But let me tell you, people want to work. They want to work. We in
the Congressional Black Caucus held five job fairs around the country,
thousands of people showed up for limited jobs. I can say with
certainty, people want to work, people want to work.
And so we have to, however, extend the safety net or this bridge over
troubled waters until we figure out how we can deal with the politics
of getting the American Jobs Act passed, and also other opportunities
and legislation to provide jobs for people because people want to work.
So we have to extend this unemployment compensation until we do that.
We have to save our economy and the millions of struggling families
from poverty and immediately pass and extend unemployment benefits now.
Let's not forget again the 2 million-plus people who've hit that 99-
week limit who will not be eligible for an extension unless we figure
out a way to include them in these initiatives and in this policy.
Mr. Speaker, we've got a lot of work to do. But I know we intend to
stay here until we do our job, until we extend this bridge over
troubled waters, the safety net for people just to survive. That's all
this is, is for people just to survive.
If we don't do that, those of us who call ourselves people of faith
really need to come to grips with our faith and who we are, and how we
propose to move forward within the context of looking out for and
making sure that the least of these are addressed and taken care of
until we can provide them those opportunities and dismantle those
barriers so they can reignite the American Dream, because it's turned
into a nightmare for millions and millions of people.
So Congressman Levin, I want to thank you again for, again, this
clarion call to our conscience. It should prick our conscience tonight.
We should, tomorrow, say let's pass this now. The holiday season is
upon us. People need some certainty in their lives. They need to know
that they have a bipartisan effort to help them through this period,
and they need to also know that we're going to work very hard to pass
the American Jobs Act so that they can finally get a job, because
that's what this is all about. And people want to work. Thank you
again.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you for your eloquent statement.
As you said, this is one estimate, four people for every job. You
mentioned this is a matter of faith. A few weeks ago, I met a minister.
I had never met him before. And we got to talking about the challenge
of unemployment insurance. And I paraphrase what he said to me: This is
a challenge to America's soul.
Thank you very much.
Before I call on the distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, I want
to read one more story.
I have a story that's given to us, one of the more than 400, from
Nathan of Madison, Wisconsin.
So let me read this before I call on my distinguished colleague and
friend from Wisconsin, Gwen Moore.
I quote: ``I have been unemployed twice in the past 5 years, and they
were not by choice. I have a master's degree in organic chemistry and
have worked in the pharmaceutical industry and related industries since
finding a job out of school in 1998. After 2 years with my first
company, I received a double promotion. So my layoffs have not been due
to my performance, abilities, or capabilities.
Anyone who says unemployed people are lazy or have it good are
ignoring the fact that people are hurting across the board.'' From your
fellow resident of the State of Wisconsin.
It is now my distinguished privilege to yield to you, Ms. Moore, from
the State of Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Absolutely, Representative Levin.
Let me start out by thanking you for this Special Order. And that
letter is just one in 58,000 people, off the top of my head, that will
be immediately affected by our inability to expand unemployment
insurance. That's one story.
As you indicated, it's a person who is from Madison, Wisconsin, well
educated, and cannot find a job in this recession.
I just think it is really curious, and I guess I would like to engage
in a dialogue with you about this, you being
[[Page 19158]]
the ranking member on Ways and Means, maybe you can help me understand
a little bit better. Our colleagues in the majority, the optic and the
narrative in the country for them is they want to preserve benefits for
millionaires and billionaires. They want to preserve corporate tax
expenditure benefits for corporations.
{time} 1900
They want to maintain foreign profits for expatriated funds. They
want to maintain a very high tax exemption for estates over $5 million.
They want to maintain capital gains benefits, benefits on dividends.
So I'm just curious, Representative Levin, why they don't want to
provide this governmental benefit for unemployed people. This is very
distressing to me when I consider who the unemployed are. When I think
about the people the majority party wants to preserve benefits for and
then when I get an optic of the people who would most likely benefit
from this unemployment insurance, there is a stark contrast. Perhaps
that starts to explain why there is a reluctance, an unwillingness and
an unreadiness to provide this benefit.
Now, as you know, the overall national unemployment rate dropped from
9.1 percent recently to 8.6, which is something that I think we can
claim some victory for; but when you peel back the curtain and
disaggregate these numbers, you're going to see that there's a sharp
and problematic racial undertone as it pertains to black unemployment.
When you look at the unemployment for white men, Representative
Levin, their unemployment dropped from 7.9 percent to 7.3 percent,
which is very high; but black men endured a spike from 16.2 percent in
unemployment to a disturbing 16.5 percent in unemployment. So those
lowered unemployment rates certainly do not reflect what's happening in
the African American community.
Of course, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment
declined for every demographic within the white community--for
teenagers, men, women--but it actually increased for every measured
group within the African American community--for men, women, teenagers.
Even worse is after the fact, when the recession is over, when black
unemployment won't be any better than white unemployment is right now.
I guess that's sort of racial inequality 101. When we peel back the
layers of this improved economy, what we find, Representative Levin, is
that single mothers--women--are suffering, that they're some of the
hardest hit.
As you will recall, Representative Levin, this institution on a
bipartisan basis--and I understand I was not here when Mr. Newt
Gingrich was Speaker of the House--decided that the most important
legislative initiative that they could undertake was to end aid to
families with dependent children and to put women and children under
the vagaries and vicissitudes of a cyclical economy. So now that we
have an economy that is as bad as it was during the Great Depression,
we can look at the unemployment numbers among women, especially among
single women, and we can find some very, very distressing data.
Poverty among women climbed to 14.5 percent in 2010 from 13.9 percent
in 2009, the highest in 17 years. According to a recent report by Legal
Momentum, recent Census data on poverty paints a bleak picture for
single-mother families. This report finds that the poverty rate for
single moms, for people who by definition have to feed their kids every
night, reached 42.2 percent last year, up from 38.5 percent in 2009,
and way up from 33 percent in 2000. It is chilling to contemplate the
predicament of women and children when there is no aid to families with
dependent children and no entitlement. When you consider that you've
got folks like the gentleman you described in your letter who has a
master's degree and who cannot find a job, a mom with kids is competing
in that same job market.
There is a great deal of need in these populations. Even as the
economy begins to show growth, they're forced to make cuts in the
family budgets. They're living with food insecurity--not enough food--
and the quality of the food is not good. They're eliminating health
insurance. I know families in my district who are taking medicines
every other day, doing without transportation, clothing, and where
utility cutoffs are very prevalent.
Mr. LEVIN. I was looking through some of the letters. Let me just
read a letter in which the author is a single parent from Geneva:
``I never thought that I would have to start all over again looking
for work in my late forties. I hadn't even been 1 year cancer free. I'm
a single parent of a teenage daughter. So, when my job terminated, so
did my medical insurance . . . I had to move back to my mom's house. I
could no longer afford my rent, car note, insurance, and the basic
everyday needs of raising my daughter and keeping my own place . . .
Please don't take away UI so soon. People like me need to keep it until
we can find full-time work to take care of our families and help us
keep our self-esteem.''
Ms. MOORE. I tell you, that is a very moving letter. You say she had
to move with a teenage daughter back into her mom's house. I mean,
teenage kids need things other than food. Something like toilet paper
becomes an issue when you're sharing a household and when you don't
have enough money to make those contributions.
The other thing that makes me very curious, Representative Levin, is
the rhetoric around the desire to help small businesses. Do you realize
if we don't extend this unemployment benefit, economists have
calculated that, in 2012, this will take $90 billion out of the
economy? You won't buy that teenager shoes because you're unemployed.
Mr. LEVIN. Absolutely.
We're focusing today on the stories of the unemployed, on the
personal stories, in order to put a face on the numbers. It's also
important--and you referred to it--for the economy of our country.
Every economist, I think without any exception, says that unemployment
insurance is one of the two most beneficial instruments that we have in
terms of putting money back into the economy because people who are
unemployed and who receive their insurance--they work for it--spend it.
We have some other stories from single parents. Let me just, if I
might, read another story. Then perhaps we should ask the gentlelady
from Texas to join us if she would like.
``I am a military spouse that was forced to move and leave a great-
paying office management position since my husband was transferred to a
new duty station . . . I have applied for jobs that would barely cover
our bills just so that I can be among the working again . . . My
soldier can't afford to support us on a military income--and it's not
just about me. I have a son to think of. I hope and pray that an
extension is approved so that it doesn't cause our family structure to
crumble. I believe that an extension should be approved as it is
keeping not only my family but millions of other American families from
drowning in a sea of financial ruin.''
That's from Rachel of Lemoore, California.
It is now my privilege to yield to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
{time} 1910
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much and thank
him for his leadership on this issue. And reading these passionate
letters, I don't know how anyone could bring us to the brink of
disaster where we find ourselves today.
I just want to read from the U.S. Department of Labor a simple
sentence that I think speaks volumes:
``The unemployment insurance system helps the population most
directly affected by recessions, those who have lost jobs through no
fault of their own.''
Mr. Levin, you have heard my colleagues speak of the double-digit
unemployment in distinctive populations, the young, recent college
graduates, African Americans and Latinos who remain at the bottom of
the heap, but
[[Page 19159]]
who are looking for jobs every day. I am reminded of a job fair at the
Fallbrook Church in Houston, Texas, where throngs came seeking
opportunity and basically refuting the commentary of one Presidential
candidate no longer in the race, Mr. Cain, who said if you're broke and
if you're unemployed, it's your fault.
And now the front-runner, Mr. Gingrich, says that poor children have
no role models, their parents don't get up and go to work, they have
not seen anybody go to work. How outrageous to speak about those who
have lost their job, their children are poor, and they would blame the
victim.
So I think it is crucial that we pass this legislation; and we have
never, Mr. Levin, not passed this legislation when unemployment in our
country has been near 9.1 percent. It is not 9.1 percent, but it's very
well near there.
And unemployment benefits will keep us from losing over 500,000 jobs.
It will also help some of the bankrupt States. There are States that
are, in fact, looking to $5 billion in tax hikes on employers in nearly
two dozen States. These solvency provisions will stop putting $5
billion in tax hikes on employers in nearly two dozen States, as well
as provide $1.5 billion in interest relief.
Some of these very Members who may be objecting to this, debating
about it, come from States that are themselves facing a question of
solvency because of the unemployment insurance.
Where is the life raft, if you will? Where is the helping hand? Where
is the rescue for the people who are desperate?
You might not be able to see this, but it's a very small picture of a
person living in a disastrous home impacted by Hurricane Ike. There was
some decision about some funds going there in Houston, Texas, today.
I'm not happy with the meager distribution to help people like this.
They're not getting all the money that they need.
I can assure you if they're living in some homes like this, many
times they may also be unemployed. So they're living in devastated
housing in many instances. They are in need of food on their table.
They are likewise trying to provide for their children, and they don't
have the resources.
Mr. LEVIN. The gentlelady referred to a particular situation. Let me
read from another story, if I might.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Please do.
Mr. LEVIN. This is Linda of Seattle, Washington:
``I am a person, a hardworking American person at that, and I will be
forced to live on the streets if EUC is not extended. It terrifies me;
and if it happens, the struggle I will face to once again be a
productive member of this society, in these times, by myself, is not
one that I'm likely to win. There are thousands of stories just like
mine that won't be told here. We are people, we have faces and lives
and dreams just like everyone who still has a job. I am telling you: we
will be on the streets without this extension, and only some of us will
ever make it back from that.''
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First, you read about a mother and her
child that has to move back into their family's residence, or her
parents' residence. These are now senior citizens.
Then you tell me about someone who's actually going to be homeless.
Then we hear about a person that's degreed, has the ability to
contribute to the engine of this economy in science, and they're
unemployed. And then if you would, Mr. Levin, just look, I'm on the
floor with Mr. Garamendi, the gentleman from California, and we use
this to show how flat-lined our working and middle class have been in
terms of the growth of their income; and we see the top percent of
wealth right here shooting up to an enormous amount--that is the blue
line. This is how the wealthy have progressed and grown.
And then we hear our friends saying the poor little rich person,
where the very rich person in this group, because I'm not involved in
class warfare, is saying we understand and we're willing to have the
burden of sacrifice with the benefit of living in this great country.
And so when we look at this wealth, think about this woman who is
saying she is near homelessness and think about the 160 million
Americans that if we do not do a payroll tax cut; but think about, most
of all, the 6 million Americans who will be left to homelessness in
contrast to the enormous wealth that is on this poster board and the
meager proposal of surtax on the 1 percent for 10 years, starting in
2013, to pay this off and to keep solvent Social Security. It is
unbelievable that we would not rush to do this as we are nearing the
holiday season.
I am just noting for you, Mr. Levin, just to say that the powerful,
passionate letters that you have read are volumes in terms of those who
are seeking our help.
And for anyone that has been to Occupy Houston or Occupy Wall Street
or Occupy any city, if they talk to the people individually, they will
know that these are simply hurting Americans who have lost their jobs
who are seeking to come and seek opportunity. They want to work; and
everyone that I have spoken to, the lady who is here with this home, 56
years old, I know that whether she's employed or not, the condition of
her home suggests that she is in need. And the homeless persons,
because they have no job, are in need.
I don't believe that the wealthy that are speaking on this particular
poster board would argue about the solution that you have come to and
that you are advocating and that those who are writing in are saying,
they are asking, just give me a lifeline and help me to survive.
I am prepared to stay here, Mr. Levin, as you have indicated, to make
sure that we do right by the people who are so much in need.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of extending
unemployment insurance. We must not go home for the holidays if we
cannot agree to extend unemployment insurance.
With a national unemployment rate of 9.1 percent, preventing and
prolonging people from receiving unemployment benefits is a national
tragedy. As of today, in the City of Houston, the unemployment rate
stands at 8.6 percent as almost 250,000 individuals remain unemployed.
Indeed, I cannot tell you how difficult it has been to explain to my
constituents whom are unemployed that there will be no further
extension of unemployment benefits until the Congress acts. Whether the
justification for inaction is the size of the debt or the need for
deficit reduction, it is clear that it is more prudent to act
immediately to give individuals and families looking for work a means
to survive.
If there is a single federal program that is absolutely critical to
people in communities all across this nation at this time, it would be
unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans must have a
means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many parts
of the country is just not there. Families have to feed children.
The American people are relying upon us to stand up for them when
they are in need. This is not a time to take a vacation, go home to our
families, and watch our unemployed constituents suffer through
holidays.
Unemployed workers, many of whom rely on public transportation, need
to be able to get to potential employers' places of work. Utility
payments must be paid. Most people use their unemployment benefits to
pay for the basics. No one is getting rich from unemployment benefits,
because the weekly benefit checks are solely providing for basic food,
medicine, gasoline and other necessary things many individuals with no
other means of income are not able to afford.
Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401(Ks) have been
tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type
of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are
created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term
unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when
there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has
been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.
Currently, individuals who are seeking work find it to be like
hunting for a needle in a hay stack. For every job available today,
there are four people who are currently unemployed. You can not fit a
square peg in a round hole and point fingers at the three other people
who when that job is filled is left unemployed. Let's be realistic
there are currently 7 million
[[Page 19160]]
fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when this recession began.
Although according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the State
of Texas continues to have the largest year-over-year job increase in
the country with a total of 253,200 jobs. There are still thousands of
Texans like thousands of other Americans in dire need of a job.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
A study was conducted the research firm IMPAQ International and the
Urban Institute found Unemployment Insurance benefits:
Reduced the fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being
$175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without
unemployment insurance benefits.
In total, unemployment insurance kept GDP $315 billion higher from
the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010;
kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter:
at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted
by UI benefits, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 1.2
percentage points; made an even more positive impact than in previous
recessions, thanks to the aggressive, bipartisan effort to expand
unemployment insurance benefits and increase eligibility during both
the Bush and Obama Administrations. ``There is reason to believe,''
said the study, ``that for this particular recession, the UI program
provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past
recessions because extended benefits responded strongly.''
For every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this study found an
increase in economic activity of two dollars.
According to the Economic Policy Institute extending unemployment
benefits could prevent the loss of over 500,000 jobs.
If Congress fails to act before the end of the year, Americans who
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will begin losing
their unemployment benefits in January. By mid-February, 2.1 million
will have their benefits cut off, and by the end of 2012 over 6 million
will lose their unemployment benefits.
Congress has never allowed emergency unemployment benefits to expire
when the unemployment rate is anywhere close to its current level of
9.1 percent.
Republicans seem to want to blame the unemployed for unemployment.
But the truth is there are over four unemployed workers for every
available job, and there are nearly 7 million fewer jobs in the economy
today compared to when the recession started in December 2007.
The legislation introduced today would continue the current Federal
unemployment programs through next year.
This extension not only will help the unemployed, but it also will
promote economic recovery. The Congressional Budget Office has declared
that unemployment benefits are ``both timely and cost-effective in
spurring economic activity and employment.'' The Economic Policy
Institute has estimated that preventing UI benefits from expiring could
prevent the loss of over 500,000 jobs.
In addition to continuing the Federal unemployment insurance programs
for one year, the bill would provide some immediate assistance to
States grappling with insolvency problems within their own UI programs.
The legislation would relieve insolvent States from interest payments
on Federal loans for one year and place a one-year moratorium on higher
Federal unemployment taxes that are imposed on employers in States with
outstanding loans.
According to preliminary estimates, these solvency provisions will
stop $5 billion in tax hikes on employers in nearly two dozen States,
as well as provide $1.5 billion in interest relief. The legislation
also provides a solvency bonus to those States not borrowing from the
Federal government.
We must extend unemployment compensation. This will send a message to
the nation's unemployed, that this Congress is dedicated to helping
those trying to help themselves.
Until the economy begins to create more jobs at a much faster pace,
and the various stimulus programs continue to accelerate project
activity in local communities, we cannot sit idly and ignore the
unemployed.
PAYROLL TAX CUT
For 337 days, the GOP House majority has failed to offer a clear jobs
agenda. Congress must not leave Washington for the holidays without
extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits that put money
into the economy and promote jobs.
GOP is risking tax relief for 160 million Americans while protecting
massive tax cuts for 300,000 people making more than a million dollars
per year.
Extending and expanding payroll tax cut would put $1,500 into the
pockets of the typical middle class family.
At least 400,000 jobs would be lost if Republicans block the payroll
tax cut
In November, Senate Democrats proposed reducing it to 3.1 percent for
2012, and cutting employers' taxes on the first $5 million in taxable
payroll to the same level, which helps small businesses. To pay for the
cut, the bill calls for a 3.25 percent tax on gross income over $1
million for single filers and married couples filing jointly, the so-
called ``Millionaire's Tax.'' This is a reasonable compromise.
There are other ideas floating around this Chamber that touch on tax,
such as repatriation. Lowering taxes is always a good idea, but
scattershot approaches to tax reform almost always lead to undesirable
outcomes.
Targeted Tax Relief for American Workers
The 2% payroll tax cut in effect for 2011 has provided $110 billion
of tax relief to 159 million American workers.
If the payroll tax cut is not extended, a family struggling through
the economic recovery making $50,000 will see its taxes go up by
$1,000.
Expanding the 2% payroll tax holiday to 3.1% will cut Social Security
taxes in half for 160 million American workers next year.
This targeted tax relief will mean an extra $1,500 for a typical
American family making $50,000, and $2,500 for a family making $80,000.
Mr. LEVIN. Your chart leads me to the last letter I'll read.
I read from Ralph of Warren, Michigan, because your chart shows
what's at stake for middle-class America:
``Unemployment insurance must be extended so you can pay your bills
and buy food. Without this insurance you would see the foreclosures go
through the roof. Start looking out for the middle class that built
this country.''
And this issue of extension of unemployment insurance is critical for
all America, and it surely is critical for the middle class that helped
to build this country in that now, and the millions are finding, they
have lost their jobs, they are looking for work, they can't find it. We
need to respond, and we need to respond right now.
And I close with this pledge from all of us on the Democratic side in
the House: we do not intend to vote for a motion to adjourn until we
have acted on the payroll issue, continuing on the physician
reimbursement issue, and very much so on extending unemployment
insurance so that people out of work, through no fault of their own,
can be assured there won't be millions of people in this country,
beginning the 1st of January, who are left out in the cold.
I thank all my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in unqualified support of
extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.
The United States is a great nation. We're a great nation because we
are the land of opportunity. We're a great nation because we are the
home of the American Dream, where hard work and playing by the rules
have always equaled success. But the United States is also a great
nation because we assist our fellow citizens in need--those who have
fallen on hard times and through no fault of their own are in need of a
safety net.
