[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Issue]
[Pages 4505-4614]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 4505]]
SENATE--Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Jeanne Shaheen, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, who has made and preserved us as a nation, make our
lawmakers people of high vision and steadfast fidelity to Your wisdom.
Use them to lift the banner of righteousness which exalts a nation. As
they work together, deepen their understanding of one another's
perspectives so that they will treat their colleagues as they would
want their colleagues to treat them. Purge them from all that
blemishes, corrupts, and defiles our common life. Heal our land, Lord,
and use our Senators as agents of Your healing.
We pray in Your merciful Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Inouye).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2011.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Jeanne Shaheen, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Daniel K. Inouye,
President pro tempore.
Mrs. SHAHEEN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Madam President, following any leader remarks, there will
be a period of morning business for an hour, with Senators permitted to
speak for up to 10 minutes each, the majority controlling the first
half and the Republicans controlling the final half.
Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of
S. 493, the small business jobs bill. The Senate will recess from 12:30
until 2:15 to allow for weekly caucus meetings. Rollcall votes in
relation to amendments to the small business jobs bill are possible
today. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.
We have 10 amendments now pending. I spoke yesterday afternoon to the
Republican leader, and I think we are in good shape now to hopefully
resolve the 1099 matter this afternoon. We are looking forward to
having a consent agreement we can vote on. I think we are at a point
where, in the morning, we can vote on the McConnell amendment dealing
with EPA and a couple other amendments relating to EPA to get rid of
that issue one way or the other.
There are other matters with the bill we would like to set up votes
on, and if people are willing to allow us to do that, we could do some
of those this afternoon. But we are making progress on this very
important bill. With all the amendments being offered, we sometimes
lose sight of the fact that this bill, which has been led by Senators
Landrieu and Snowe, is an extremely important bill for creating jobs
with small businesses. It is an innovation bill, and the programs this
bill covers have done some tremendously important things for the
country.
With the CR, I spoke with the White House this morning, and there are
conversations going on with the White House and the Republican
leadership in the House, and I think this matter, with a little bit of
good fortune, could move down the road in the next day or two to get us
to a point where we could have something done so there doesn't have to
be a government shutdown. I certainly hope that is the case.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
ENERGY TAX
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as lawmakers return to Washington
this week, we did so against the backdrop of many world crises. From
recovery efforts in Japan, to battles everywhere from Afghanistan to
Libya, to an unfolding economic crisis in Europe, the scope and
intensity of world events in recent months has been nothing short of
breathtaking.
Yet in the middle of all this, it is important we not lose sight of
the struggles and concerns of so many around us here at home. At a time
when roughly 1 in 4 American homeowners owes more money on their
mortgage than their home is worth, at a time when nearly 1 in 10
working Americans is looking for a job, at a time when the Federal debt
has reached heights none of us could have even imagined just a few
years ago, now is not the time to lose focus on the paramount issue on
the minds of Americans every day, and that is the very real crisis we
face when it comes to jobs.
Americans look around them and they see neighbors and friends
struggling to find work. Yet all they seem to get from the White House
are policies that handcuff small businesses with burdensome new
regulations and redtape and that create even more uncertainty about the
future, including the administration's inexplicable and inexcusable
inaction on trade deals that would level the playing field with our
competitors overseas.
They are tired of it. Americans are tired of the White House paying
lipservice to their struggles while quietly promoting effort after
effort, either through legislation or some backdoor regulation, that
makes it harder, not easier, for businesses to create new jobs. But the
administration outdid itself last week, when the President told a
Brazilian President the United States hopes to be a major customer in
the market for oil that Brazilian businesses plan to extract from new
oil finds off the Brazilian coast.
We can't make this stuff up. Here we have the administration looking
for just about any excuse it can find to lock up our own energy
resources here at home, even as it is applauding another country's
efforts to grow its own economy and create jobs by tapping into its
energy sources.
For 2 years, the administration has canceled dozens--dozens--of oil
and gas leases all across America. It has raised permit fees. It has
shut down deepwater drilling in the gulf. It would not even allow a
conversation about exploring for oil in a remote 2,000-acre piece of
land in northern Alaska that experts think represents one of our best
opportunities for a major oil find. It continues to press for new
regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency that would
raise energy
[[Page 4506]]
costs for every business in America and lead to untold lost jobs for
more American workers.
In other words, in the midst of average gas prices approaching $4 a
gallon and a chronic jobs crisis, the White House plans to make the
climate for job growth worse. That is why Republicans, led in the
Senate by Senator Inhofe, have proposed legislation to prevent the new
energy tax from ever taking effect without congressional approval. The
Wall Street Journal has called the amendment we are proposing ``one of
the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the
Senate docket in years.''