An out-of-control Wall Street and the reckless deregulation pursued
by the Bush Administration brought us the greatest economic crisis
since the Great Depression. Tens of millions of American's lost their
jobs, and fourteen million still are unemployed today. Forty-five
percent of those unemployed have been out of work for six-months or
more.
Every day, I hear from constituents that lost their job during the
great recession and have been struggling to get by.
From one constituent:
I have been unemployed for almost 2 years. Never in my 51
years of life have I ever experienced anything like this. I
submit resumes via Craigslist daily, I network and I have
done whatever I can to get back to work. I will be homeless
if [unemployment] benefits are not extended.
And another:
I'd really like to know if there's another unemployment
benefits extension in the works. I am 53, with no family, and
no car that I can live in, but I will lose my apartment if I
can't find a job . . . or get more benefits. It's no secret
that jobs are VERY hard to come by, and I've had a really
good work history, but that means nothing right now.
And another:
I have sent out hundreds of resumes, both for positions in
my field, and for positions I knew I could do, or have done
when I was just starting out. I have received less than ten
acknowledgements of receipt of my resume over the course of
21 months. My background and education are solid.
[[Page 19161]]
And another:
My job as CFO of a small restaurant chain, headquartered in
Santa Monica, was eliminated in Dec. 2010. Since then I have
been unable to find employment and, as a result, had to sell
my condo at a considerable financial loss. I have been
surviving through the extended unemployment program offered
by the federal government. If this program is not renewed, I
have no idea how I will cope, financially, or mentally.
And another:
I'm 63, was let go from a very significant position back in
February 2008 after eight years of being a Multi Award
Winning Sales Executive, in two industries . . . in working
over 40 years without interruption I have been collecting
unemployment benefits for two years. I'm embarrassed to tell
you how many resumes and contacts I've made, competing with
men and women in their 20's, 30's, 40's.
This has taken a huge toll on my life as you can imagine .
. . my condo is for sale and I'm being audited by the IRS . .
. my health has deteriorated and I didn't have health
insurance for the past two years.
For too many Americans, unemployment benefits are the difference
between having a roof over their head, or sleeping on the street;
having food to feed their kids, or skipping dinner; seeing a doctor, or
living with chronic illness.
As a great nation, we have an obligation to provide a lifeline to
these fellow citizens. It is incumbent on us a decent society.
I have cosponsored legislation to extend unemployment insurance
through the end of 2012. I have also cosponsored legislation to help
the so-called ``99-ers,'' by extending the length of federal benefits
by an addition 14 weeks, to 113 weeks total.
But Congress must do more. My constituents need more than a safety
net. They need jobs.
According to a recent report by the Washington Post, this Republican
House is on track to be least productive first session in 20 years. In
a full year, Republicans have yet to pass a single bill to create a
single job.
The Republicans' refusal to take up measures to help restart our
economy--like President Obama's American Jobs Act--is all the more
reason that we must extend these essential unemployment benefits. I
urge my colleagues to stand up for the unemployed Americans who are
facing catastrophe through no fault of their own and vote now to extend
this critical lifeline.
____________________
{time} 1920
AMERICANS DESERVE BETTER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of people back home
who are watching this debate unfold, and more importantly, are watching
the Congress and the administration. And, you know, I think a lot of
people at home are scratching their head. They're saying we the people
are outraged at this administration and this Congress. And they should
be.
The White House and their liberal allies in Congress and the media go
on a nonstop bashing of a group of Americans who are productive and
hardworking. Class warfare is as despicable as any other type of
stereotyping, and putting citizen against citizen for political gain is
outrageous and it's wrong.
Listen to this. The people are told that a tax cut is a tax increase
or a tax increase isn't really a tax increase because there are savings
that can be made elsewhere. That doesn't even make sense. Only in
Washington can someone say we have to pay for a tax cut. Think about
that. What we're saying is, what Washington is saying is, we have to
pay for a tax cut. Well, whose money is it? Government doesn't make
money. It's the people's money. Yet somehow up here in Washington we
keep saying we have to pay for a tax increase. It's that hardworking
family that has earned that money. It is not Washington's money.
And people, frankly, I think are disgusted with the notion that
somehow the paradigm in Washington is we have to pay for a tax cut.
It's their money. Something is very wrong here, and this body is part
of the problem.
Let's put out the facts; facts, not spin. Government money doesn't
exist. That's a fact. It's the people's money.
Here's another fact. If there are projects that can be cut, they
should be cut. They shouldn't be traded like futures in the stock
market. If we believe that we ought to extend the payroll tax cut
extension, let's extend it. Let's stop playing games about moving money
around from one program to another or keeping a bucket of projects or
programs that we can save to cut at a time to bargain for something
else.
It's time that we get serious, and the American people are saying
they've had enough. They've had enough of what they're seeing here in
Washington.
Let me say this one more time. Pitting American against American is
un-American and outrageous and deserves the condemnation of each and
every one of us in this Congress. This is not the America we know and
love. We the people deserve better.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
HONORING NAVAJO CODE TALKERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reed). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) is
recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the
majority leader.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, thank you for joining me this evening to talk
about a very special group of veterans, the Navajo Code Talkers.
Tonight, my colleagues and I are going to share their stories and
highlight the amazing accomplishments of this group of warriors. Their
contribution to the Allied effort during World War II is widely
credited with winning the Battle of Iwo Jima and making majors gains in
the Pacific.
During the early months of World War II, Japanese intelligence
experts broke every code the U.S. forces devised. The Japanese were
able to decode and intercept communications with ease. To combat this,
increasingly complex codes were initiated that sometimes took hours at
a time simply to decipher one message. Guadalcanal in 1942 was a
turning point for the Allied military forces, who realized that the
military communications needed a new direction, and new inspiration.
Fortunately, an innovative citizen named Philip Johnston had the
answer. As the son of a Protestant missionary, Johnston had grown up on
the Navajo reservation and was one of less than 30 non-Navajos fluent
in the unique Navajo language. He realized that since it had no
alphabet and was almost impossible to master without early exposure,
the Navajo language was a perfect choice to form a new, impenetrable
military code. In 1942, Johnston completed an impressive demonstration
of the Navajo language to the Commanding General of the Pacific fleet
headquartered in San Diego. He was then given permission to begin a
pilot for the Navajo Code Talker program, and I would like to submit
his letter dated March 8, 1942, for the Record.
Headquarters, Amphibious Force,
Pacific Fleet, Camp Elliott,
San Diego, CA, March 6, 1942
Subject: Enlistment of Navaho Indians.
To: The Commandant,
U.S. Marine Corps.
Enclosures: (A) Brochure by Mr. Philip Johnston, with maps.
(B) Messages used in demonstration.
1. Mr. Philip Johnston of Los Angeles recently offered his
services to this force to demonstrate the use of Indians for
the transmission of messages by telephone and voice-radio.
His offer was accepted and the demonstration was held for the
Commanding General and his staff.
2. The demonstration was interesting and successful.
Messages were transmitted and received almost verbatim. In
conducting the demonstration messages were written by a
member of the staff and handed to the Indian; he would
transmit the message in his tribal dialect and the Indian on
the other end would write them down in English. The text of
messages as written and received are enclosed. The Indians do
not have many military terms in their dialect so it was
necessary to give them a few minutes, before the
demonstration, to improvise words for dive-bombing, anti-tank
gun, etc.
3. Mr. Johnston stated that the Navaho is the only tribe in
the United States that has not been infested with German
students during the past twenty years. These Germans,
studying the various tribal dialects under the guise of art
students, anthropologists,
[[Page 19162]]
etc., have undoubtedly attained a good working knowledge of
all tribal dialects except Navaho. For this reason the Navaho
is the only tribe available offering complete security for
the type of work under consideration. It is noted in Mr.
Johnston's article (enclosed) that the Navaho is the largest
tribe but the lowest in literacy. He stated, however, that
1,000--if that many were needed--could be found with the
necessary qualifications. It should also be noted that the
Navaho tribal dialect is completely unintelligible to all
other tribes and all other people, with the possible
exception of as many as 28 Americans who have made a study of
the dialect. This dialect is thus equivalent to a secret code
to the enemy, and admirably suited for rapid, secure
communication.
4. It is therefore recommended that an effort be made to
enlist 200 Navaho Indians for this force. In addition to
linguistic qualifications in English and their tribal dialect
they should have the physical qualifications for messengers.
Clayton B. Vogel,
Commanding General.
Their elite unit was formed in early 1942 when the first of the 29
Navajo Code Talkers were recruited by Johnston. The code was modified
and improved throughout the war, but it is so important to note that
these 29 Navajo heroes came up with the original code themselves.
Accordingly, they are often referred to reverently as the ``original
29.'' We will have the honor of reading their names a bit later this
evening.
Many of these enlistees were just boys with little exposure to the
world outside of the Navajo reservation. After the war, it was
discovered that recruits as young as 15 and as old as 35 years of age
had enlisted. In fact, a few of these men traveled to other towns on
the reservation, outside their clan where no one knew them and their
true age, in order to enlist underage and serve their country.
After sailing through basic training, the Navajo Code Talkers were
sent to Marine divisions in the Pacific theater of World War II. Their
reputation as innovators soon spread far and wide amongst their
commanding officers. In the field, they were not allowed to write any
part of the code down as a reference. In fact, the code existed only
amongst this small group. Under high pressure battle conditions, the
Code Talkers had to quickly recall their code accurately, or risk
hundreds or thousands of lives.
Make no mistake about the gravity of this accomplishment. The Navajo
Code Talkers created the only unbroken code in modern military history.
It baffled the Japanese forces. It was even indecipherable to a Navajo
soldier taken prisoner and tortured on Bataan.
The secret code created by the Navajo Code Talkers was a simple
marvel of linguistic invention. It contained native terms that were
associated with specialized or commonly used military language, as well
as native terms that represented letters in the alphabet.
English words with no Navajo translation were spelled out using the
Navajo alphabet. The selection of a given term was based on the first
letter of the English meaning of the Navajo word. For words that did
not translate into Navajo, the Code Talkers created code that did not
directly translate, but tended to resemble the things with which they
are associated. For example, the Navajo word for ``iron fish''
represented submarine. I could give many more examples, but I think
that one is particularly poignant. To say ``America,'' the Code Talkers
used the word ``ne-he-mah,'' which means ``our mother.''
This brilliant code allowed our U.S. Marines to communicate quickly
and accurately. The Code Talkers' brave work is widely credited with
successes of battle in the Pacific and, more ultimately, with helping
to end this tragic war.
{time} 1930
In the battle for Iwo Jima, in the first 48 hours alone they coded
over 800 transmissions with perfect accuracy.
While the true heroism of these brave warriors is known today, sadly,
the Code Talkers had to return home after the war without the heroes'
welcome they deserved. Ironically, the code was such a precious asset
to the U.S. military that it was classified and had to be kept secret.
While the code was declassified in 1968, it took years to properly
decorate those veterans. In 2001, nearly 60 years after they created
their legendary code, the Navajo Code Talkers finally received their
well-deserved Congressional Medals of Honor.
Today, only one original Code Talker remains, but the tradition lives
on. A delegation of the Four Corners States will attempt to recognize
these warriors one by one and give us their thoughts during this hour.
I would like to first recognize my good friend from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for arranging this
Special Order. This is something that we in Arizona and anywhere in the
West in Utah and elsewhere have great pride in and that this
recognition, as the gentleman mentioned, came far too late and has been
far too little, given the amount of the impact that the Navajo Code
Talkers had on World War II.
So I'm pleased to be here and to lend my voice to recognition. As the
gentleman mentioned, only one of the original Code Talkers is still
living. So I think it's important that we recognize others who carried
on this code and tradition and helped out in this way.
This was a group, as we mentioned, of many Navajos, Native Americans,
who volunteered for the armed services in World War II. This was, as
the gentleman said, very successful. It was the only code that remained
unbroken. And one of the most amazing aspects of World War II is how
these people came together, as the gentleman mentioned, young kids in
their teen years and others, and volunteered for this effort. It's even
more remarkable when we note that many States did not permit Native
Americans to vote until the 1950s. Yet the Code Talkers were
undeterred. They wanted to help their country.
It's fitting that we honor this group on the anniversary of the
attack on Pearl Harbor, the start of World War II, because they had
such an integral part of ensuring that that brutal war came to an end.
I want to thank my colleague from Arizona and others who have come here
for putting together this timely tribute to make sure that these
individuals are recognized for the impact that they had in ending this
war and to ensure that this world remains free.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman.
I would like at this time to acknowledge my good friend from New
Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
Mr. LUJAN. I thank my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for bringing
us together tonight as we get a chance to visit and celebrate heroes
that are amongst us, whether it's in spirit or body, as we are still so
fortunate to have Chester Nez with us, one of the original 29 as well.
With me tonight I have a few excerpts of articles that have been
written around the country that capture some stories recently in the
Fronteras Desk. An author by the name of Laurel Morales captured the
story of Chester Nez. It starts like this: ``Growing up in New Mexico,
Chester Nez and many of his fellow Navajo were punished for speaking
their language.''
You talk about a language as they were pulled away to boarding
schools, so many of the young Navajo across the country, and the
importance of what they were able to accomplish during World War II. In
the words of Major Howard Connor of the 5th Marine Division, he
declared that were it not for the Navajos, the marines would never have
taken Iwo Jima, and the importance of language and what they were able
to accomplish.
The article goes on to read that years later, Nez was shocked to
learn that he'd been recruited by the marines specifically to devise a
code using the same language the government tried to beat out of him.
It was extremely ironic. One of the very things they were forbidden to
do--speak Navajo--ended up helping us save the war.
Mr. Nez goes on to say that he and his fellow Code Talkers first
developed an alphabet, as you described, Mr. Gosar, using everyday
Navajo words to represent letters of words, as you talked about--
submarine: iron fish; besh-lo: iron fish; and hummingbird: dah-he-tih-
hi to talk about fighter planes. It's amazing how when we talked about
the Japanese and how they were so effective at cracking
[[Page 19163]]
codes, how they couldn't crack this one.
Mr. Nez goes on to say in the article that being one of the last
original Code Talkers, he lives in Albuquerque with his son--a father
of six children. He has nine grandchildren and eight great-
grandchildren. It goes on to say that ``today, with so many people
leaving the reservation, Navajo elders like Nez fear their language is
dying. Nez hopes Navajo children learn the story of Code Talkers so
they understand just how critical it is to learn their own language.''
And thank you for bringing us together, Mr. Gosar, this evening to
help celebrate the history of our Code Talkers, as it wasn't until
Senator Bingaman moved legislation back in 2000 to be able to give
honor to our original 29--a few of them, at the very least, and their
families--with gold medals, and silver medals to the others that were
also trained to go on.
So I think this is an example of a few stories that we'll be
submitting and sharing this evening to be able to celebrate the lives
and stories and the history, especially on today as we remember Pearl
Harbor and all the sacrifice and all the families we lost that day and
so many brave soldiers as well.
Thanks for bringing this tonight. I look forward to many stories and
continuing to share many of the articles that we've been able to find
capturing the history and personal stories of our friend, our heroes,
the Code Talkers from all throughout New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.
At this time I would like to recognize my good friend from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I appreciate the bipartisan nature in which
we do this. These are truly American heroes who have made a difference
in our lives and something we should all be proud of and never forget.
I worry as these gentlemen get older that somehow generations in the
future will maybe forget this.
I appreciate you, Mr. Gosar, for your commitment to them. I know
you're passionate about this. I can see it in your eyes when you talk
about it.
I wanted to recognize and pay special tribute to somebody who's
originally from Utah, Samuel Tom Holiday. He was a Navajo Code Talker.
He served in the United States Marine Corps 4th Marine Division, 25th
Regiment, the H&S Company. We're fortunate to still have him here with
us in our presence today.
Mr. Holiday was born in 1924 on a Navajo reservation near the
Monument Valley area of Utah, down near the Four Corners area. He was a
Navajo Code Talker in World War II. As you have talked about before,
Code Talkers transmitted tactical messages by telephone and radio in
the Dine language. It was a code the Japanese were never able to break
and was very instrumental in our war efforts.
At a young age, Samuel and his brothers hid from government agents
who came to send Navajo children to boarding schools. Holiday said he
was ultimately caught and forced to attend a boarding school where he
was not allowed to speak his native language. As he said, ``One of the
hardest times I had was learning to talk English. I would hide cookies
in my pockets to pay the older boys to teach me English. Whenever
they''--the school instructors--``found out I had talked Navajo, they
made me scrub floors, scrub walls. I spent much of my first year
scrubbing the wall.''
Mr. Holiday attended the school until he was 18 years old and he was
recruited into the Marine Corps. Mr. Holiday served in the Pacific
theatre from 1943 to 1945 in Saipan, Tinian, Kwajalein Atoll, and Iwo
Jima.
From Mr. Holiday: ``A lot of time they sent us where it was a very
dangerous spot, and I sent messages. They didn't know we were Navajo
Code Talkers using Navajo language.'' The very language he was punished
for using in his boarding school was suddenly a major asset to the
United States Marines.
Mr. Holiday remains active with the Navajo Code Talkers Association.
He's traveled throughout most of the United States conducting
presentations about the Code Talkers and about his life experiences
before and after the war. I was very pleased to see that Mr. Holiday
was awarded the Congressional Silver Medal, something he was very
worthy of, obviously.
It's interesting to me that the Navajo Code Talker Program was
actually a secret until after the war and was not declassified until
later in 1968. It was another 14 years before the Navajo Code Talkers
were recognized by the United States Government. In fact, in December
of 1982, President Ronald Reagan recognized the Code Talkers for their
dedicated service, unique achievement, patriotism, resourcefulness, and
courage.
{time} 1940
August 14, 1982 was proclaimed National Navajo Code Talkers Day. I
think President Reagan did the right thing. I think it's something that
all Americans--I want my kids and people in Utah and across the Nation
to recognize the contributions and sacrifices that these people made.
They truly made a difference in our lives; instrumental in the war.
I appreciate this time to be able to recognize their achievements and
help to our country.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Utah.
I would like at this time to recognize my friend, the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).
Mr. HEINRICH. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for pulling
us together from around the four corners to honor these incredible
Native Americans, these incredible Americans, especially on this
historic anniversary. And I'm certainly honored to join my colleagues
tonight to honor the quiet valor of all the Navajo Code Talkers.
Today, some six decades since their service during World War II, only
one of the original 29 Code Talkers, Corporal Chester Nez, survives.
And I am incredibly proud of Corporal Nez, who at the age of 90 resides
in my congressional district in Albuquerque with his son Mike, his
daughter-in-law Rita, and their children.
Corporal Nez's story is much like the hundreds of Code Talkers who
followed in his footsteps. He grew up on the Navajo Nation to parents
who grew corn and pinto beans, kept goats and sheep. And he grew up in
a time when Navajos were sharply mistreated and even unable to vote in
our own elections in places throughout the Southwest. Yet in 1942, at
the age of 18, he sprung into action and he joined the 382nd Platoon in
a role that is largely credited with saving thousands of American
lives.
Along with the other 28 original Code Talkers, Corporal Nez developed
a code from their unwritten language. You can find the code's
explanation today in the index of his autobiography. And whether in
artillery, tanks, aboard ships or in infantry, the Code Talkers played
a vital role in some of the worst battles in the Pacific theater,
communicating battlefield codes that were never, ever broken by the
enemy. Their code-talking was considered so essential to the war that,
unlike their counterparts, many of them were forced to serve straight
through the war with no breaks for rest or trips back home. And today,
we widely recognize that their service helped turn the course of World
War II.
Yet because of the sheer secret of their role and the possibility
that they would be called back for the same duty in the future, the
actions of the Code Talkers weren't declassified until 23 years after
the war ended. And it wasn't until 55 years later that they were
bestowed with the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor and Silver Medal.
To the young people of the Navajo Nation for whom Corporal Nez's
quiet valor is a remarkable example, I encourage you to carry on his
legacy by keeping the Navajo language alive and well for generations to
come.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Navajo Nation takes such pride in these
heroes. And on behalf of all of us who owe a tremendous debt of
gratitude for their service, I'm proud to recognize the courage,
service, and bravery of all the Navajo Code Talkers, and especially
Corporal Nez of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[[Page 19164]]
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for that find.
I would now like to acknowledge my good friend from Arizona (Mr.
Schweikert).
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Congressman Gosar. For all of us, we truly
appreciate you organizing this.
When you consider today is the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor and
the entry into World War II, for many of us who grew up with family
that had served, there's many heartbreaking stories. But when we reach
out and read and learn more about the Code Talkers story, it's one of
the great moments of pride for those of us from Arizona.
When you consider there were--my understanding is there were about
400 native Americans who served, but the 27--was it 27 or 29?
Mr. GOSAR. Twenty-nine.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Twenty-nine from Arizona, I've had the pleasure over
time of meeting some of them. I also know, as Arizona now is about to
begin celebrating its 100th anniversary--and I have, actually, it's a
little bit of a silly photo, but there is actually a smaller version of
this on my wall in my office. A few months ago we had our very first
celebration of beginning the 1-year celebration of our centennial as a
State, and we were featuring our Navajo Code Talkers. It is something
that many of us from the West are very, very proud of. And it was also
that little moment where if you ever want to be a little humiliated,
have them try to teach you to speak a few Navajo words, and then the
giggling begins on how badly you pronounce it.
But for anyone who is listening, the Navajo Code Talkers have
actually built a foundation, and they actually have a wonderful Web
site that has data and stories. It is navajocodetalkers.org. I
encourage anyone to reach out and grab some of that information. These
are powerful stories of incredible service to our country in a time of
great need with a very unique skill and talent.
I thank the gentleman from Arizona for organizing this.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
I want to take a few moments and honor one of our own in Arizona who
just recently died. It is my humble privilege to honor Allen Dale June,
one of the original 29 Code Talkers. He died just recently in September
of 2010 at the age of 91. He passed away of natural causes at the
Veterans Hospital in Prescott, Arizona, which is in my district. He is
survived by his wife and 10 children and was buried in Kaibeto, in the
heart of Navajo reservation.
June, who attained the rank of sergeant, received the Congressional
Gold Medal in 2001 along with other members of the original Code
Talkers. When he died, Navajo Nation Council Speaker Lawrence Morgan
said, ``The Navajo Nation lost a great warrior. His unique service to
his country brought positive attention to the Navajo Nation. He will be
missed.''
According to his wife, Virginia, June first tried to sign up for the
Marines in his hometown of Kaibeto, but a recruiter told him he was too
young. He then traveled to the reservation town of Chinle to enlist
because he figured people there wouldn't recognize him and he could lie
about his age and forge his father's signature. This dedication and
determination to serve their country was common among the Code Talkers
and shows character and bravery that we all should emulate.
Allen June was a humble man who did not like to brag about much, even
his remarkable service as a Code Talker. However, in the last years of
his life he wore his service proudly, sporting a red Navajo Code Talker
cap with his name on it.
I would like to take an opportunity and see if my colleague from New
Mexico would entertain a colloquy back and forth giving the roll call
of the names of the 29.
Mr. LUJAN. It would certainly be an honor, Mr. Gosar.
Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, sir.
The roll call for the Navajo Code Talkers, the original 29:
Charlie Y. Begay.
Mr. LUJAN. Royal L. Begay.
Mr. GOSAR. Samuel Begay.
Mr. LUJAN. John Ashi Benally.
Mr. GOSAR. Wilsie Bitsie.
Mr. LUJAN. Cosey S. Brown.
Mr. GOSAR. John Brown, Jr.
Mr. LUJAN. John Chee.
Mr. GOSAR. Benjamin Cleveland.
Mr. LUJAN. Eugene R. Crawford.
Mr. GOSAR. David Curley.
Mr. LUJAN. Lowell S. Damon.
Mr. GOSAR. George H. Dennison.
Mr. LUJAN. James Dixon.
Mr. GOSAR. Carl N. Gorman.
Mr. LUJAN. Oscar B. Ilthma.
Mr. GOSAR. Allen Dale June.
Mr. LUJAN. Alfred Leonard.
Mr. GOSAR. Johnny R. Manuelito.
Mr. LUJAN. William McCabe.
Mr. GOSAR. Chester Nez.
Mr. LUJAN. Jack Nez.
Mr. GOSAR. Lloyd Oliver.
Mr. LUJAN. Joe Palmer.
Mr. GOSAR. Frank Danny Pete.
Mr. LUJAN. Nelson S. Thompson.
Mr. GOSAR. Harry Tsosie.
Mr. LUJAN. John Willie.
Mr. GOSAR. William Dean Wilson.
Does my friend have any further comments?
Mr. LUJAN. Only to say again, Mr. Gosar, as we celebrate tonight, to
never forget about the contributions of the Navajo people to our great
Nation, with the work that they've done not only through the Cold War,
but going back to all the work that was done.
{time} 1950
As we pointed out earlier, in the words of Major Howard Connor, if it
were not for the Navajos, the marines never would have taken Iwo Jima.
It's a great night to be here to celebrate, and I thank you for
bringing us together.
I would like to submit into the Record an article from the Santa Fe
New Mexican, dated August 29, 2010, also capturing the story telling
and talking about Mr. Chester Nez, as well as the article, ``The Last
of the Navajo Code Talkers,'' by Laurel Morales, which was listed in
the Fronteras Desk.
[From the SantaFeNewMexican.com, Aug. 29, 2010]
An Original Code Talker Keeps Tale Alive--Few Remaining Members of
Elite Navajo Marine Unit
(By Felicia Fonseca)
Albuquerque.--Tourists hurry inside a shop here to buy
books about the famed Navajo Code Talkers, warriors who used
their native language as their primary weapon.
Outside, on a walk sheltered from the sun, nine of the Code
Talkers sit at a table autographing the books. Each is an old
man now. They wear similar caps and shirts, the scarlet and
gold of the Marine Corps, and turquoise jewelry.
One of these men, who signs his name as Cpl. Chester Nez,
is distinguished from the others. Below his signature, he
jots down why: 1st Original 29.
Before hundreds of Code Talkers were recruited from the
Navajo Nation to join the elite unit, 29 Navajos were
recruited to develop the code--based on the then-unwritten
Navajo language--that would confound Japanese military
cryptologists and help win World War II.
Of the Original 29, only three survive. Nez is one.
The Code Talkers took part in every assault the Marines
conducted in the Pacific, sending thousands of messages
without error on Japanese troop movements, battlefield
tactics and other communications critical to the war's
ultimate outcome.
``It's one of the greatest parts of history that we used
our own native language during World War II,'' Nez said in an
interview with The Associated Press. ``We're very proud of
it.''
Nez tells the story succinctly. He is the last of the
original group able to do so. One can hardly speak or hear,
and the memory of the third is severely tested by Alzheimer's
disease.
The 89-year-old Nez is limited, too. He is in a wheelchair
after diabetes led to the amputation of both legs. These
days, he'd rather ``just sit around, take it easy,'' he said.
As a boy, Nez lived in a traditional Navajo home and helped
his family tend to sheep in Two Wells on the eastern side of
the vast 27,000-square-mile reservation.
He played with toy cars, went barefoot, and spoke only his
native language. That changed when he was sent to one of the
boarding schools set up by the federal government to
assimilate American Indian children into the broader culture.
At boarding school, Nez said he had his mouth washed out
with soap for speaking Navajo--ironic indeed, considering the
vital role that the unique language--and Nez--would come to
play.
Nez was in 10th grade when a Marine recruiter came looking
for young Navajos who were fluent in Navajo and English to
serve in World War II. He jumped at the chance to defend his
country, and to leave boarding
[[Page 19165]]
school. He kept the decision to enlist a secret from his
family and lied about his age, as did many others.
``I told my roommate, `Let's try it out,' and that's what
we did,'' Nez said. ``One reason we joined is the uniform--
they were so pretty, dress uniforms.''
About 250 Navajos showed up at Fort Defiance, Ariz., then a
U.S. Army base. But only 29 were selected to join the first
all-Native American unit of Marines. They were inducted in
May 1942.
After basic training, the 382nd Platoon was tasked with
developing the code.
There Nez met Allen Dale June and Lloyd Oliver, among the
others. Using Navajo words for red soil, war chief, clan,
braided hair, beads, ant and hummingbird, for example, they
came up with a glossary of more than 200 terms, later
expanded, and an alphabet.
At first, Nez said, the concern was whether or not the code
could work. Then it proved impenetrable. ``The Japanese did
everything in their power to break the code but they never
did,'' he said.
Nez no longer remembers the code in its entirety, but
easily switches from English to Navajo to repeat one
instruction he delivered during fighting on Guadalcanal.
``I always remember this one,'' Nez said. ``Enemy machine
gun on your right flank, destroy!''
The Navajos trained in radio communications were walking
copies of the code. Each message read aloud by a Code Talker
was immediately destroyed.
``When you're involved in the world of cryptology, you not
only have to provide information, you have to protect that,''
said Patrick Weadon, curator of the National Cryptologic
Museum. ``And there's no better example than the Navajo Code
Talkers during World War II.''
The Code Talkers were constantly on the move, often from
foxhole to foxhole. Nez had a close call in Guam with a
sniper's bullet that whizzed past his head and struck a palm
tree.
Once while running a message, Nez and his partner were
mistaken for Japanese soldiers and were threatened at
gunpoint until a Marine lieutenant cleared up the confusion,
his son, Michael, said.
``Of course Dad couldn't tell them he was a Code Talker,''
Nez's son said.
The Code Talkers had orders not to discuss their roles--not
during the war and not until their mission was declassified
23 years later.
In 2001 Nez, Dale and June traveled aboard the same plane
to Washington, D.C., to receive the Congressional Gold Medal.
The recognition, which they didn't receive when they returned
home from war, propelled them to a sort of celebrity status,
along with the release of a movie based on the Code Talkers
the following year
They appeared on television, rode on floats in parades and
were asked to speak to veterans groups and students.
Nez threw the opening pitch at a 2004 Major League Baseball
game and blessed the presidential campaign of John Kerry.
Oliver traveled with other Code Talkers as guests of honor in
the nation's largest Veterans Day parade in New York last
year.
When residents of Longmont, Colo., heard that June and his
wife did not have a permanent home, they raised money to buy
one for the couple.
The last three survivors of the Original 29 don't live on
the Navajo Nation, where they are celebrated with a tribal
holiday. They wonder about each other, but it's unlikely
they'll reunite again.
After World War II, Nez volunteered to serve two more years
during the Korean War and retired in 1974 after a 25-year
career as a painter at the veterans hospital in Albuquerque.
June, 88, has spent the past few weeks in and out of
hospitals in Wyoming and Arizona, and requires round-the-
clock care. His third wife, Virginia, calls herself ``the
charm'' and the protector of an endangered species.
She's a walking promotion for him and the Marine Corps, yet
she's careful of how much she says because he thinks it is
unwelcome bragging.
Oliver's wife, Lucille, echoes similar sentiments about her
husband. Oliver displayed few reminders in what, until
earlier this year, was his home on the Yavapai Indian
reservation in Camp Verde, Ariz.--a few framed pictures, a
Marine cap above his bedroom window and a U.S. flag above the
doorway.
``He just put the past behind him, I guess,'' she says.
Oliver, 87, speaks audibly but his words are difficult to
understand. His hearing is impaired and he prefers not to
have a hearing aid.
Both June and Oliver had brothers who later served as Code
Talkers.
Nez tells the tourists seeking autographs in Albuquerque
that he's part of the Original 29, but few appear to grasp
what that means.
``Most of them,'' he says of the tourists, ``they just
thank me for what we did.''
____
[From the Fronteras Desk, Nov. 11, 2011]
The Last of The Navajo Code Talkers
(By Laurel Morales)
Flagstaff.--Only one veteran Navajo code talker remains of
the original 29 Navajo Marines who used their native language
to devise an unbreakable code during World War II.
Growing up in New Mexico, Chester Nez and many of his
fellow Navajo were punished for speaking their language. In
the 1920s, Nez attended one of many government run boarding
schools that attempted to erase Indian culture and language.
``I often think about the things I went through, all the
hardships,'' Nez said. He was being interviewed at the
studios of KUNM in Albuquerque for Veterans Day.
Years later, Nez was shocked to learn he'd been recruited
by the Marines, specifically to devise a code using the same
language the government tried to beat out of him. Judith
Avila helped Nez write his memoir Code Talker, which was just
published.
``It was extremely ironic one of the very things they were
forbidden to do--speak Navajo--ended up helping save us
during the war,'' Avila said.
During World War II, the Japanese had cracked code after
code the U.S. military used to hide their communications.
Then, a Marine by the name of Philip Johnston, who had been
raised on the Navajo Nation by white missionaries, suggested
enlisting the help of the Navajo tribe. They became known as
the code talkers.
Navajo, or Dine as it's called, is a spoken language. And
few non-Navajos understand its complexities. Nez and his
fellow code talkers first developed an alphabet using every
day Navajo words to represent letters, like the Navajo word
for ant became ``A.''
Chester Nez, seen here during World War II, is 90 and the
last of the original 29 Navajo Code Talkers.
Then they came up with words for military terms. In Navajo,
there is no word for bomb. So they called it an egg. A
fighter plane was the Navajo word for hummingbird.
``And the Japanese tried everything in their power to try
to decipher our code, but they never succeeded,'' Nez said.
He and his fellow code talkers were faced with many
cultural challenges during the war. The most difficult was
dealing with so much death.
The Navajo believe when you encounter a dead body that
person's spirit stays with you. Coming home after the war,
Nez remembered being haunted by these spirits.
``They were all around me. I actually see them alongside my
bed,'' Nez said. ``This was one of the bad omen.''
His family performed a ceremony called the ``enemy way'' to
cleanse him. After that, Nez said, he felt free of the
ghosts.
The code talker program was secret. When Nez and the others
arrived home in 1945, there was no fanfare. The code remained
active for years after the war; it wasn't declassified until
1968. Still, it took decades before the men were officially
recognized.
In 2000, New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman introduced
legislation to honor the code talkers. The following year--
nearly six decades after the code was written--president
George W. bush awarded them Congressional Gold Medals.
``Today we give these exceptional Marines the recognition
they earned so long ago,'' President Bush told a televised
crowd at the Capital Rotunda.
Only five of the original 29 were still alive.
Chester Nez stood tall, puffed out his chest and saluted
the president, while the crowd--many relatives of code talker
families--gave the group a standing ovation.
``This gold medal is something I will trea- sure for as
long as I live,'' said Nez, now 90-years-old.
The last original code talker lives in Albuquerque with his
son. The father of six children, he has nine grandchildren
and eight great grandchildren.
Today with so many people leaving the reservation, Navajo
elders like Nez fear their language is dying. Nez hopes
Navajo children learn the story of the code talkers, so they
understand just how critical it is to learn and use their own
language.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his
contribution.