Our amendment would assure small businesses across the country that
they will not be hit with yet another costly new job-stifling burden by
Democrats in Washington. It will give voters the assurance that a
regulation of this kind, which would have a dramatic impact on so many,
could not be approved without their elected representatives standing
and actually voting for it. At a time of rising energy prices, it would
prevent Democrats in Washington from adding even more pressure to
energy prices than they already have out of fealty to special interests
that would rather we buy our energy from overseas than find and use the
bountiful resources we already have right here at home.
I wish to thank Senator Inhofe, once again, for leading us on this
issue. His bill, upon which my amendment is based, has 43 cosponsors.
He deserves the credit. He has been a fierce and tireless advocate not
only for American energy but also against new EPA regulations that
would sidestep the legislative process. I thank him for his work, along
with the great work Senators Murkowski and Barrasso have done, in
educating the American people about these issues.
At a time when Americans are looking for answers on the economy, this
amendment is as good as it gets from Washington. By voting for it, we
would be saying no to more regulations and redtape and we would be
saying yes to American job creators and to the jobs they want to
create. I urge my colleagues in both parties to support it.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the
time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the
Republicans controlling the final half.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise to speak on the current state of
partisan budget negotiations.
For weeks now, the offices of the Senate majority leader, the House
Speaker, and the White House have been engaged in serious talks seeking
a long-term budget agreement. It has been a long hard process. There
have been a lot of fits and starts in the negotiations. But it is no
exaggeration to say that as of last week talks were on a smooth path
toward a compromise. The Speaker's office was negotiating in good
faith. The parties significantly narrowed the $51 billion gap on how
much spending should be cut. House Republican leaders had agreed to
come down from H.R. 1 and meet us halfway. We could begin to see light
at the end of the tunnel.
But suddenly, at the end of last week, House Republicans did a
strange thing: They pulled back from the talks. They changed their
minds about what level of spending cuts they could accept. We were on
the verge of a potential breakthrough, and they suddenly moved the
goalposts. We felt a little bit like we were left at the altar. Not
only did they abandon the talks, they started denying that they were
ever close to a deal in the first place. Majority Leader Cantor issued
a statement Friday saying that reports that progress was being made
were ``far-fetched.'' It was as if they decided that even the
appearance of a looming compromise was a political liability. It was
surreal.
It is no surprise what happened. The headline of today's story in the
National Journal says it all:
With Revolt Brewing, GOP Backs Off Deal.
Let me repeat that because that is really what is going on here and
the news of the day in the last few days:
With Revolt Brewing, GOP Backs Off Deal.
The story reads:
Concerned about a revolt by the conservative, tea party-
wing of the party, GOP leaders have pulled back from a
tentative deal to cut roughly $30 billion in cuts from
current spending levels. The influence that tea-party
conservatives now exercise over the process put the chances
of a compromise seriously in doubt.
The story continues:
The GOP pulled back from that agreement last week after
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Majority Whip
Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., warned House Speaker John Boehner,
R-Ohio, that the deal would trigger a revolt from tea-party
conservatives.
In other words, as soon as House Republican leaders took one step
toward compromise, the tea party rebelled, so they took two steps back.
The National Journal story describes an offer that was put on the
table by the White House that would have met House Republicans halfway.
The offer falls squarely in the ballpark of Congressman Ryan's original
budget proposal with roughly $70 billion in spending cuts compared to
the President's budget request. This is a significant move in the
Republicans' direction. These are more cuts than many on our side might
support, but it shows how seriously the White House is about wanting a
compromise to avert a shutdown. If they are planning to reject such an
offer, it is clear they won't take ``yes'' for an answer and are
seeking a shutdown. The Republican leadership in the House, with the
tea party breathing down their back, won't take ``yes'' for an answer
and won't support the original proposal made by Budget Chairman Ryan of
roughly $70 billion in spending cuts. We know Congressman Ryan is
hardly a liberal or a moderate. It shows how far to the right the
Republican leadership is being forced to move by the tea party.
This level of spending cuts was good enough for House Republicans
earlier this year when Hal Rogers released his original proposal. But
the tea party hollered, and House Republicans were forced to double
their proposed spending cuts to an extreme level of $61 billion. When
that happened, Hal Rogers said the House was moving beyond what was
reasonable and into territory where they could never get a deal. Tom
Latham of Iowa agreed that in forcing H.R. 1 to go from $30 billion to
$60 billion in cuts, the tea party was forcing Republicans to go beyond
what was ``enactable.'' These are conservative Republicans saying that
the present House proposal is not enactable, cannot pass. Just as the
tea party forced mainstream Republicans into extreme territory before,
they are doing so again. Anyone who looks at this objectively sees that
is what is happening.