I would also like to start by going through the further list of the
Navajo Code Talkers in the honor roll:
Navajo Code Talker list
Confirmed by Marine Corps, as of 17 July 2001
1. Akee, Dan 818638
2. Anthony, Franklin 990074
3. Apache, Jimmie 936773
4. Arviso, Bennie 894438
5. Ashike, Earl 990140
6. Ashley, Regis 894674
7. Attikai, Harold 990084
8. Augustine, John 894402
9. Ayze, Lewis 990075
10. Bahe, Henry 479876
11. Bahe, Woody 875423
12. Baldwin, Benjamin 818564
13. Beard, Harold 894537
14. Becenti, Roy L. 831055
15. Bedoni, Sidney 479771
16. Begay, Carlos 818566
17. Begay, Charlie Sosie 830976
18. Begay, Flemming 830977
19. Begay, George 990132
20. Begay, Henry 990142
21. Begay, Jerry C. 830979
22. Begay, Joe 990094
[[Page 19166]]
23. Begay, Lee 990116
24. Begay, Leo 990126
25. Begay, Leonard 990210
26. Begay, Notah 875405
27. Begay, Paul 479917
28. Begay, Samuel H. 358525
29. Begay, Thomas H. 537144
30. Begay, Walter 990073
31. Begay, Willie K.1000016
32. Begay, Wilson J. 894417
33. Begody, David M. 990209
34. Begody, Roger 875422
35. Belinda, Wilmer 875407
36. Belone, Harry 936837
37. Benallie, Jimmie D. 964665
38. Benally, Harrison Lee 1000075
39. Benally, Harry 894507
40. Benally, Jimmie L. 831045
41. Benally, Johnson D. 875371
42. Benally, Samuel 1000078
43. Benton, Sr., Willie 830980
44. Bernard, John 875276
45. Betone, Lloyd 830963
46. Bia, Andrew 990072
47. Billey, Wilfred 830982
48. Billie, Ben 1000045
49. Billiman, Howard 521004
50. Billison, Samuel (Dr.) 831074
51. Billy, Sam Jones 830981
52. Bitsie, Peter J. 1000037
53. Bitsoie, Delford 990061
54. Bizardie, Jesse 875495
55. Black, Jesse 990205
56. Blatchford, Paul 818633
57. Bluehorse, David M. 831043
58. Bowman, John Henry 403099
59. Bowman, Robert 936938
60. Brown, Arthur 990125
61. Brown, Clarence Paul 990088
62. Brown, Tsosie Herman 990202
63. Brown, William Tully 990109
64. Buck, Wilford 1000019
65. Burke, Bobby 894411
66. Burnie, Jose 1000100
67. Burnside, Francis 548184
68. Burr, Sandy 830984
69. Cadman, William 936839
70. Calleditto, Andrew 448919
71. Carroll, Oscar Tsosie 894622
72. Cattle Chaser, Dennis 479729
73. Cayedito, Del 830985
74. Cayedito, Ralph 830986
75. Charley, Carson Bahe 894600
76. Charlie, Sam 990199
77. Chase, Frederick 479873
78. Chavez, George 831098
79. Chee, Guy 990200
80. Clah, Stewart 965051
81. Claw, Thomas 818547
82. Cleveland, Billie 521016
83. Cleveland, Ned 894519
84. Cody, Leslie 479834
85. Cohoe, James Charles 416497
86. Craig, Bob Etcitty 830988
87. Crawford, Karl Kee 478278
88. Cronemeyer, Walter 990201
89. Crosby, Billy 990035
90. Csinnjinni, Carl 416351
91. Dale, Ray 448911
92. Damon, Anson C. 990227
93. Davis, Tully 875378
94. Deel, Martin Dale 818563
95. Dehiya, Dan 830989
96. Dennison, Leo 990107
97. Dodge, Jerome Cody 894478
98. Doolie, John 830990
99. Doolie, Richardson 479723
100. Draper, Nelson 990098
101. Draper, Teddy Sr. 875345
102. Etsicitty, Kee 830991
103. Etsitty, Deswood 875304
104. Evans, Harold 990097
105. Foghorn, Ray 830992
106. Francisco, Jimmy 818625
107. Gatewood, Joseph P. 479889
108. George, William 894441
109. Gishal, Milton M. 875283
110. Gleason, Jimmie 894446
111. Goodluck, John 830933
112. Gorman, Tom 818627
113. Grayson, Bill L. 990052
114. Greymountain, Yazzie 894538
115. Guerito, Billy Lewis 830994
116. Gustine, Tully 830995
117. Guy, Charles 875406
118. Harding, Ben Williams 990091
119. Harding, Jack W. 479888
120. Hardy, Tom 894628
121. Harrison, Emmett 894479
122. Haskie, Ross 358587
123. Hawthorne, Roy Orville 990027
124. Haycock, Bud 990196
125. Hemstreet, Leslie 936840
126. Henry, Albert 830996
127. Henry, Edmund Juan 830997
128. Henry, Kent Carl 936779
129. Hickman, Dean Junian 990103
130. Holiday, Calvin 990198
131. Holiday, Samuel Tom 818614
132. Housewood, Johnson 448907
133. Housteen, Dennie 479730
134. Howard, Ambrose 818574
135. Hubbard, Arthur Jose 1000128
136. Hudson, Lewey 894521
137. Hunter, Tom 875445
138. James, Benjamin 830998
139. James, Billie 875301
140. James, George B. 875342
141. Johle, Elliott 894447
142. John, Charlie T. 875395
143. John, Leroy M. Sr. 448918
144. Johns, Edmund 448908
145. Johnny, Earl 830999
146. Johnson, Deswood R. 844625
147. Johnson, Francis T. 479772
148. Johnson, Johnnie 537164
149. Johnson, Peter 894412
150. Johnson, Ralph 990086
151. Jones, Jack 818548
152. Jones, Tom H. Jr. 831001
153. Jordan, David 831000
154. June, Floyd 479768
155. Keams, Percy 990028
156. Keedah, Wilson 894673
157. Kellwood, Joe H. 479704
158. Kescoli, Alonzo 875397
159. Ketchum, Bahe 875416
160. King, Jimmie 448910
161. Kinlacheeny, Paul 894414
162. Kinsel, John 448912
163. Kirk, George H. 831003
164. Kirk, Leo 585379
165. Kiyaani, Mike 894629
166. Kontz, Rex T. 448921
167. Lapahie, Harrison 831046
168. Largo, James 990095
169. Little, Keith M. 818629
170. Lopez, Tommy K. 831059
171. MacDonald, Peter 1000079
172. Malone, Max 894621
173. Malone, Rex 831101
174. Malone, Robert 831075
175. Maloney, James 990085
176. Maloney, Paul E. 875431
177. Manuelito, Ben C. 479800
178. Manuelito, Ira 831005
179. Manuelito, James C. 831060
180. Manuelito, Peter 1000234
181. Marianito, Frank 936841
182. Mark, Robert 990093
183. Martin, Matthew 894406
184. Martinez, Jose 894550
185. McCraith, Archibald 990110
186. Mike, King Paul 894671
187. Miles, General 990096
188. Moffitt, Tom Clah 894473
189. Morgan, Jack C. 830932
190. Morgan, Ralph 448920
191. Morris, Joe 894601
192. Moss, George 990093
193. Multine, Oscar P. 875314
194. Murphy, Calvin H. 875360
195. Nagurski, Adolph N. 875384
196. Nahkai, James T. Jr. 831006
197. Nakaidinae, Peter Sr. 479861
198. Napa, Martin Felix
199. Negale, Harding 936842
200. Newman, Alfred 831007
201. Nez, Arthur 1000176
202. Nez, Freeland 875252
203. Nez, Israel Hosteen 479769
204. Nez, Sidney 894511
205. Notah, Roy 448914
206. Notah, Willie Anthony 875300
207. O'Dell, Billy 479877
208. Oliver, Willard V. 831008
209. Paddock, Layton 479871
210. Pahe, Robert D. 831114
211. Parrish, Paul A. 416414
212. Patrick, Amos Roy 936843
213. Patterson, David Earl 831043
214. Peaches, Alfred James 875372
215. Peshlakai, Sam 894440
216. Peterson, Joe Sr. 1000089
217. Pinto, Gaul (Guy) 831047
218. Pinto, John Senator 990189
219. Platero, Richard 894460
220. Preston, Jimmie 479801
221. Reed, Sam 875369
222. Roanhorse, Harry C. 831011
223. Sage, Andy 831012
224. Sage, Denny 818604
225. Salabiye, Jerry E. 1000024
226. Sandoval, Peter P. 831088
227. Sandoval, Samuel F. 831013
228. Sandoval, Thomas 831014
229. Scott, John 875415
230. Sells, John C. 936956
231. Shields, Freddie 894442
232. Shorty, Dooley 1000177
233. Shorty, Robert T. 831049
234. Silversmith, Joe A. 831015
235. Silversmith, Sammy 831050
236. Singer, Oscar Jones 990122
237. Singer, Richard 479774
238. Skeet, Wilson Chee 1000081
239. Slinkey, Richard T. 479727
240. Slivers, Albert J. Sr. 990068
241. Smiley, Arcenio 894508
242. Smith, Albert 831062
243. Smith, George 831063
244. Smith, Raymond R. 857535
245. Smith, Samuel Jesse 831073
246. Soce, George B. 831016
247. Sorrell, Benjamin G. 448905
248. Spencer, Harry 990197
249. Tabaha, Johnnie 990076
250. Tah, Alfred 479831
251. Tah, Edward 894676
252. Talley, John N. 831017
253. Tallsalt, Bert 990082
254. Thomas, Edward 990129
255. Thomas, Richard 894520
256. Thompson, Clare M. 875458
257. Thompson, Everett M. 818518
258. Thompson, Francis T. 537182
259. Thompson, Frank T. 403057
260. Todacheene, Carl Leon 831018
261. Todacheene, Frank Carl 990105
262. Tohe, Benson 537165
263. Toledo, Curtis 831051
264. Toledo, Frank 479759
265. Toledo, Preston 479757
266. Toledo, Willie 479756
267. Towne, Joseph H. 479721
268. Towne, Zane 479770
269. Tso, Chester H. 894413
270. Tso, Howard B. 894677
271. Tso, Paul Edward 990071
272. Tso, Samuel 818546
273. Tsosie, Alfred 831019
274. Tsosie, Cecil G. 831020
[[Page 19167]]
275. Tsosie, Collins D. 831021
276. Tsosie, Kenneth 831025
277. Tsosie, Samuel Sr. 479913
278. Upshaw, John 990099
279. Upshaw, William 875364
280. Vandever, Joe 831026
281. Wagner, Oliver 990162
282. Wallace, Stephan P. 1000022
283. Walley, Robert 831027
284. Werito, John 831052
285. Whitman, Lyman J. 894466
286. Willetto, Frank, Jr. 831029
287. Willetto, Frankie Chee 894509
288. Williams, Alex 875338
289. Williams, Kenneth 875370
290. Willie, George B. 875408
291. Woody, Clarence Bahi 990092
292. Yazhe, Ernest 448949
293. Yazhe, Harrison A. 875363
294. Yazza, Peter 875442
295. Yazza, Vincent 1000109
296. Yazzie, Clifton 894593
297. Yazzie, Daniel 831030
298. Yazzie, Eddie Melvin 521223
299. Yazzie, Edison Kee 875390
300. Yazzie, Felix 416408
301. Yazzie, Francis 1000101
302. Yazzie, Frank H. 990101
303. Yazzie, Harding 894480
304. Yazzie, Harold 537154
305. Yazzie, Joe Shorty 830962
306. Yazzie, John 990113
307. Yazzie, Justin D. 1000126
308. Yazzie, Lemuel Rev. 990062
309. Yazzie, Ned 990112
310. Yazzie, Pahe Denet 479773
311. Yazzie, Raphael 831053
312. Yazzie, Robert 831031
313. Yazzie, William 875347
314. Yellowhair, Leon 990100
315. Yellowhair, Stanley 818600
316. Yellowman, Howard 831032
317. Yoe, George 990119
318. Zah, Henry 894551
LISTED, BUT NOT CONFIRMED
1. Alfred, Johnnie 479728
2. Allen, Perry 818534
3. Becenti, Ned 448948
4. Begay, Edward 474862
5. Begay, Jimmie 419878
6. Begay, Johnson 965045
7. Brown, Ned 818534
8. Clark, Jimmie 830987
9. Fowler, King 990080
10. Gray, Harvey 448909
11. Jenson, Nevy 990178
12. Jose, Teddy 448913
13. Kennepah, Jessie 358451
14. Morgan, Herbert 448922
15. Morgan, Sam 831100
16. Nez, Howard 403039
17. Nez, Howard H. 831086
18. Otero, Tom 831009
19. Singer, Tom 448916
20. Smith, Enoch 998953
21. Sorrel, Jerome 448915
22. Tsosie, David W. 831022
23. Tsosie, Howard 964998
24. Tsosie, Howard J. 831024
25. Whitman, Joe Reid 831028
26. Wilson, William 567102
27. Yazzie, Charley H. 831054
28. Yazzie, Sam W. 990036
PENDING/WAITING FOR RECORDS
1. Anderson, Edward 956330
2. Brown, N.A. 964770
3. Burnside, Francis A. 548184
4. Curley, Rueban 875229
5. David, Alfred
6. Dooley, Richard 807198
7. Foster, Harold Y. 537154
8. Freeman, Edwin
9. Goldtooth, Emmett
10. Goodman, Billie 875280
11. Harthorn, Rodger 2314982
12. Jake, H.
13. Kien, William 831058
14. Leroy, George
15. Leuppe, Edward 381004
16. Nazwood, Johnson
17. Peterson, David 831043
18. Price, Joe F. 894626
19. Price, Wilson H. 358592
20. Sandoval, Merril Leon 831048
21. Tracey, Peter 257670
22. Tsosie, Woody B.
23. Visalia, Buster
NOT LISTED
1. Babiye, Don
2. Barber, Willie
3. Begaye, Flemming 830977
4. Bejay, Charlie
5. Burbank, Askee
6. Clauschee, Guy 990200
7. Hanigahnie Jake
8. Kent, Carl Henry
9. Livingston, ?
10. Lod(v?)ato, Joe T.
11. Martinez, Martin
12. Peshlakai, Wallace Jr.
13. Singer, William
14. Yazzie ?, Leon
15. Yazzie, Peter
It is with that I submit those names on a wonderful treasure from the
Four Corners to America, and what they gave this country is so
valuable. You look back on their life and what they gave us is
immeasurable. What I would also like to do is honor them on today, the
anniversary of Pearl Harbor; and I hope that we would look fondly on
their attributes and what they gave to this great country because we
are all great because of them.
I also want to take the liberty of acknowledging one other person.
It's her birthday today. It's my mom. She turned 78. Happy birthday,
Mom.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
NAVAJO CODE TALKERS
(Mr. LAMBORN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, on this, the 70th anniversary of the attack
on Pearl Harbor, I want to recognize a group of unique Americans who
made an invaluable contribution to winning the war in the Pacific--
Native American Code Talkers.
John Werito of southwest Colorado was assigned to the 4th Marine
Division in Maui, Hawaii. He first saw action when his division landed
on Roi Namur, part of the Marshall Islands, then a Japanese stronghold.
From there, the 4th Division took Saipan where Werito was wounded.
After recovering from his injuries, he took part in the invasion of Iwo
Jima, where he was wounded a second time. He recovered from his
injuries on a hospital ship at sea after refusing to be sent home to
the U.S. because he wanted to be part of the invasion of Japan, should
that be necessary.
Back home, Werito settled in Denver where he served as a letter
carrier for the U.S. Postal Service. He passed away in 1983 and is
buried at Fort Logan National Cemetery in Colorado.
Werito was posthumously awarded the Silver Congressional Medal of
Honor in 2002. His widow, Rose, and children, Nellie and Michael,
attended the ceremony in Window Rock, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation.
I thank Mr. Werito for his courage in fighting a brutal enemy in the
Pacific.
The Code Talkers of all tribes are a special class of brave warriors
who deserve our continued recognition.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Nadler (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today and December 8 on
account of a family matter.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The Speaker announced his signature to enrolled bills of the Senate
of the following titles:
S. 1541. An act to revise the Federal charter for the Blue
Star Mothers of America, Inc. to reflect a change in
eligibility requirements for membership.
S. 1639. An Act to amend title 36, United States Code, to
authorize the American Legion under its Federal charter to
provide guidance and leadership to the individual departments
and posts of the American Legion, and for other purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 8 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Thursday, December 8, 2011, at 9 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
4176. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-10-0008-FR-1A] (RIN: 0581-AD00) received
November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
4177. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst,
Directives and Regulations, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program (RIN:
0596-AC84) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
4178. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulations Supplement (DFARS
[[Page 19168]]
Case 2009-D036) (RIN: 0750-AG66) received November 18, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed
Services.
4179. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulations Supplement (DFARS Case 2011-D050) (RIN: 0750-
AH44) received November 18, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
4180. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulations Supplement (DFARS Case 2011-D053) (RIN: 0750-
AH46) received November 18, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
4181. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulations Supplement (DFARS Case 2011-D031) (RIN: 0750-
AH30) received November 18, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
4182. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket ID:
FEMA-2011-0002] received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4183. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Final Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket ID: FEMA-
2011-0002] received November 16, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4184. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket ID:
FEMA-2011-0002] [Internal Agency Docket No.: FEMA-B-1225]
received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
4185. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Virginia Graeme
Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act; Incorporation by Reference of
Successor Standard received November 16, 2011, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4186. A letter from the Deputy Archivist of the United
States, National Archives and Records Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule -- NARA Records
Reproduction Fees [NARA-11-0002] (RIN: 3095-AB71) received
November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
4187. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish;
Framework Adjustment 7 [Docket No.: 101119575-1554-02] (RIN:
0648-BA46) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4188. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast
States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendments 20 and
21; Trawl Rationalization Program; Correcting Amendments
[Docket No.: 110721401-1470-01] (RIN: 0648-BB31) received
November 16, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
4189. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Pacific Cod by Vessels Harvesting Pacific Cod for
Processing by the Inshore Component in the Central Regulatory
Area of the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 101126522-0640-02]
(RIN: 0648-XA759) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4190. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Services, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast
States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial
Specifications and Management Measures; Correction [Docket
No.: 100804324-1496-05] (RIN: 0648-BA01) received November
16, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
4191. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Closure of
the 2011-2012 Recreational Sector for Black Sea Bass in the
South Atlantic [Docket No.: 0907271173-0629-03] (RIN: 0648-
XA686) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4192. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Western Pacific Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish
Fisheries; 2011-12 Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish
Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures [Docket No.:
110711384-1534-02] (RIN: 0648-XA470) received November 16,
2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
4193. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Gulf of Mexico Reef Fishery; Closure of the 2011 Gulf of
Mexico Commercial Sector for Greater Amberjack [Docket No.:
040205043-4043-01] (RIN: 0648-XA766) received November 15,
2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
4194. A letter from the Director Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka
Mackerel in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area [Docket No.: 101126521-0640-02] (RIN: 0648-XA783)
received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4195. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; American Samoa Longline
Gear Modification to Reduce Turtle Interactions [Docket No.:
100218104-1485-02] (RIN: 0648-AY27) received November 16,
2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
4196. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Reallocation of Crab Prohibited Species Catch Allowances in
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area [Docket
No.: 101126521-0640-02] (RIN: 0648-XA784) received November
15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
4197. 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
Herring Fishery; Adjustment to the Atlantic Herring
Management Area 1A Sub-Annual Catch Limit [Docket No.:
0907301205-0289-02] (RIN: 0648-XA767) received November 15,
2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
4198. A letter from the Director Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Cod by Vessels Harvesting Pacific Cod for Processing
by the Inshore Component in the Western Regulatory Area of
the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 101126522-0640-02] (RIN:
0648-XA790) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4199. A letter from the Director Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Cod by Vessels Harvesting Pacific Cod for Processing
by the Inshore Component in the Western Regulatory Area of
the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 101126522-0640-02] (RIN:
0648-XA790) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4200. 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
Herring Fishery; Sub-ACL (Annual Catch Limit) Harvested for
Management Area 1A [Docket No.: 0907301205-0289-02] (RIN:
0648-XA764) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4201. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Cod and Octopus in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area [Docket No.: 101126521-0640-02] (RIN:
0648-XA794) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
4202. A letter from the Federal Liaison Officer, Patent and
Trademark Office, transmitting the Office's final rule --
Rules of Practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences in Ex Parte Appeals [No.: PTO-P-2009-0021]
(RIN: 0651-AC37) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
[[Page 19169]]
4203. A letter from the Senior 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.:30809; Amdt. No. 3449] received
November 21, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
4204. A letter from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Update List of Areas Included in
``North American Area''; Under IRC Section 274(h) (Rev. Rul.
2011-26) received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
4205. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst,
Directives and Regulations, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Prohibitions -- Developed Recreation Sites (RIN: 0596-AC98)
received November 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); jointly to the Committees on Agriculture and
Natural Resources.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. WEBSTER: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 487.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1633) to establish a temporary prohibition against revising
any national ambient air quality standard applicable to
coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal regulation of
nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regulated under
State, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes (Rept.
112-317). 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 Mrs. BLACK (for herself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Young of Indiana, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr.
Lankford, Mr. Mulvaney, and Mr. Stutzman):
H.R. 3575. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to establish joint resolutions on the budget, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to
the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin,
Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Guinta, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Chaffetz,
and Mr. Stutzman):
H.R. 3576. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to establish spending
limits and deficit control; to the Committee on the Budget,
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 Mr. RIBBLE (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Guinta, and
Mr. Lankford):
H.R. 3577. A bill to establish biennial budgets for the
United States Government; to the Committee on the Budget, and
in addition to the Committees on Rules, and 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. WOODALL (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Young of Indiana, Mrs. Black, Mr.
Lankford, Mr. Chaffetz, and Mr. Stutzman):
H.R. 3578. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget
baseline; to the Committee on the Budget.
By Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin,
Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Rokita, Mrs. Black, and Mr.
Stutzman):
H.R. 3579. A bill to require greater accountability in
spending in direct spending programs, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the
Committees on Rules, Education and the Workforce, 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 Mr. MULVANEY (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin,
Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Stutzman, Mr.
Chaffetz, and Mr. Lankford):
H.R. 3580. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to provide for long-
term budgeting, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Rules,
Agriculture, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and
Education and the Workforce, 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. GARRETT (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr.
Chaffetz, and Mr. Stutzman):
H.R. 3581. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to increase
transparency in Federal budgeting, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the
Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and
Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Garrett, Mr.
Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Chaffetz, and
Mr. Stutzman):
H.R. 3582. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of
legislation; to the Committee on the Budget, 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 Mr. LANKFORD (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin,
Mr. Hensarling, Mrs. Black, Mr. Young of Indiana, Mr.
Chaffetz, Mr. Stutzman, and Mr. Bucshon):
H.R. 3583. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to
provide for automatic continuing resolutions; to the
Committee on Appropriations.
By Mr. OWENS (for himself, Mr. Connolly of Virginia,
and Mr. Deutch):
H.R. 3584. A bill to authorize the United States Postal
Service to co-locate post offices at retail facilities and
municipal buildings, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. PRICE of North Carolina:
H.R. 3585. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to require personal disclosure statements in all
third-party communications advocating the election or defeat
of a candidate, to require the disclosure of identifying
information within communications made through the Internet,
to apply disclosure requirements to prerecorded telephone
calls, and for other purposes; to the Committee on House
Administration.
By Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. Matheson):
H.R. 3586. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
limit the liability of health care professionals who
volunteer to provide health care services in response to a
disaster; 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. BILBRAY (for himself and Ms. Eshoo):
H.R. 3587. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to provide for the application of Medicaid prompt pay
requirement to claims for payment for covered items and
services furnished by any Medicaid health care entity; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. WELCH (for himself and Mr. Chaffetz):
H.R. 3588. A bill to require the proposal for debarment
from contracting with the Federal Government of persons
violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Issa):
H.R. 3589. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2012 and 2013 for the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act of 2000, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the
Judiciary, Ways and Means, 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. MALONEY (for herself, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Gutierrez, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Honda, Mr. Faleomavaega,
Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Polis):
H.R. 3590. A bill to allow certain Indonesian citizens to
file a motion to reopen their asylum claims; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, and Ms.
Slaughter):
H.R. 3591. A bill to recalculate and restore retirement
annuity obligations of the United States Postal Service,
eliminate the requirement that the United States Postal
Service pre-fund the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits
Fund, place restrictions on the closure of postal facilities,
create incentives for
[[Page 19170]]
innovation for the United States Postal Service, to maintain
levels of postal service, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition
to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DeFAZIO:
H.R. 3592. A bill to provide that the Postal Service may
not close any post office which results in more than 10 miles
distance (as measured on roads with year-round access)
between any 2 post offices; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
By Ms. HAYWORTH (for herself, Mr. King of New York,
Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Grimm,
Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Engel,
Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Owens, Mr.
Hanna, Ms. Buerkle, Ms. Hochul, and Mr. Reed):
H.R. 3593. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 787 State Route 17M in
Monroe, New York, as the ``National Clandestine Service of
the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer Gregg David
Wenzel Memorial Post Office''; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
By Mr. WALSH of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Huelskamp,
Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Posey, Mr.
King of Iowa, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Westmoreland,
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, and Mr. Broun of
Georgia):
H.R. 3594. A bill to express the sense of the Congress that
the United States should not adopt any treaty that poses a
threat to national sovereignty or abridges any rights
guaranteed by the United States Constitution, such as the
right to keep and bear arms, and to withhold funding from the
United Nations unless the President certifies that the United
Nations has not taken action to restrict, attempt to
restrict, or otherwise adversely infringe upon the rights of
individuals in the United States to keep and bear arms, or
abridge any of the other constitutionally protected rights of
citizens of the United States; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
By Ms. WILSON of Florida:
H.R. 3595. A bill to establish a mandatory mediation
process for servicers of residential mortgages and borrowers;
to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself, Mr. McKinley,
Mr. Michaud, and Mr. Gene Green of Texas):
H.R. 3596. A bill to require a publicly available a list of
all employers that relocate a call center overseas and to
make such companies ineligible for Federal grants or
guaranteed loans and to require disclosure of the physical
location of business agents engaging in customer service
communications; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government
Reform, Armed Services, and Education and the Workforce, 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. BRALEY of Iowa (for himself and Mr. Boswell):
H.R. 3597. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education
to make grants to 10 institutions of higher education for the
expansion of master's degree in physical education programs
that emphasize technology and innovative teaching practices;
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Ms. CLARKE of New York:
H.R. 3598. A bill to prohibit fees with respect to
electronic benefit transfer debit cards used in connection
with unemployment compensation; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. HEINRICH (for himself, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Berkley,
and Mr. Matheson):
H.R. 3599. A bill to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, to provide full
funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in
addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. JONES (for himself and Mr. Cleaver):
H.R. 3600. A bill to restore the Free Speech and First
Amendment rights of churches and exempt organizations by
repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. KINGSTON (for himself and Mr. Farenthold):
H.R. 3601. A bill to amend title III of the Social Security
Act to require a substance abuse risk assessment and targeted
drug testing as a condition for the receipt of unemployment
benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways
and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. PAUL:
H.R. 3602. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
provide that an employee or Member who dies within the 2-year
notification period with respect to a survivor annuity shall
be presumed to have elected to provide a former spouse with
such an annuity, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on House Administration, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey:
H.R. 3603. A bill to authorize 150,000 incremental vouchers
for tenant-based rental assistance under section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 to help meet the housing
needs of low-income families; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 3604. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act to provide for equitable allotment of lands to
Alaska Native veterans; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mr. JONES (for himself, Mr. Poe of Texas, and Mr.
Whitfield):
H. Res. 485. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives regarding the declassification of
information related to missing and unaccounted-for members of
the Armed Forces; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. BECERRA:
H. Res. 486. A resolution electing a Member to a certain
standing committee of the House of Representatives;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself and Mr. Hanna):
H. Res. 488. A resolution honoring Americans who served as
volunteers for the United States Office of Civilian Defense
during World War II; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. LAMBORN:
H. Res. 489. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of
Christmas should be protected for use by those who celebrate
Christmas; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
____________________
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the
specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the
accompanying bill or joint resolution.
By Mrs. BLACK:
H.R. 3575.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
H.R. 3576.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. RIBBLE:
H.R. 3577.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. WOODALL:
H.R. 3578.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. CHAFFETZ:
H.R. 3579.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. MULVANEY:
H.R. 3580.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. GARRETT:
H.R. 3581.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. PRICE of Georgia:
H.R. 3582.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. LANKFORD:
H.R. 3583.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 3584.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I, Section 8, of the United States
Constitution.
By Mr. PRICE of North Carolina:
H.R. 3585.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The General Welfare Clause, Art. I, Sec. 8, of the
Constitution
[[Page 19171]]
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 3586.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
By Mr. BILBRAY:
H.R. 3587.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution The
Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but
all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States;
By Mr. WELCH:
H.R. 3588.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: The Congress shall have
Power To . . . make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and
all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey:
H.R. 3589.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
article 1, section 8 of the Constitution
By Mrs. MALONEY:
H.R. 3590.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, which reads: To establish a
uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the
subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.
By Mr. DeFAZIO:
H.R. 3591.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 ``To establish Post Offices
& Post Roads''
By Mr. DeFAZIO:
H.R. 3592.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 ``To establish Post Offices
& Post Roads''
By Ms. HAYWORTH:
H.R. 3593.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is
the power of Congress to establish Post Offices and post
roads, as enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the
United States Constitution.
By Mr. WALSH of Illinois:
H.R. 3594.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the United States
Constitution.
By Ms. WILSON of Florida:
H.R. 3595.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes.
By Mr. BISHOP of New York:
H.R. 3596.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
By Mr. BRALEY of Iowa:
H.R. 3597.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United
States Constitution.
By Ms. CLARKE of New York:
H.R. 3598.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill to prohibit fees with respect to electronic
benefit transfer debit cards used in connection with
unemployment compensation is enacted pursuant to the power
granted to Congress under Article I of the United States
Constitution and its subsequent amendments, and further
clarified and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
By Mr. HEINRICH:
H.R. 3599.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
By Mr. JONES:
H.R. 3600.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this
legislation is provided by the 1st Amendment of the United
States Constitution, which states Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
By Mr. KINGSTON:
H.R. 3601.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Congress has the power to enact the Ensuring Quality
Unemployment Insurance Program (EQUIP) Act pursuant to
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
By Mr. PAUL:
H.R. 3602.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The Spouse Equity Election Clarification Amendment Act is
justified by Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution which
vests all legislative authority in the United States
Congress. This section clearly gives Congress the power to
pass laws amending federal rules regarding benefits of
federal employees and their current and former spouses.
By Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey:
H.R. 3603.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United
States Constitution.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 3604.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
article 1 section 8 clause 3.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 87: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 100: Mr. Womack.
H.R. 157: Mr. Hanna.
H.R. 210: Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Butterfield, Mr.
Bishop of New York, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Ackerman.
H.R. 374: Mr. Denham.
H.R. 452: Mr. Bilirakis.
H.R. 547: Mr. Lance.
H.R. 594: Mr. Sablan.
H.R. 664: Mr. Dingell, Mr. Butterfield, and Mr. Himes.
H.R. 665: Mr. Franks of Arizona and Mr. Labrador.
H.R. 721: Mr. Webster.
H.R. 733: Mr. Holden.
H.R. 735: Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Hall.
H.R. 835: Ms. Lee of California.
H.R. 889: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 890: Ms. Lee of California.
H.R. 905: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 920: Mrs. Schmidt, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. West, Mr.
Burgess, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Walsh of Illinois, and Mr.
Huelskamp.
H.R. 1006: Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 1058: Mr. Pastor of Arizona and Ms. Bass of
California.
H.R. 1063: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 1148: Mr. Jordan, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Denham, Mr. Dent,
Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Shimkus,
Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Towns, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Braley of Iowa,
Mr. Petri, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Berg,
Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Mrs. Lowey,
Ms. Berkley, and Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 1175: Mr. Owens.
H.R. 1206: Mr. Huelskamp.
H.R. 1288: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 1375: Mr. Israel and Mrs. Davis of California.
H.R. 1394: Mr. Moran and Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H.R. 1426: Ms. Matsui.
H.R. 1449: Ms. Speier.
H.R. 1639: Mr. Fortenberry.
H.R. 1681: Mr. Sires.
H.R. 1697: Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 1734: Mr. Herger.
H.R. 1735: Ms. McCollum.
H.R. 1783: Ms. Wilson of Florida.
H.R. 1802: Mr. King of New York, Mr. Bachus, and Mr.
LaTourette.
H.R. 1831: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 1897: Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Keating, Ms. Matsui, Mr.
LoBiondo, and Mr. Sarbanes.
H.R. 1905: Mr. Lynch.
H.R. 1916: Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Norton.
H.R. 1930: Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 1946: Mr. Crawford.
H.R. 1956: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 2001: Mr. Carter.
H.R. 2016: Mr. Sherman and Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 2104: Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H.R. 2105: Mr. Chabot, Mr. Franks of Arizona, and Mrs.
Ellmers.
H.R. 2269: Mr. Honda, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr.
Filner, and Mr. Israel.
H.R. 2299: Mr. Fitzpatrick.
H.R. 2414: Mr. Crawford.
H.R. 2437: Mr. Loebsack.
H.R. 2446: Mr. McHenry.
H.R. 2457: Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 2492: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 2499: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 2539: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 2572: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 2624: Mr. Polis.
H.R. 2672: Mr. Guthrie.
H.R. 2701: Mr. Scott of Virginia.
H.R. 2742: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 2753: Mr. Sablan.
H.R. 2827: Mr. Yoder and Mr. Latta.
H.R. 2874: Mr. Mulvaney.
H.R. 2902: Mr. Hinojosa.
[[Page 19172]]
H.R. 2913: Mr. Schilling and Mr. Quayle.
H.R. 2917: Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 2948: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 2982: Mr. Deutch, Mr. Kissell, and Mr. Olson.
H.R. 3027: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 3032: Mr. Latham.
H.R. 3043: Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 3059: Mrs. Black and Mr. Griffin of Arkansas.
H.R. 3061: Mr. Turner of New York.
H.R. 3066: Mr. DesJarlais.
H.R. 3083: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 3086: Mr. Rivera, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and Mr.
Kildee.
H.R. 3104: Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Forbes, Mrs. Lummis, Mr.
West, and Mr. Gingrey of Georgia.
H.R. 3109: Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 3125: Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California.
H.R. 3166: Mr. Latta.
H.R. 3168: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 3173: Mr. Luetkemeyer.
H.R. 3179: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Barletta, Ms. Waters, Mr. Gibson,
Mr. Scott of Virginia, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California.
H.R. 3207: Mr. Lance and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
H.R. 3210: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 3218: Mr. Southerland.
H.R. 3225: Mr. Baca.
H.R. 3261: Mr. Baca and Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 3264: Mr. Walsh of Illinois and Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 3298: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 3300: Mr. Rangel and Mrs. Maloney.
H.R. 3308: Mr. Walsh of Illinois.
H.R. 3310: Mr. Kline and Mr. Latta.
H.R. 3324: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 3337: Mr. Smith of Washington and Mr. Nugent.
H.R. 3340: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H.R. 3364: Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 3371: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 3421: Mr. Rahall, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Sires, Mr. Barton of
Texas, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Wittman, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Thornberry,
Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Ribble, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Cassidy, Mr.
Bilirakis, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Amodei, Mr. Issa, Mr. Broun of
Georgia, Mr. Flores, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
Royce, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Ackerman, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Mr. Costa, Mr. Engel, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr.
Costello, Mr. Baca, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Neal, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr.
Stark, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Owens, Mr. Langevin, Ms.
Hahn, Ms. Waters, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Markey, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Berman, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Donnelly of Indiana, Ms. Bass of California, Mr. Aderholt,
Mr. Honda, Mr. Clay, Mr. Himes, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Mulvaney, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Scott of
Virginia, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr.
Peterson, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Mr. Schrader, Mr. Barrow,
Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Mr. Kline, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Van
Hollen, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Welch, Mr. Clarke of
Michigan, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Yoder, and Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 3422: Mr. Labrador.
H.R. 3425: Mr. Courtney.
H.R. 3435: Mr. Polis, Ms. Fudge, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Texas, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Keating, Mr. Carson of
Indiana, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Rush, Ms. Hanabusa,
Ms. Wilson of Florida, and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 3443: Mr. Bishop of Georgia and Mr. Guthrie.
H.R. 3444: Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Jones, Mr. Forbes, and Mr.
Duncan of Tennessee.
H.R. 3474: Mr. Duncan of Tennessee.
H.R. 3483: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 3488: Mr. Benishek and Mr. Jones.
H.R. 3510: Mr. Smith of Nebraska and Mr. Shuler.
H.R. 3516: Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 3521: Mr. Young of Indiana, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr.
Lankford, Mrs. Black, and Mr. Stutzman.
H.R. 3536: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Towns, and Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 3538: Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mrs. Black, Mr. McCaul,
Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Benishek, and Mrs. Ellmers.
H.R. 3545: Mr. Barletta.
H.R. 3550: Mr. Fitzpatrick.
H.R. 3551: Mr. Rokita, Mr. Labrador, and Mr. Woodall.
H.R. 3568: Ms. Hanabusa.
H.R. 3572: Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Deutch, and Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts.
H.J. Res. 80: Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Res. 365: Ms. Pingree of Maine.
H. Res. 378: Mr. Cohen.
H. Res. 462: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H. Res. 475: Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Jordan,
Mr. Benishek, and Mr. Westmoreland.
H. Res. 480: Mrs. Miller of Michigan and Ms. Jenkins.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS
Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were
submitted as follows:
The amendment to be offered by Representative Rush, or a
designee, to H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention
Act of 2011, does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
in clause 9 of rule XXI.
[[Page 19173]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO KYRIE HILLS
_____
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ms. Kyrie
Hills for her passionate devotion as a leader to inspire others through
the performing arts.
Ms. Hills is the daughter of Harold and Patricia Hills and the second
oldest of three siblings. Ms. Hills and her family are active members
at Berean Baptist Church in Brooklyn, NY where Dr. Arlee Griffin, Jr.
is their Pastor and Rev. Byron Benton is the Youth Pastor.
Ms. Hills is currently a sophomore at Clark Atlanta University where
she is pursuing a degree in psychology with the aspiration to become a
psychotherapist. One of her greatest passions is dance and the
performing arts, where she strives to bring her community together.
During the summer of 2011 Ms. Hills worked as a camp counselor at
Inspired, a performing arts camp in Brooklyn, NY. That same summer she
was recruited to perform in the acclaimed play ``For Christian Girls'',
written and directed by Termaine Price at Berean Baptist Church.
Ms. Hills also attends Chapel on CAU campus, and is a member of the
choir and sings praises. Currently Ms. Hills is the CCO Rep of CAU
Dance Theater and aspires to be President of the Dance Theater next
academic year. Ms. Hills has previously served as the section leader of
BCD ``Royal Dame'' dance line and she is the former Vice President of
the Ministry of Sacred Dance at Berean Baptist Church.
Ms. Hills has been awarded several awards and was recognized for her
performing arts throughout Brooklyn. In 2009 Ms. Hills performed in
Dance Africa at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, was recognized by the
National Council of Negro Women, and received the Joseph A.E. Jones
``Youth of the Year Award'' for outstanding and dedicated service to
the Youth Ministry at Berean Baptist Church.
Aside from her extraordinary accomplishments in the performing arts,
Ms. Hills also performs community service in Atlanta with the NAACP,
while also mentoring children at the Booker T Washington Middle School
with a group called Lady B Fly.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
accomplishments of Ms. Kyrie Hills.
____________________
MR. WALLACE L. BOYLE
_____
HON. LOU BARLETTA
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Wallace L. Boyle Jr.
of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, for his faithful and dedicated service to
the United States of America through turbulent times.
Wallace Boyle joined the Army Air Corps in 1940. At that time, there
was no draft, so an enlistee could choose where he wanted to be
stationed. Mr. Boyle selected Hawaii as his duty station, and he was
sent to Wheeler Air Field. This put him about 24 miles from Pearl
Harbor on the morning of December 7, 1941. The Japanese flew over and
attacked Wheeler Air Field on the way to the naval base. The Japanese
attack on Wheeler destroyed two-thirds of the aircraft at the field.
On that morning, Wallace Boyle was in the mess hall. He was just
handed a plate of pancakes when the first bomb struck. Mr. Boyle ran
outside and began helping his wounded comrades. More than 2,400
American lives were lost on that day, and almost 1,300 were injured.
During World War II, Mr. Boyle served at Andover Airfield in England,
in France, in Belgium, and in Germany. He was discharged from the Army
in 1945.
Mr. Speaker, Wallace L. Boyle Jr., who is only months away from his
90th birthday, is a fine example of the faithful and dedicated men and
women that make up our Armed Forces. His selfless actions, and those of
his generation, should forever be remembered and cherished by a
grateful Nation.
____________________
BILL LIVINGOOD, HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS
_____
HON. TED POE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. POE of Texas. ``Mr. Speaker, the President of the United
States.''
The announcement of the President at the State of the Union is how
Americans have come to know the House Sergeant at Arms, Bill Livingood.
This duty is just one of many responsibilities of the House Sergeant
at Arms.
He most importantly ensures the safety of Members, staff, and
visitors as the chief law enforcement officer in the House.
And sadly Mr. Livingood, the third longest serving Sergeant at Arms,
is retiring.
Bill is a wonderful person and accomplished public servant.
He has served the House since 1998 through some of the most trying
times in our history and previously served our country as a member of
the Secret Service.
I've known Bill for over 25 years beginning when I was a Judge in
Texas, and he was the head of the Secret Service field office in
Houston. His agents would file cases that were sometimes heard in my
court.
I am sad to see him go but he has made a mark on this institution
with improvements in security and steadfast leadership that is a model
for all who serve in the people's house.
Congratulations on your retirement, Bill, and thank you for your
service to the House of Representatives and the United States of
America.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
HONORING BRENT BAIR
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man that
needs no introduction in Michigan, nor the transportation and
intelligent transportation network in the country.
After 34 years of public service to the Road Commission for Oakland
County, Brent Bair will be retiring at the end of the year. A pillar of
the community, Mr. Bair has a long and distinguished resume.
Serving as the Managing Director of the Road Commission for Oakland
County, his department is responsible for the largest county road
system in Michigan, second in size to the state highway system, and
currently operates the second largest system of adaptive traffic
signals in the nation. He is widely respected as a leading expert on
road funding in Michigan and has been an advocate on behalf of
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and ITS funding. He is a
founding member and past president of the Intelligent Transportation
Society of Michigan as well as an active member in and former chairman
of the national ITS association, ITS America.
As the Chairman of the Intelligent Transportation Systems' Caucus in
the House of Representatives, I have long looked to Brent for advice
and guidance on good governance and ITS policy. Early on I recognized
the benefits to including technological advances in our cars, highways
and infrastructure. Through educational programs and ongoing efforts by
Brent and ITS Michigan, Congress has recognized that in this economic
climate of doing more with less, ITS solutions are an important step
towards fiscal responsibility and more importantly, smart solutions.
A tireless advocate for his community, Brent Bair will be missed. I
wish him and his family all the best in the years to come.
[[Page 19174]]
____________________
HONORING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FRANK A. SEDITA, JR.
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to have the House
pause in its deliberations this morning to honor New York State Supreme
Court Justice Frank A. Sedita, Jr., whose three decade judicial career
will end this year. The Judge, best known to friends and family as
``Chickie,'' is among the most lovable and well-respected legal figures
in the Western New York community.
A lifelong Buffalonian, Judge Sedita is the scion of one of the most
famous and well-respected 20th century Buffalo political families.
While the Judge's father was one of Buffalo's most well-liked 20th
century political figures and someone looked back upon nostalgically as
one of Buffalo's most favorite mayors; Judge Sedita's career as an
attorney and a jurist has been tremendously substantial, as have been
the Judge's contributions as a public servant to the hometown region he
loves so much.
Born and raised in Buffalo, Judge Sedita was graduated summa cum
laude from the Canisius College of Buffalo, and in 1960 earned his J.D.
at the University at Buffalo Law School. During extensive legal
practice in the office of the City of Buffalo's Corporation Counsel,
Judge Sedita developed substantial expertise in the area of education
law, serving for many years as the counsel to the city's Board of
Education.
Judge Sedita's career on the bench began in the mid-1970s, upon his
election as an Associate Judge of the Buffalo City Court. Following
successful service as a Judge of the Erie County Family Court, he was
elected as Chief Judge of the Buffalo City Court, administering the
city's court system within the very building named for his late father.
During this period, Judge Sedita assumed responsibility for the city's
Housing Court, raising that court's profile and restoring its work to
its rightful level of prominence. His work in that court was probably
among the most impactful judicial work performed in Western New York
during that period, and resulted in Judge Sedita's selection as a
Buffalo News ``Citizen of the Year.''
For the better part of the past two decades, Judge Sedita has served
with tremendous distinction as a Justice of the New York State Supreme
Court, continuing to bring honor to not only his own career but also to
his storied family name. Notwithstanding his retirement, all residents
in Erie County are fortunate that the Sedita family's tradition of
effective public service will continue--hopefully for many years to
come. In 2012, the judge's son--Frank A. Sedita III, will complete his
first term as Erie County's District Attorney. Frank Sedita III has
proven a tenacious and effective prosecutor throughout his legal
career, and he too, like his father the judge, continues to be a credit
to his family, and to the community that he serves with such
effectiveness.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the whole House join with those
of us in Western New York who wish good luck and Godspeed to New York
State Supreme Court Justice Frank A. Sedita, Jr., upon the occasion of
his retirement from the bench.
____________________
HONORING THE SEVENTH CYCLE BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY OF KING BHUMIBOL
ADULYADEJ
______
HON. DANA ROHRABACHER
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the people of
Thailand in celebrating the seventh cycle birthday anniversary of His
Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej on December 5th. During his reign of
over 65 years, Thailand continues to be the United States' long-term
military ally, trade and economic partner, and friend in southeast
Asia.
King Bhumibol holds a special relationship with our country beginning
with his birth in Cambridge, Massachusetts while his father was
attending Harvard University. As part of his continuing efforts to
strengthen the ties between the United States and Thailand, the King
visited America in 1960 and 1967. Under King Bhumibol's stewardship,
Thailand has become a model of democracy and economic development in
the region. Thailand's role as a regional democratic leader is a
critical factor in the development of a stable Bangkok-Washington
relationship.
I had the distinct honor and privilege of visiting King Bhumibol on
my past visits. His continued efforts to provide guidance to improve
the lives of his people were evident. Fittingly, he was awarded the
United Nations Development Programme's first Human Development Lifetime
Achievement Award in 2006.
Mr. Speaker, I extend my best and warmest wishes on his 84th birthday
and for a long life of good health. I am pleased to join our Thai
friends in recognizing this special day.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF THE 16 DAYS OF ACTIVISM AGAINST GENDER VIOLENCE
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the 16 Days of
Activism Against Gender Violence. This campaign draws attention to the
impact of violence against women around the world.
The 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence is an international
campaign of activism. It lasts for 16 days and starts on November 25,
which is the International Day Against Violence Against Women, and ends
on December 10, International Human Rights Day. The campaign highlights
the links between violence against women and human rights, and stresses
that this type of violence is a violation of human rights.
Since 1991, over 3,700 organizations in approximately 164 countries
have participated in the 16 Days of Activism campaign.
Violence against women remains a serious problem both domestically
and throughout the world. It has been estimated that nearly a billion
women globally will be beaten, raped, mutilated or otherwise abused
during their lifetimes. That is 1 in 3 women. Those statistics are
extremely frightening for both men and women and are simply
unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join the call to end violence
against women and girls around the world.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO KEITH HICKS
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Keith
Hicks for his leadership throughout his community and focus on
education and professionalism.
Mr. Hicks was born the youngest of five children, to his parents John
Henry and Marie Antoinette in South Jamaica, Queens. As a child Mr.
Hicks learned to cultivate a strong sense of leadership that would
transcend into his future career.
In his early career, Mr. Hicks joined the Private Industry Council,
an organization committed to youth development. As a program monitor,
he completed his BA degree at John Jay College. He would also serve as
instructor before moving to the Fortune Society, focusing his efforts
on developing both the educational and professional lives of former
prisoners. His career focus of providing resources to assisting the
economically disadvantaged and at risk youth would continue with stops
at the Hope Program where he served as Learning Center Director and the
WAY Program where he served as Assistant Director, and Director.
Mr. Hicks' continued leadership role would extend to the YMCA, when
he served as Director of the Cross Island branch in Queens. At the
YMCA, Mr. Hicks ascended to serve as the Assistant Executive of the
Northern Brooklyn branch and now as the executive Director of the
Greenpoint Brooklyn branch, where he continues to serve. In this
capacity, Mr. Hicks manages a budget in the millions, over 100
professional staff members, and offers services to thousands.
While serving at the YMCA, Mr. Hicks had the opportunity to pursue
his Masters Degree from Queens College, further providing a great
example to those he has influenced over the years. Mr. Hicks'
accomplishments at the YMCA and throughout his career are extensive,
but professionally he remains most proud of the role he has been able
to play in the lives of our youth.
Mr. Hicks is the proud father of a daughter Tyler Marie Hicks who is
presently a senior at Townsend Harris School and will enter college
next year. Mr. Hicks' favorite scripture serves as a guiding force in
his life, Hebrews 12:1: ``wherefore seeing we also are compassed about
with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight and
the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the
race that is set before us''.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life
and accomplishments of Mr. Keith Hicks.
[[Page 19175]]
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 100TH BIRTHDAY OF RUBY HARTLEY BARTON
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I would like to request the
House's attention today to pay recognition to the special life of Ruby
Hartley Barton of Talladega, Alabama.
Mrs. Barton was born on December 15, 1911 in Georgia to James and
Victoria Hartley. Mrs. Barton's father died while she was a baby, and
her mother raised her and her six brothers and sisters. Mrs. Barton
grew up in a fanning and textile family.
She was married to the late B.W. Barton for over 50 years and was
blessed with two sons, Charles D. Barton and Larry H. Barton and one
daughter, Edith Barton Bishop. Mrs. Barton now has three grandchildren,
three great-grandchildren and one great-great grandchild.
Mrs. Barton worked at Bemis Mills for close to 40 years and has spent
her life serving God and volunteering in her church as a Sunday School
teacher, choir director and pianist.
On December 15th, her friends and family will celebrate her birthday
in her room at Talladega Health Care in Talladega. Today I would like
to wish Mrs. Ruby Hartley Barton a very Happy 100th Birthday.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ANNA G. ESHOO
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during the rollcall vote
No. 875, on December 1, 2011.
On rollcall vote No. 875 I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________
MERGER OF TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION AND INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
______
HON. CORRINE BROWN
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the
January 1, 2012 merger of the Transportation Communications Union (TCU)
and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
(IAMAW).
These two great unions, with railroad roots, are on pace to become
one strong voice for hundreds of thousands of middle-class working men
and women across our great nation.
It was in 1888 that 19 Machinists meeting in a locomotive pit in
Atlanta, Georgia formed what is now the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, commonly known as the ``Fighting
Machinists''.
Today's TCU is one union made of many. At its core is the Union
founded in 1899, which became the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks. Then
in 1919 the name expanded, becoming the Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees. To
further reflect the diversity of the union's membership, the delegates
at the 1987 Convention voted to become the Transportation
Communications International Union (TCU).
TCU, joining the ranks of the Machinists, makes its membership and
the labor movement that much stronger. Both of these unions are
constantly fighting for the dignity, welfare and prosperity of their
members. Workers are the foundation of our nation; they drive our
economy and our country forward. TCU and the IAM understand the values
of hard work, faith, family and community--they are the keys of
success. These four pillars are what make TCU and IAM stronger.
This merger not only unites two unions but two dedicated union
presidents as well. The determination of these two men to fight for the
rights for fair wages and working conditions for everyone has its roots
in Tom Buffenbarger, who started out as a journeyman tool and die maker
at GE's jet engine plant in Evendale, Ohio. In 1997 he was the youngest
IAM President in its history. And Bob Scardelletti, a life-long
railroader, started out as a yard clerk in Cleveland with the New York
Central Railroad in 1967; in 1971 took on his first union position and
by 1991 was elected president and has been re-elected by acclamation
four times.
TCU and IAM were fundamental in building the American middle-class,
and have a vital role today in preserving the American dream for
working families. Their unions were unified by a common purpose: to do
the very best they can--every single day--for the members they serve.
The TCU/IAM merger now creates a powerful force representing close to a
million active and retired Americans. Their combined strength will
provide leadership throughout the labor movement; particularly, the
transportation industry. TCU/IAM is now one of the largest rail unions
in the United States.
I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this historic merger for
the betterment of the hard-working middle-class men and women of our
country.
____________________
HONORING THE SCOTLAND HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAM ON ITS 2011 NORTH
CAROLINA 4-A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE
______
HON. LARRY KISSELL
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Scotland High
School football team in honor of the school's first-ever North Carolina
4-A State Football Championship. The Fighting Scots rallied for 35
points in the second half on their way to a 42-16 victory over a
talented and determined Porter Ridge High School team, Saturday, Dec.
3.
Scotland finished the 2011 season with a perfect 15-0 record, the
first undefeated season in school history. I congratulate Scotland head
coach Chip Williams, who in his fourth year leading the program, posted
an undefeated record, won the Southeastern 4-A Conference title and
brought home a State Championship to Scotland County, the county's
first football state championship since 1944, when Laurinburg High
School captured the Class-A state title.
Game Most Valuable Player honors were awarded to Scotland quarterback
Kwashaun Quick, who threw for 172 yards and two touchdowns in the
second half. Running back Tony McRae, who received offensive MVP
honors, rushed for 75 yards and two scores. Defensive MVP honors were
awarded to nose tackle Kris Tyndall. Scotland's superb defense forced
four Porter Ridge turnovers and allowed just 161 yards of offense.
I recognize the Scotland County community and congratulate them on
the success of their team and the support they have given these young
men throughout the year. In the days following his team's victory,
Coach Williams has cited the community's support as a driving force
behind this year's team. It is always great to see a community get
behind a program that supports and encourages young people and teaches
them the value of perseverance and teamwork. Before Congress and our
great nation, I am proud to recognize Coach Williams, his dedicated
coaching staff and players, and the Scotland County community as a
whole for their championship season. Thank you.
____________________
FIGHTING MALARIA: PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, which I chair, held a hearing
on malaria, one of the most serious health issues facing the developing
world, and particularly Africa, today.
For the last century, America has been a leader in the fight against
malaria. While the United States and several other countries have been
able to eliminate malaria, this deadly disease still presents a serious
challenge to other parts of our world.
The World Health Organization estimates that 781,000 people died from
malaria in 2009 and that 225 million people suffered from infection.
Malaria is the fifth leading cause of death from infectious diseases
worldwide. It inflicts a particularly severe toll on the people of sub-
Saharan Africa, where ninety percent of deaths are caused by malaria.
Moreover, approximately 85 percent of malaria deaths occur in children
under 5 years of age. Every 45 seconds, a mother and father in Africa
lose their child to malaria.
There is also a far-reaching impact on the wealth and development of
countries with endemic malaria. Africa may lose up to $12 billion in
productivity due to malaria each year due to the disease, while the
disease in turn consumes about 40 percent of Africa's public
[[Page 19176]]
health expenditures. These numbers and statistics are staggering, but
they have a greater impact when one has been to Africa and met the
individuals who must live with the disease.
Anyone who spends any meaningful amount of time in Africa and mingles
with the African people will soon notice the prevalence of malaria.
When you ask someone whether he or she has ever had malaria, they
likely will respond not with a yes but with the time that has passed
since they last suffered from it.
More astounding than the sad reality that malaria is killing or
harming so many millions of people is the reality that malaria is
preventable and treatable. The world has the tools to prevent and treat
malaria. No one in the twenty-first century should have to suffer from
it, let alone die from it.
When I last visited Uganda, I visited several homes, including a home
in the remote region of Bushenyi. The three-room dwelling of white-
washed walls and dirt floors was practically empty, and this made the
insecticide-treated mosquito net over the floor mats all the more
striking. These nets may seem like insignificant items when listed on
paper, but they are noticeably visible in the modest homes of those
families who rely on them for protection from this ravaging disease.
What began for the United States as an effort to protect our troops
abroad and citizens here at home has become for us a larger global
health objective.
In the last decade we have seen a renewed commitment by the United
States, international organizations, and private foundations to
eliminate all malaria deaths. The effort received a notable boost in
2007 when Bill and Melinda Gates renewed the challenge of worldwide
malaria eradication.
While much progress has been made in combating malaria, as we have
seen from past eradication efforts, malaria can resurge when treatment
becomes ineffective through drug resistance. While the global
commitment remains to beat this disease, and to beat it as soon as
possible, the stakes are too high to bet it all on doing so before the
tools we have lose their impact.
At yesterday's hearing the subcommittee received an update on the
progress toward malaria elimination in the most endemic countries with
a focus on the vitality and effectiveness of the treatment component.
The hearing examined the future of anti-malarial drug and vaccine
development, and challenges in ensuring an adequate supply of effective
medicines. We also heard about the continued availability,
affordability, and safe distribution of quality anti-malarial
medicines.
Our distinguished witnesses explored means for achieving the
immediate goal of saving lives, and the ultimate goal of eradicating
malaria from our world.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO IRIS ROBERTSON
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Iris Robertson
for her contributions to her community in the role of mentor, educator
and community coordinator.
Mrs. Robertson was taught at an early age to treat people with
respect and integrity, and to approach any task with rigor and
importance. Her mother and grandmother instilled this discipline upon
her. These pillars allow her to impact the community in a positive way
through growth and development.
Mrs. Robertson devotes herself to several charitable and educational
organizations and sits on the board of directors for Brownville
Heritage House Inc. (BHH) as secretary. Since joining BHH in 1995, Mrs.
Robertson and her fellow board members worked tirelessly to bring forth
the vision of founder Mother Rosetta Gaston to form an
intergenerational exchange in order to teach African American children
of their heritage.
Mrs. Robertson is a member of and has been recognized by the National
Association of Professional Women (NAPW) as Woman of the Year for 2009,
2010, and 2011 for excellence and proficiency in her work as an
advertising executive. She has also received high achievement award
from the National Association of Hispanic Publishers in 1994 for her
work with AT&T.
Working in the advertising industry for more than 30 years, she
currently holds the position of media supervisor at UniWorld Group Inc,
a multicultural agency owned by Mr. Byron Lewis Sr. In this capacity,
Mrs. Robertson has had the privilege of working with fortune 500
companies, recommending media strategies that best showcase their
products.
In 1965, Mrs. Robertson met and married her husband Larry Robertson.
She is the proud mother of six children. She attended New York City
School of Technology and is currently enrolled at Kaplan University.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
achievements of Mrs. Iris Robertson.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO KITTY O'NEAL ON THE OCCASION OF BEING NAMED PERSON OF THE
YEAR BY THE CARMICHAEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
______
HON. DANIEL E. LUNGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
congratulate Kitty O'Neal on being named Person of the Year by the
Carmichael Chamber of Commerce.
Over the last 20 years, Sacramentans have known Kitty as the voice of
our afternoon radio. With exceptional class and professionalism, Kitty
has given us the news on our drive home from work, anchoring the award
winning KFBK Afternoon News. As an ambassador of Sacramento, she has
represented us at the Grammy Awards, Academy Awards and on national
programs such as A&E Channel's Biography.
Those of us who live in the region know Kitty as more than simply the
voice coming through our speakers; she is a pillar within the
Sacramento community. Her roots run deep there as she donates much of
her time and talent to community events and charitable organizations.
Growing up, Kitty's father was the Base Commander at Mather AFB in the
1970's, and before embarking on her path in radio, Kitty attended
Sacramento State graduating with a degree in Communications. Along with
being one of the Sacramento region's most notable figures, Kitty is
married to restaurateur Kurt Spataro, and together they are partners in
several well known Sacramento area restaurants.
If you have ever dined, listened to Sacramento radio or have been
involved in our surrounding community, more than likely you have
benefited from Kitty's legacy. The Carmichael Chamber couldn't have
chosen a better person to recognize and again it is with great pleasure
that I congratulate Kitty O'Neal on her achievements and recognition as
Person of the Year by the Carmichael Chamber of Commerce.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO THE LIFE OF GEORGIA FAYE BAKER
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of
Georgia Faye Baker who passed away on November 24, 2011 at the age of
95. Georgia was a loyal friend, loving mother, and respected community
leader who touched the lives of many in the great San Joaquin Valley.
Georgia was born on March 30, 1916 to James and Susan Herd in Ozark
County, Missouri.
Georgia made her way to Madera, California in 1938, where she quickly
became an icon and a source of inspiration due to her involvement in
the community. On April 14, 1946, Georgia married Aubrey Baker, the
love of her life. Together they worked on several projects to improve
the quality of life in Madera, the place they called home. They were
married for 55 years until his passing in 2001.
Through her leadership and willingness to serve, Georgia became a
role model for her friends and neighbors. For 33 years, she was a
committed and reliable member of the Madera Community Hospital Board.
Her membership demonstrated her dedication to fostering and preserving
the health and safety of residents throughout Central California, and
her compassion and concern for our community served as a testament to
her extraordinary character.
A principled and engaged citizen, Georgia was very active in local,
state, and national elections. She served on a number of state
committees and boards, including the Madera County Fair Board. In
addition, Georgia was also an energetic member of the Democratic Party.
In 1960, her wisdom and capability allowed her the opportunity to
campaign with President John F. Kennedy during his bid for the
presidency.
In 1991, the State of California honored her strength of character
and zest for life when she was recognized as ``Woman of the Year.''
A generous and graceful woman, Georgia was a faithful parishioner at
the Madera Trinity
[[Page 19177]]
Episcopal Church and would often be seen attending weekly services at
the historic site. Her long-lasting participation in our community and
commitment to the well-being of future generations will ensure that her
legacy lives on for years to come.
Georgia lived an exemplary life and will undoubtedly be missed by
many. She is survived by her daughter, Claudia Steinauer; her sister,
Mable Russell; three grandchildren; seven great-grandchildren and five
great great-grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of
Georgia Faye Baker, a beloved leader and true champion for the people
of Central California.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE HAZARD HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAM 2011
______
HON. HAROLD ROGERS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
the 2011 Hazard High School Football Team, who captured the Kentucky
High School Athletic Association Class 1-A State Championship Title for
the first time in history. This group of student-athletes should be
proud of this remarkable achievement and I am honored to recognize them
as champions.
The State Championship title has been a highly coveted achievement
for the Hazard Bulldogs. After their third appearance in a Class 1-A
title game in four years, the Bulldogs tenaciously took the field with
experience, heart and determination, earning every yard to lead them to
a well-deserved victory and their first-ever State Championship.
The Hazard Bulldogs defeated a tough team from Mayfield, winning 24-
6. More than five thousand fans filled the Houchens Smith Stadium in
Bowling Green, Kentucky to witness these focused young men put their
athletic ability and knowledge of the game to the highest test.
Redeeming themselves from last year's 47-6 loss to Mayfield, the
Bulldogs dominated the majority of the game and put an end to
Mayfield's state-best 29-game winning streak. Holding the Cardinals to
just 237 yards offensively, the Hazard Bulldogs forced five Mayfield
turnovers and sealed their victory with an interception returned for a
touchdown in the last two minutes of the game.
This season, Coach Mark Dixon led the Bulldogs to a near perfect 12-2
season. Despite defeat in last year's title game, the Bulldogs
persevered and came back this season with unwavering determination to
bring the state title home to the mountains of eastern Kentucky. These
experiences and life lessons learned on the field will be carried on
after the game and continue to shape these football players into men of
promise and outstanding character.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Coach Dixon
and the Hazard High School 2011 Football Team as the KHSAA Class 1-A
State Champions. This team has successfully carried on a sports
tradition of pride in the mountains and I wish them all the best in the
years to come.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO ELIZABETH CROSLAND
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Elizabeth Crosland
for her commitment to her community and for her service to the children
of Brooklyn as a Family Assistant with PS 13.
Ms. Crosland was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to the late
William T. and Annie Lee Pinchback. She was the eldest of five
siblings, and later moved to Brooklyn, New York.
Ms. Crosland has been employed with the Department of Education at PS
13 as a Family Assistant for 24 years. During her years of service, she
has enjoyed working with the administrators, her colleagues, and the
students. Ms. Crosland prays everyday that she will empower the lives
of the students and their families to become productive citizens in the
community.
Ms. Crosland attends the Mount Lebanon Baptist Church on the Hill in
Bedford Stuyvesant, where she has been a member for 74 years. She is
active on the usher board, serving the needs of the congregation. She
also sings in the Robert A. Laws Millennium Choir and was a member of
the Allstate Club.
Ms. Crosland is an Honorary past Matron in the order of the Maria
Chapter #18 Order of Eastern Stars. She has also been a great
contributor to the community by working with the district leaders and
working the primary and general election polls for many years.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Ms. Elizabeth Crosland for her
exceptional service to her district as a dedicated member of her local
religious and government institutions, and as a long serving employee
of the Department of Education.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE NOVEMBER 25, 2011 DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS OF MOROCCO
______
HON. STEVE COHEN
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the people of Morocco for the
free and fair Parliamentary election that took place on November 25,
2011. Participation rates were 20 percent higher than the previous
election held in 2007. The Justice and Development Party (PJD), a
moderate Islamist party, secured the largest number of seats in the new
Parliament. Morocco's King Mohammed VI, in line with the new
constitution, has already tasked the leader of the PJD, as Head of
Government, to form a new coalition government. This election marks the
first time the Moroccan people have gone to the polls within the
framework of the new constitution. With this election, Morocco has
crossed yet another major milestone in its democratic progress. I
extend my warm wishes to the King of Morocco for his leadership and the
Moroccan people for their achievements so far and hope they continue on
the path of reform and progress.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO DEACON AUDREY WRIGHT
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Deacon Audrey
Wright who has dedicated her life to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and
to her family, colleagues, and community.
Deacon Wright was born to Anna Mae King-Gordon and Mitchell Gordon in
Princeton, West Virginia where her parents regularly attended Golden
Gate Church. With her strong convictions, Deacon Wright completed high
school in a very segregated district of West Virginia, and soon
relocated to Brooklyn, New York to complete her undergraduate studies
at Medgar Evers College.
Later in life Deacon Wright spent 25 years as an assistant teacher in
the Ocean Hill Section of Brooklyn before retiring. Prior to teaching,
Deacon Wright was employed by Abraham Strauss for several years in the
sales department. After retiring as an assistant teacher, she turned to
the Lord and became a member at Berean Baptist Church.
Joining Berean Baptist Church in 1994, she worked as a volunteer with
children in the ``Time Release Program'' for seven years. At Berean,
Deacon Wright was ordained on December 13, 1998 and continued her deep
involvement with the church. She became a member of the First Lady's
Ministry and served as the Deacon Advisor as well as the Spiritual
Advisor to the Hospitality Ministry. Presently, she is a member of the
Deacon Ministry, Pastoral Care Ministry, the Sunday School Ministry and
the Sisterhood Ministry.
Several of her hobbies include writing, reading and exercising.
During her tenure at Berean, Deacon Wright wrote and directed seven
plays; two of which were performed to raise funds for Women's Day and
five others that were written to raise funds for the church. In
addition to being an avid reader and writer, Deacon Wright has been
dedicated to her health and exercise--walking two miles every day.
Deacon Wright is married to Samuel Wright, and has been blessed with
three sons--Bobby, David, and Dominic. She is thankful for God in her
life, and gives thanks to the Lord every day for loving and caring for
her.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life
and accomplishments of Deacon Audrey Wright.
____________________
HONORING DR. EDWARD WAITE MILLER
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness today to honor my friend,
Dr. Edward
[[Page 19178]]
Waite Miller, who passed away October 27, 2011, at the age of 92. He
was a prominent surgeon and writer in Marin County, California, as well
as a loving family man.
Born in Oyster Bay, New York, in 1919, Dr. Miller studied at Union
College in Schenectady and at Cornell Medical School with an internship
at Boston City Hospital. He then served at the US Naval Hospital in
Corpus Christi and in the South Pacific during WWII. He was awarded the
American Theatre, Asiatic-Pacific, and Victory Medals. Reactivated in
1953, his service varied from making training films in the California
desert to witnessing nuclear testing at the Bikini Atoll. He then
received the Korean Service, United Nations, and National Defense
Medals.
Dr. Miller also had a distinguished medical career. While working as
a research fellow at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Willem Kolff in the
1950s, he published some seminal studies on the angiography of the
heart that led to research in the new practice of coronary bypass
surgery. He later worked as a surgeon in Mann General Hospital in
Greenbrae, CA, and Children's Hospital in San Francisco, CA, and as a
physician at Novato Community Hospital in Novato, CA.
In retirement Dr. Miller became well known in the community and
around the world for his writing in the Coastal Post newspaper, a Mann
County publication that gave him free rein to speak out on issues he
was passionate about. From advocacy for peace and human rights to his
sometimes controversial pro-Palestinian stance, he penned opinion
pieces that reflected his deeply held beliefs and his great knowledge
of world events.
I had many conversations with Ed Miller about these issues, and,
although I sometimes didn't agree with him, I always enjoyed our time
together and appreciated his commitment and his compassion. He loved
discussing everything from politics to poetry (which he quoted from
memory) with friends and family.
A long-time resident of the Lucas Valley area, Dr. Miller enjoyed
landscaping his yard, and he was a board member and President of the
Lucas Valley Homeowners' Association.
Dr. Miller is survived by his wife Fusae Ito Miller; his children and
stepchildren, Trudy Vriethoff, Susan Ray, Lori Callahan, Jeffrey
Miller, Grace Bransford, and Robert Fleming and their spouses; and 5
grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I always looked forward to seeing Ed Miller and will
miss our lively discussions. Please join me in offering condolences to
his family and friends.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RONNY L. BEESLEY
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on December 31, 2011, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Galveston District employee, Ronny L. Beesley will retire
after 40 years of service to his country. It is my pleasure to pay
tribute to Mr. Beesley for all he has done for the people of Texas and
the United States.
Mr. Beesley's long and distinguished career with the Federal
Government begin in October 1968 when he joined the US Army. Mr.
Beesley served in Vietnam as part of the 1st Infantry Division, 101st
Airborne Division until June 1971. After leaving the Army, Mr. Beesley
earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering at Texas A&M
University, in Kingsville, Texas.
Mr. Beesley started working with the Galveston District, Army Corps
of Engineers in July 1975. He has held numerous positions with the
Corps over the past forty years including; Civil Engineer in the Fort
Point Area Office, Civil Engineer and Project Engineer in the Houston
Area Office, he worked in the Construction Branch of the Construction
Operations Division, General Engineer in the Plant Branch of the
Construction Operations Division, and he was promoted to Chief of the
Plant Branch in 1990 until he became the Chief of Management Support
Branch in 1995. In July 1998, Mr. Beesley was again promoted to Senior
Operations Project Manager, Project Operations Branch, and Operations
Division. Mr. Beesley's outstanding work was recognized by the
Galveston District in 2004 when he was selected as Employee of the
Year.
In July 2010, Mr. Beesley was promoted to Chief of Project Operations
Branch in the Operations Division of the Galveston District. His duties
include managing and supervising Operations and Maintenance of the
District's projects including Addicks/Barker Dams and Reservoirs,
Brazos River Floodgates, Wallisville Lake Project and the Colorado
River Locks. He is also responsible for overseeing expenses for
Operations and Maintenance at the Neches Saltwater Barrier, as well as
for inspection of projects built by the Government and operated by
local sponsors. Mr. Beesley provides support/assistance to the Chief,
Operations Division in areas of land and water resource management and
is responsible for maintenance of the district's floating plant. Under
Mr. Beasley's leadership, the Operations Division acquired a new
floating plant for the Galveston district.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ronny Beesley provided outstanding services to his
country and his town as both a soldier and an employee with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District. It is therefore my
pleasure to once again extend my congratulations and thanks to him as
he prepares for retirement.
____________________
HONORING RETIRED MASTER SERGEANT NATHAN WEISER
______
HON. THADDEUS G. McCOTTER
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge
retired Master Sergeant Nathan Weiser, on this the 70th anniversary of
the attack on Pearl Harbor, a horror which by the grace of our Almighty
God, Mr. Weiser survived.
After graduating from Albion College with a teaching degree in 1939,
Nate Weiser enlisted in the newly formed United States Army Air Corps
along with two of his friends in October 1940. All three men were sent
to Hawaii as part of the 15th Fighter Group, 45th Fighter Squadron and
were stationed at Pearl Harbor on the horrific day of December 7, 1941.
Retired Master Sergeant Weiser and his two friends were in the mess
hall waiting in line for breakfast when the attack began. He recalls
the planes flying low enough to be able to see the red scarves and
goggles of the pilots hell-bent on destruction. After surviving the
initial wave and the smaller second wave of enemy planes, it began to
rain. Having lost the friends he enlisted with to the Japanese fury,
Weiser and his unit headed toward a mountain foxhole and spent some
very uncomfortable nights in the flooded dugout.
In 1943, Staff Sergeant Nate Weiser was sent back to the mainland to
attend special schooling. He was asked to serve as an Army officer and
declined. Weiser requested to be sent back to the Army Air Corps and
was assigned to Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis. From there he was
detailed to the 365th Fighter Bomber Group, 386th Squadron based out of
Richmond, Virginia. Nate Weiser arrived in Normandy, France on June 13,
1944, a mere seven days after the initial invasion. As 1944 gave way to
1945, Weiser served in the grueling 40 day Battle of the Bulge. Master
Sergeant Nate Weiser undoubtedly saw some of the fiercest combat in the
history of these great United States and was released from service in
August, 1945.
Mr. Speaker, Nathan Weiser has faithfully served and dutifully
protected the citizens of the United States. Our nation owes him a deep
debt of gratitude. He has been retired since 1996 after 55 years as a
small business owner. He is blessed to enjoy life with his beloved wife
of 65 years, Norma, their daughters Karen and Kendra and two
granddaughters. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and
acknowledging Master Sergeant Nathan Weiser for his years of loyal
service to our community and country.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO DR. R. SANDLIN LOWE, III
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. R. Sandlin Lowe,
III, MD for his outstanding contribution to Neuroscience and the
treatment of brain disorders and injuries.
Originally from Coosa County, Alabama, Dr. Lowe obtained his MD from
Tulane University in 1987. Currently on the Faculty of New York
University School of Medicine with appointments in both the Department
of Psychiatry and the Department of Physiology and Neuroscience, he is
the Consulting Neuropsychiatrist to the NYU School of Medicine Brain
Research Laboratories and Collaborating Psychiatrist at the NYU Langone
Center for Neuromagnetism. After 18 years of service and research (for
which he was honored with a Congressional Award), Dr. Lowe has become a
member of various research councils and health centers.
Dr. Lowe is an expert in Translational Clinical Neuroscience and
Therapeutics and has created new paradigms for the
[[Page 19179]]
conceptualization, evaluation, and treatment of consciousness spectrum
disorders associated with brain injuries. In the past few years, for
personal reasons, his efforts have focused on autism spectrum
disorders.
Currently, Dr. Lowe and his colleagues are exploring small molecules,
biological, cellular and regenerative medicine therapeutics, and
applied field energy techniques to find new treatments for autism and
brain injuries.
Dr. Lowe is a co-founder of the Global Alliance for Innovation in
Neuroscience, to which he brings his experience and ability to
creatively approach the study and management of coma and other brain
injuries. Dr. Lowe possesses a remarkable energy with an unparalleled
faith and optimism that are apparent in his approach to research and
his dedication to patient care.
Dr. Lowe has recently been awarded a grant of over $3.2 million from
the Marcus foundation to study the safety and efficacy of cellular and
regenerative medicine therapeutics in the treatment of autism. This
work will be done by the GAIN labs at New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation in collaboration with the Stem Cell Institute in
Panama, along with Inverion Technologies, Ltd. and Xplora Interactive
India. Preliminary data from the individuals with autism who have
received these treatments shows that these new methods are both safe
and promising.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Dr. R. Sandlin Lowe, III, MD
for the advancements he has made in the study and treatment of autism
spectrum disorders, brain injuries, and other disorders.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF NANCY COWLES
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nancy Cowles,
who was honored last week with the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Chairman's Circle of Commendation Award for her tireless advocacy for
children's product safety. This is the first time that this award has
been presented, and I cannot think of anyone more deserving.
Nancy is the Executive Director of Kids in Danger (KID), an advocacy
organization dedicated to protecting children by improving the safety
of the products they play with or otherwise use. In the more than a
decade that Nancy has headed KID, she has served on the front lines,
educating parents and caregivers about the dangers of certain products,
promoting the development of safer children's products, and advocating
for important legislative and regulatory improvements. She has worked
on numerous issues both as a member of panels and as an outside
advocate for safety improvements in CPSC standards and recall efforts.
Nancy has played a significant role in the improvement of consumer
product safety, ensuring that children and families have a voice and
that product-makers are held accountable. In Washington, Nancy's work
has served as an invaluable contribution to the creation of CPSC
standards and the implementation of recalls, no doubt saving many lives
in the process. She has served as an invaluable resource for me and
many of my colleagues who are committed to protecting the health and
well-being of children.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) became law in
2008, and it is the most significant reform of the CPSC and its
responsibilities in decades. With Nancy's input, I authored several
provisions to the bill, including mandatory standards and testing for
infant and toddler products such as cribs and high chairs and a
provision requiring that postage-paid recall registration cards must be
attached to products. I am proud of those provisions, and the overall
bill, which would not have been as strong or protective without Nancy's
guidance.
I would like to thank the CPSC, and Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, for
recognizing the contributions of Nancy Cowles toward making products
safer for children and families. As the Chairman said, Nancy's
``contributions to product safety are invaluable.''
As a mother and grandmother deeply concerned about preventing
injuries to children, I could not be more grateful for Nancy's efforts
and I am proud to call her a friend.
____________________
CONGRATULATING WILLIAM (BILL) H. OSBORNE ON 50 YEARS OF OUTSTANDING
FEDERAL SERVICE WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
______
HON. THOMAS J. ROONEY
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate Mr. William
(Bill) Osborne of Atlanta, Georgia for 50 years of dedicated Federal
service to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He has also served as the
Commandant of the 3388th USARF School in Tampa, Florida with prior
assignments in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics at
the 81st U.S. Army Reserve Command in Atlanta, Georgia. He retired from
the Army Reserve in April 1993 at the rank of Colonel. I hope Members
will join with me today to thank Mr. Osborne for his contributions to
the Corps of Engineers, his local community and the United States of
America.
Mr. Osborne began his career with the Corps of Engineers in 1957 as a
summer hire in the Operation Division in the Nashville District. After
graduating from the University of Tennessee with a Bachelor's Degree in
Engineering he joined the Jacksonville District as a Civil Engineer. In
1970, he transferred to the South Atlantic Division and took a position
as the Assistant Chief of the Program Management Office. Since 1988 he
has been the Chief of the Civil Works Integration Division. In this
position he puts together the South Atlantic Division's portion of the
President's Civil Works Budget for Congressional consideration.
Some of the major projects for which he has provided Congress
justification documentation include the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway,
Herbert Hoover Dike, Portugues and Bucana Rivers, and two of the
largest environmental projects in the country; South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration and the Comprehensive Restoration of the Mississippi
Barrier Islands projects. Over his stellar career he has justified
billions of Federal dollars in support of these and countless other
much needed projects. For over two decades he has provided exceptional
support to Division Commanders, Chiefs of Engineers and the Assistant
Secretaries of the Army in their annual testimony before Congress.
Through his expert knowledge of the Civil Works process Mr. Osborne
consistently provided outstanding service in the relationship with the
public, Congressional Members and their staffs, involving controversial
and complex issues.
Mr. Osborne has received numerous awards in recognition of his
outstanding efforts to include Superior Civilian Service Awards, the
Meritorious Civilian Service Award and he has been nominated for the
prestigious Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service from the
Secretary of the Army.
Bill Osborne is a tremendous asset not only to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, but also to Members of Congressional Delegations throughout
the Southeast and his country. I want to sincerely wish Bill and his
wife, Fran, every success in the future.
____________________
OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on January 26, 1995, when the
last attempt at a balanced budget amendment passed the House by a
bipartisan vote of 300-132, the national debt was
$4,801,405,175,294.28.
Today, it is $15,071,624,794,970.66. We've added
$10,270,219,619,676.38 dollars to our debt in 16 years. This is $10
trillion in debt our nation, our economy, and our children could have
avoided with a balanced budget amendment.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO DEBRA DAVIS-SMITH
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Debra Davis-
Smith for her service to the health and well-being of those living in
the 10th Congressional District of New York.
Ms. Davis-Smith was born to the late Joyce and Robert Davis, and
raised in an extended family that included her maternal grandparents
and aunts in Brooklyn, New York. Being the eldest of three, Ms. Davis-
Smith always had the instinct to care for and look after others.
Ms. Davis-Smith was educated in both the public and parochial school
systems. It was
[[Page 19180]]
during this time that she recognized her interest in helping others
outside of her family by volunteering her services after school as the
Candy Striper at Kings County Hospital. On weekends and during the
summer months, she volunteered with the Department of Aging which
allowed her to work with elders in various senior citizen centers and
also work with her local precinct in mentoring teenagers.
After high school, Ms. Davis-Smith attended The City College of New
York where she majored in Sociology. During her studies, she continued
to volunteer and intern with several non-profit groups. Her focus was
always on educating and empowering others whether they be youth or
senior citizens.
Following her undergraduate studies, she attended Fordham University
and received her Master's in Social Work. While at Fordham her studies
focused on individuals and families which eventually led her towards
the field of mental health. The National Institute of Mental Health
provided support to Ms. Davis-Smith which would also determine her
future employment.
Upon graduating Fordham, Ms. Davis-Smith was employed by The Catholic
Guardian Society where she worked with children in foster care and
adoption service. She remained there for a year until she began working
as a social worker at Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center in
their Inpatient Psychiatric Unit. Ms. Davis-Smith would spend the next
25 years with the health center, working alongside dedicated
professionals who shared her passion in working with the mentally ill.
Within this time she held several positions within the discipline of
social work, and is currently in the position of acting Director of
Social Work Services.
Ms. Davis-Smith is married to Clifford Smith and has two daughters,
Brittany and Morgan. With her family's continued love and support she
is able to continue her community service.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
community achievements of Ms. Debra Davis-Smith.
____________________
A TRIBUTE IN HONOR OF THE LIFE OF THE HONORABLE JAMES E. BURCH
______
HON. ANNA G. ESHOO
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
extraordinary life and work of the Honorable James E. Burch, known to
all as `Jim', who died on Monday, November 28, 2011, at the age of 85.
Jim Burch was born on February 27, 1926, in Evanston, Illinois to a
World War I veteran and a religious pacifist. He, his parents and two
brothers moved to San Mateo, California in 1940. Jim graduated from San
Mateo High School in 1943 and served in the U.S. Army until 1946.
He returned to civilian life and launched a very successful career in
advertising, retiring in 1974 to serve his community as a volunteer. He
co-founded San Francisco's Urban Coalition and was President of Palo
Alto's Creative Initiative Foundation, which evolved into Beyond War
and then into the Foundation for Global Community, organizations he
volunteered with for 36 years. He gave so generously of his time and
considerable talents to many other organizations, including the Boy
Scouts, United Way, NAACP, and most recently he served on the Palo Alto
Police Chiefs Advisory Committee, where his wise counsel earned the
respect of the entire committee.
In 1999, Jim was elected to the Palo Alto City Council, and he was
elected Mayor in 2005. At the age of 78, he was the City's oldest
Mayor, but he served in the role with energy, enthusiasm and
distinction. He was honored for his Lifetime of Achievement by Avenidas
in 2011.
I was privileged to know and work with Jim Burch for many years. He
was a friend, a mentor, and an inspiration to me. The memory of this
strong and gentle, wise and funny, proud and humble man will live long
after him, as will his countless contributions which have made our
community better and our country stronger.
Jim's son, Bill, is quoted as saying ``My father led a life of giving
to his family, of giving to his community, of giving to his city and
giving to the world.'' His daughter, Barbara Lindsay, said ``He was the
most giving person in terms of what he sought to do out in the world
and his hometown.'' There can be no greater tributes than these from
his beloved children.
I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in honoring the
life and the accomplishments of Jim Burch, and extend our deepest
sympathy to his wife Wileta, and his children, Barbara, and Bill.
____________________
RECENT EVENTS IN BAHRAIN
______
HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. and Bahrain share a decades-old
economic and strategic partnership that spawned a free trade agreement
in 2006 and influenced the decision to locate the U.S. Fifth Fleet in
the port-city of Jaffair. That partnership has endured for years in
part because the U.S. viewed Bahrain as a nation committed to evolving
toward a political system that allowed greater public participation and
respect for religious tolerance. Events over the last year have dealt a
serious blow to that long held belief.
The Arab Spring inspired Bahrain's Shi'a majority to seek the full
human and political rights that they say they have been denied since
the Al Khalifa family became the rulers of the tiny island nation over
200 years ago.
The Bahraini government's response to the largely peaceful
demonstrations of the opposition groups who seek only a better life for
themselves and their families has been violent and systematic. Dozens
of demonstrators lost their lives; independent media outlets were
silenced; Shi'a mosques were burned; thousands of Bahrainis were
incarcerated and thousands more lost their jobs.
Our worst suspicions were confirmed by the report recently released
by the Bahrain Commission of Inquiry. The report described the
disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by security forces.
Opposition members were abused, beaten and even tortured.
I associate myself with the public statements of President Obama and
Secretary of State Clinton as they strongly urge the Bahraini
government to follow through on its promises and to systematically and
expeditiously implement the forthcoming recommendations of the newly
established follow-on committee.
To achieve a meaningful and lasting reconciliation, all parties must
engage in comprehensive political dialogue geared toward a mutually
satisfactory power-sharing solution. The long-standing commitment of
the United States to a strong partnership with the government and
people of Bahrain will be influenced by how the government of Bahrain
chooses to negotiate this challenging moment in its nation's history.
We all will be watching closely.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE INDONESIAN FAMILY REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT OF 2011
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation with my
colleagues, Rep. Frank Pallone, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Rep. Madeleine
Bordallo, Rep. Mike Honda, and Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, which would
simply allow Christian Indonesian citizens fleeing persecution, many of
whom arrived during a five-year timeframe (January 1, 1997-November 30,
2002) and were denied asylum solely for missing the one-year filing
deadline, the opportunity to reopen their claims during the two-year
period following enactment.
Beginning in 1997, many Indonesian Christians fled religious
persecution in Indonesia, where extreme violence and destruction of
churches drove them from their homes. These individuals came to this
country, seeking relief from extreme violence and persecution for their
religious beliefs, but were unable to make the one-year filing
deadline. They deserve the opportunity to have their claims heard.
The United States has long sought to protect refugees fleeing
persecution and provide a process to fairly consider their claims. This
bill does not, in itself, grant asylum, but merely removes a procedural
barrier to their claims being considered. These individuals seeking
asylum deserve a second chance to avoid the persecution they have fled
and remain united with their families.
[[Page 19181]]
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO CRUZ FUKSMAN
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ms. Cruz
Fuksman for her continued efforts to rebuild and improve her community
through health and educational services.
Ms. Fuksman was born and raised in the Dominican Republic by her
single mother and six siblings. Ms. Fuksman came to the United States
to seek a better education to provide for herself and her family. She
attained her bachelor's in Human Services from Boricua College and
later received a Master's degree in Social Work from Hunter College
School of Social Work. Currently Ms. Fuksman works as the Community
Liaison at the New York Psychotherapy and Counseling Center where she
uses her expertise in social work to serve as the director for a
variety of mental health and family service programs. She likewise
served in this capacity at the American Red Cross of Greater New York
for more than a dozen years, where she was routinely honored as
Caseworker of the Month.
The work that Ms. Fuksman has done reflects her ambition to reform
her community at the highest levels. The social work discipline she
learned throughout her schooling has been a guiding tool that Ms.
Fuksman frequently relies on to help families. Recently Ms. Fuksman was
honored by Bushwick Impact for her enthusiasm, wisdom, collaboration,
and support in helping them serve over 2000 families in the Bushwick
area.
Ms. Fuksman also displays her strong community ties by serving as one
of the co-chairs of the Community Partnership Project of East New York,
Chair of the Seed Committee of the Cypress Hills Local Development
Corporation and by participating in many community projects and events
in East New York. Aside from her community involvement, Ms. Fuksman
understands the importance of educating our youth, and has had the
opportunity to work as an adjunct professor at La Guardia Community
College.
Ms. Fuksman has a very genuine and unique passion for helping
children and families to improve the quality of their lives and for
getting the community involved in efforts to improve the quality of
life for the residents. Ms. Fuksman is an excellent cook and uses her
cooking skills to fundraise for many causes. Among them are victims of
the earthquake in Haiti, Habitat for Humanity, Breast Cancer Foundation
and various Catholic charities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
accomplishments of Ms. Cruz Fuksman.
____________________
HONORING REVEREND LEON H. MATTHIAS
_____
HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN
of the virgin islands
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
devoted servant of God, the Reverend Leon H. Matthias who will retire
from active ministry on December 31, 2011.
Sunday, December 8, 1946 seemed to be a perfect day for the arrival
of Leon Henson Matthias to George and Ethel Matthias. His humble home
provided his first real setting where Christian nurture would take
place. The family were members of Gracefield Moravian Church in Cedar
Grove and Adrian Joseph, the grandfather, was the sexton of this small-
congregation.
After primary and High School he gained four subjects at Ordinary
Level from the University of London. In September 1967, he entered the
teaching profession and was appointed as an uncertified teacher at the
St. James Government School in Cedar Grove where he had received his
early primary education.
At 19, he was elected as chairman of the Board of Stewards at
Gracefield. The members of the congregation recognized that God was
calling him to a special task in His church.
Leon Henson Matthias began his theological training on the island of
Trinidad in 1970 and in 1974 he completed the Licentiate in Theology at
the United Theological College of the West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica.
He served as student pastor in the Antigua and Tobago Conferences and
on August 24, 1975 Brother Matthias was ordained a Deacon. On September
1, 1975, he began his first appointment as a Moravian Pastor in St.
Kitts. Six years after his ordination as a Deacon in the Moravian
Church, Rev. Matthias was consecrated a Presbyter.
On August 28, 1976, Rev. Leon Matthias made another decision in his
life. He joined in matrimony to Mable Hall in that beautiful western
Jamaica Town of Montego Bay. God blessed this marriage with three
wonderful sons, Lennox, Leon Jr. and L Richard.
From all accounts, Brother Leon was as popular as he was active. He
has always had an abundance of energy that seems contagious, and this
has manifested itself throughout his life and the life of anyone with
whom he has had contact. As an executive of the Rivals Sports Club in
Cedar Grove, where he was a serious cricketer and concert performer, to
Youth Soccer Coach in Richmond, Virginia, he displayed versatility and
his love of sports.
Rev. Matthias has always enjoyed leadership roles in the church and
the community. He however developed a new interest in 1992. In 1990, he
was invited by the Lutheran Church in the United States Virgin Islands
to participate in an oral history workshop led by Judy Saxton of Baylor
University. This opened for him a vast new field of inquiry and an
unquenchable thirst for the unwritten folk history of his people. This
he has pursued in his visits to Tanzania, London, Johannesburg and Cape
Town.
The versatility of the good Reverend has also been manifested in his
editing of many publications including Rapport' magazine and the
writing of four books--Boy from Popeshead (1995), Against the Odds
(1996), A history of the Friedensberg Moravian Church, Tales from the
Hill (1997) and Winds of Change (1999) Gracefield--A Northern Star
(2005) Down Punty Hill (2008) A Cloud of Great Witnesses (2011).
Brother Matthias holds a Licentiate in Theology from the University
of the West Indies and a Master of Arts Degree from the Presbyterian
School of Christian Education. In 2002, he obtained an MLS Degree from
Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, specializing in
Archival Studies.
His ministry has spanned forty years and the Western Hemisphere--
beginning in Jamaica as a Student Pastor in 1971, serving the Virgin
Islands Conference in St. Croix from 1988 to 1996 and St. Thomas and
Tortola from 1996 to 2000, then New York from 2002 to 2009 and lastly
in Washington DC.
In that time he has served in many positions of church leadership,
has mentored many young pastors and served every congregation and
community with excellence, dedication and compassion. We are thankful
to God for his service, which overcame many obstacles over the years,
and for his family who served by his side these many years.
I ask my colleagues to join me in asking God's blessings on Reverend
Leon H. Matthias, his wife, Mable and the entire family with gratitude
for a life of exemplary service.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
_____
HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 2011 I voted ``no'' on H.R.
2471; I intended to vote ``yes.''
____________________
THE PASSING OF MY DEAREST FRIEND AND CBC FOUNDATION FOUNDING MEMBER,
OFIELD DUKES
_____
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I have been blessed
to call many wonderful people my friend, but none more than Ofield
Dukes. I am extremely saddened by the passing of such great man who had
significant impact in not only my life, but that of my Colleagues in
the Congressional Black Caucus, dating back to its founding. Aside from
his many accomplishments in business, politics and his personal life,
Ofield was simply a true and kind person who sought to make our country
a better place for all. I will forever miss his virtue, justness and
sincerity.
Ofield was the best communications strategist in Washington. He
helped organized the first Congressional Black Caucus (CBS) dinner in
1971 and served as an advisor to numerous CBC chairpersons. He was a
founding member of the CBC Foundation and served on the Foundation
Board (CBCF) for 14 years. As the first chairman of the Foundation's
Finance and Fundraising Committee, Ofield was instrumental in
developing strategies for fundraising including recruiting business
support and active involvement.
[[Page 19182]]
Ofield's devotion to his craft was esteemed by everyone. In 1988,
Ofield was selected by CBC Chairman Julian Dixon to serve as chairman
of a historic black-tie dinner in salute of U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Thurgood Marshall. When the CBC Chairman Clyburn needed a person to
organize and edit the first news letter of the CBC-CBCF, he called
Ofield and for seven years he did a superb job in editing the CBC-CBCF
newsletter.
In addition to his work with the CBC & CBCF, Ofield was dedicated to
fighting for racial equality. He served for 10 years on the board of
the MLK, Jr. Committee for Non-Violent Social Change and as an advisor
to Mrs. Coretta Scott King. He also served as an advisor to Dr. Leon
Sullivan, organized the first Stevie Wonder March to make Dr. King's
birthday a national holiday and was an advisor to Alex Haley, author of
the epic book ``Roots'' which provided the impetus for the historic TV
series.
Aside from all his public service achievements, Ofield always find
time to nurture the next generation of communicators and political
minds. As an adjunct professor for 25 years at the Howard University
John H. Johnson School of Communication, Ofield is credited with
influencing hundreds of students to enter the field of public
relations. He also taught public relations at the American University
for eight years.
In politics, Ofield served as a communications consultant to the
Democratic National Committee in six presidential campaigns. In 1998,
Ofield worked very closely with me in developing the national African
American media strategy that helped generate a large black voter
turnout that helped Democrats to gain control of the House of
Representatives.
Ofield is credited with having tremendous impact on the professional
lives of many. Radio One Founder Cathy Hughes says there would not be a
Radio One without the early support and continuing advice of Ofield.
Upon receiving his graduate degree from Princeton University, Robert
Johnson called Ofield who arranged the first two jobs for Johnson in
Washington, D.C. prior to his founding BET.
In 2001, Ofield became the first African American to win the Public
Relations Society of America's Gold Anvil, the highest individual
awards given in the public relations industry. In 2004, PRWeek named
him one of this nation's top five national communicators. In 2009,
Dukes succeeded Dr. C. Delores Tucker as President of the Bethune-
DuBois Institute.
Ofield's other professional recognition includes: being named by the
Washington Post as one of the top five PR persuaders in Washington;
among the first to be inducted into the Washington, D.C. Public
Relations Hall of Fame; inducted into the Commonwealth of Virginia
Communications Hall of Fame; and receiving the Wayne State University
2010 Alumni Achievement Award.
Ofield's list of accomplishments goes on and on, but what his
friendship meant to me and so many people is immeasurable. I want to
express my deepest condolences to his beautiful family. Ofield Dukes
was one of a kind and he will be deeply missed. His legacy will last
throughout Washington and our country.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO ALBERT WILTSHIRE
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Albert
Wiltshire for his unwavering service.
Mr. Wiltshire's career would not be as successful as it is if it
weren't for his stellar academic track record. He graduated from
Brooklyn's Boys High School when it was regarded as one of the city's
top schools for learning. Mr. Wiltshire then received his Bachelor's
degree from St. Francis College, a Masters in Public Administration
from New York University, and a Senior Managers in Government Program
Certificate from the prestigious Harvard University, John F. Kennedy
School of Government.
Mr. Wiltshire's illustrious career began with the New York City
Police Department, where he served for 20 years during the civil rights
era. Following his retirement, Mr. Wiltshire worked for 13 years at the
Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation serving as President and
CEO. It was here that he made an indelible mark by strengthening the
company's financials while also providing countless opportunities for
minorities and women to enter the business community.
Mr. Wiltshire went on to work as Vice President Keyspan Corporation,
one of the nation's largest energy conglomerates. He would work as a
liaison between the company and the government to ensure the needs of
the community were met, and to spearhead environmental awareness.
Since 2007, Mr. Wiltshire has worked as my Chief of Staff, helping me
represent the people of New York's 10th congressional District in
Brooklyn. Managing personnel in two Brooklyn offices and the nation's
capitol, Mr. Wiltshire is one of my most trusted advisors on key
legislative issues and public policies. Mr. Wiltshire's vast experience
with the community in Brooklyn has been invaluable, providing sound
leadership and direction in the 10th district.
While his service in the public and private sector has consumed most
of his time, Mr. Wiltshire continues his involvement with the Madison
Boys and Girls Club, Brooklyn School of Music, and the vestry of the
Church of St. Luke and St. Matthew.
Mr. Wiltshire is a proud father, grandfather, and mentor to many. The
life he chose to lead is one that is admired by many and should be
emulated by all. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in
recognizing the many achievements of Mr. Albert Wiltshire.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JO ANN EMERSON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 882, 883, 884, 885, 886,
887, and 888 I am not recorded because I was absent due to a family
event. Had I been present the week of December 2nd, I would have voted
``aye'' on rollcall No. 888. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No.
882, 883, 884, 885, 886, and 887.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1540, NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
______
HON. LAURA RICHARDSON
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Motion to
Instruct Conferees, which instructs House conferees to insist on the
inclusion of certain amendments intended to improved the sexual assault
prevention and response in the Armed Services that were contained in
the version of National Defense Authorization Act passed by the House
on May 26, 2011.
While 1 in 6 women in the United States will experience some type of
sexual assault in her lifetime, as many as 1 in 3 veteran women report
that they have experienced some form of Military Sexual Trauma during
their service. Due to shame, guilt or fear of not being believed,
countless victims do not report their assault and it has been reported
that as few as 13 percent of these sexual assaults are reported to the
proper authorities.
Mr. Speaker, not only do cases of sexual assault largely go
unreported, but response protocols necessary to protect victims of
assault need to be improved.
In addition, more must be done to protect these victims after they
report their abuse. Victims of sexual assault face a lack of
confidentiality, protection, support, and access to legal counsel once
an incident is reported.
Currently, victims of rape or sexual assault do not have the right to
a unit or duty location transfer following an assault. The result is
that victims of these unspeakable crimes often have to continue serving
alongside their assailant. As of this date, the Department of Defense
has not yet adopted policies that will enable sexual assault victims to
escape constant contact with their attackers.
Mr. Speaker, this is a huge problem. Something must be done.
Fortunately, the problem of rape and sexual assault in the military
has been addressed by provisions in both the House- and Senate-passed
versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 (NDAA).
In both the House and Senate versions, the NDAA makes improvements in
the military's response to sexual assault and to provide greater
protections for our service men and women in the armed forces. Our hope
is to ensure zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military.
However, the House and Senate versions of this act differ
significantly. The House version of the NDAA has stronger provisions
regarding sexual assault in the military by strengthening legal
protections for the victims, providing support and guidance to victims,
and by strengthening the systems in place to prevent future
[[Page 19183]]
assaults. That is why the Motion to Instruct directs House conferees to
insist on the inclusion of these provisions in the compromise
legislation negotiated in the Conference.
Among the House-passed improvements are provisions:
ensuring that sexual assault victims be afforded legal counsel if
desired;
protecting the confidentiality and victim advocates;
requiring that commanders transfer duty stations; and
requiring adequate training and education programs to prevent sexual
assault.
Mr. Speaker, we have a duty to protect our men and women in the
military, who put their lives on the line for our country. We have a
duty to make our armed forces safe for all men and women who wish to
serve. It is dangerous enough risking one's safety in defense of our
country on foreign shores. It is simply intolerable for American
servicewomen and men to have to assume the risk of sexual assault from
their comrades.
The provisions in the version of H.R. 1540 passed by the House
reflects a zero tolerance policy when it comes to the sexual assault of
members of the Armed Forces by members of the Armed Forces. That is why
I strongly support this Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1540. I
urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.
____________________
MR. CHARLES L. NEUBERT
______
HON. LOU BARLETTA
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Charles L. Neubert
of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, for his faithful and dedicated service to
the United States of America through turbulent times.
Charles Neubert was serving in the National Guard in the State of
Washington when he decided to transfer to active duty in 1941. He was
assigned to the 16th Truck Company, Quartermaster Corps. At the time,
Charles Neubert was only 20 years old. He was stationed in Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii.
Mr. Neubert was working in the motor pool during the surprise
military attack conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy on the morning
of December 7, 1941. Mr. Neubert watched helplessly as 353 Japanese
fighters and bombers launched their assault on the naval base. When he
recalls this day, Charles Neubert can remember thinking that the planes
just kept coming and coming. More than 2,400 American lives were lost
on that day, and almost 1,300 were injured.
Charles Neubert continued to serve his country in the 357th and the
356th Truck Companies on both Pearl Island and on Tinian in the
Marianas Islands.
Charles Neubert would be discharged from active duty in the Army in
June 1945, just a few months before the end of the war. He would join
the Naval Reserves in 1950, and he served aboard the USS Douglas H Fox
(DD779) for 15 months during the Korean War. He was discharged in 1953.
Mr. Speaker, Charles L. Neubert, who only a few months ago celebrated
his 90th birthday, is a fine example of the faithful and dedicated men
and women that make up our armed forces. His selfless actions, and
those of his generation, should forever be remembered and cherished by
a grateful nation.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO ABU BEKR COURT NO. 74
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Abu Bekr Court
No. 74 for its long history of community involvement through activities
and sponsorships.
Abu Bekr Court No. 74 has participated in all of the programs and
projects of the Imperial court, Daughters of Iris. Individual Court
members have been actively involved in numerous community volunteer
activities on behalf of the organization.
The projects supported by Abu Bekr Court No. 74 and its members
include: homeless women's shelters, a hospital for children with
special needs, gifts of love baskets to elderly and needy community
residents, donations to local community churches and the NAACP. Under
the leadership of their Illustrious Commandress, Dt. Shirley Holliday,
Abu Bekr Court has been in partnership with Tilden Hall by sponsoring
multiple clothing drives.
The Court has served in many capacities throughout the community.
They attended a World Day of Worship at Berean Baptist Church and gave
a sizable monetary donation to their Drum Line Youth group, while also
raising hundreds of dollars to participate in the Breast Cancer Walk.
The Court has also donated school supplies to several schools in
Brooklyn and Long Island, as well as donating over 200 knit hats to
cancer patients through the American Cancer Society.
Abu Bekr Court No. 74 is pleased to have had 57 Daughters lead this
Court and serve as Illustrious Commandress since 1949. As part of Abu
Bekr Court's great history, two of their Daughters served the Imperial
Court Daughters of Isis as Imperial Commandress, which is the highest
honor that can be bestowed upon a Daughter. Dt. Phyllis McKoy who was
elected and served as Imperial Commandress in 1984 and now Dt. Ruth
Mayfield Ellerbe who was elected and installed as Imperial Commandress
of the Imperial Court Daughters of Iris on August 18, 2011.
The Court looks forward to continuing their long tradition of service
to the community and to remain supportive to the Imperial Court,
Daughters of Isis.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
community achievements that Abu Bekr Court No. 74 has made in Brooklyn
and throughout New York City.
____________________
SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, December 8, 2011 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
DECEMBER 13
10 a.m.
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
To hold hearings to examine MF Global bankruptcy.
SH-216
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Paul J.
Watford, of California, to be United States Circuit
Judge for the Ninth Circuit.
SD-226
Environment and Public Works
Water and Wildlife Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine our nation's water
infrastructure, focusing on challenges and
opportunities.
SD-406
10:15 a.m.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Children and Families Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine child abuse, focusing on
protection, prevention, intervention, and deterrence.
SD-106
2:30 p.m.
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Housing, Transportation and Community Development
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine helping homeowners harmed by
foreclosures, focusing on ensuring accountability and
transparency in appeals.
SD-538
DECEMBER 14
9:30 a.m.
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Securities, Insurance and Investment Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine investor risks in capital
raising.
SD-538
10 a.m.
Foreign Relations
European Affairs Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the state of human rights and
rule of law in Russia, focusing on United States policy
options.
SD-419
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Business meeting to consider S. 1855, to amend the Public
Health Service Act to reauthorize various programs
under the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act,
and the nominations of
[[Page 19184]]
Wendy M. Spencer, of Florida, to be Chief Executive
Officer of the Corporation for National and Community
Service, Deepa Gupta, of Illinois, to be a Member of
the National Council on the Arts, Christopher Merrill,
of Iowa, to be a Member of the National Council on the
Humanities, Stephanie Orlando, of New York, and Gary
Blumenthal, of Massachusetts, both to be a Member of
the National Council on Disability, and a nomination
list in the Public Health Service.
SD-430
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-342
Judiciary
To hold an oversight hearing to examine the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
SD-226
Veterans' Affairs
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Margaret
Bartley, of Maryland, Coral Wong Pietsch, of Hawaii,
and Gloria Wilson Shelton, of Maryland, all to be a
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims.
SR-418
DECEMBER 15
10 a.m.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To hold hearings to examine prescription drug shortages,
focusing on examining a public health concern and
potential solutions.
SD-430
11 a.m.
Foreign Relations
Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Global Narcotics
Affairs Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the United States-Caribbean
shared security partnership, focusing on responding to
the growth of trafficking narcotics in the Caribbean.
SD-419
2:15 p.m.
Foreign Relations
African Affairs Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine improving governance in the
Democratic Republic of Congo.
SD-419
2:30 p.m.
Aging
To hold hearings to examine implementing the ``Physician
Payment Sunshine Act''.
SD-562