The Speaker has said all along that he wants to avoid a shutdown at
all costs. I believe him. He is a good man. The problem is, a large
percentage of those in his party don't feel the same way. They think
``compromise'' is a dirty word. They think taking any steps to avert a
shutdown would mean being the first to blink. So Speaker Boehner is
caught between a shutdown and a hard place. He has caught a tiger by
the tail in the form of the tea party. There is even a tea party rally
planned for later this week to pressure the Speaker not to budge off
H.R. 1.
[[Page 4507]]
To try to mask the divisions on their own side, Republicans have
resorted to lashing out in a knee-jerk way at Democrats. Their latest
trick is trying to accuse Democrats of not having our own plan. That is
a diversion. It rings hollow. The only proposals that have been made
that would actually avoid a government shutdown are numerous
compromises that Democrats have offered Republicans.
I would like to remind my House friends, as they all know, the Senate
needs 60 votes to pass a bill. We can't pass anything without
Republican agreement. Yet our Senate Republican colleagues are nowhere
to be found. Since the Senate rejected the Republican job-killing
budget proposal that would cost Americans 700,000 jobs a month ago,
Republicans have not moved an inch off their plan.
Speaker Boehner knows, when it comes to averting a government
shutdown on April 8, it is the tea party, not the Democrats, that is
causing the trouble. At this point, the only hurdle left to a
bipartisan deal, the only obstacle in the way is the tea party. But for
the tea party, we could have an agreement that reduces spending by a
historic amount. We could have a deal that keeps the government open.
A tea party rebellion may hurt House Republican leadership
politically, but a shutdown will hurt Americans, all Americans, much
more. It is time for House Republican leaders to rip off the bandaid.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to forget the tea party and take the deal.
There are only 10 days left before the current CR expires. There is no
new stopgap being prepared by House Republicans. It seems the only
viable proposal is the one the Speaker walked away from. So the Speaker
faces a choice: Return to the deal he was prepared to accept before the
tea party rebelled last week or risk a shutdown on April 8. I think we
know what the right answer is. It is clear. The Speaker has a choice:
Appease the tea party and shut down the government or take the right
and principled stand and move the government forward by coming to a
reasonable compromise between both parties that cuts the budget
significantly.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
____________________
REPEAL OF 1099
Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, it feels a bit like deja vu standing
here today discussing the ongoing saga of the 1099 repeal. Two weeks
ago, I offered amendment No. 161 to the small business bill.
If we read all the press releases and the public statements, it
appears that absolutely nobody could possibly oppose repeal of the 1099
requirement in section 9006 of the health care bill. Yet once again the
other side is attempting to delay or derail the 1099 repeal by offering
a second-degree amendment. I might have been open to a second-degree
amendment when we started this process many long months ago. But now we
are approaching the 1-year anniversary since we began fighting to
repeal this unnecessary mandate. It had no place in the health care
bill in the first place.
I can't help but question why on Earth we are still swinging and
missing at this one. Is it a lack of support in my caucus? The answer
to that is no. Support amongst Republicans is absolutely unanimous.
Lack of Republican support certainly has not held this up.
I ask myself if there is a lack of bipartisan support that is holding
up the effort. The answer to that is also no. My colleague, the junior
Senator from West Virginia, has cosponsored the last several versions
of this repeal legislation in the Senate. Together, Senator Manchin and
I have secured dozens of Democrats who strongly support the repeal, and
76 Democrats voted for identical 1099 repeal in the House of
Representatives. Bipartisan support is enormously, if not unusually,
strong.
Might our problem be a lack of support from the White House? The
answer to that is also no. The President has publicly called for repeal
of this 1099 mandate on several occasions in press conferences. He even
referenced it in his State of the Union Address.
Is it possible there is still confusion about how our small
businesses feel about the mandate? That is not the case. The chorus of
job creators opposing this mandate is almost deafening: the chamber of
commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the American
Farm Bureau Federation. I could go on and on listing organizations
arguing for its repeal.
Has it been a controversial pay-for that has slowed down progress?
Interestingly enough, an almost identical budgetary offset passed this
Chamber unanimously only 4 months ago. Requiring someone to repay what
was given to them erroneously is, plain and simple, good government.
Even Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius noted that
repayment of improper subsidies is ``fair for recipients and all
taxpayers.'' So arguments about the pay-for simply are hollow excuses
to justify inaction.
Our job creators are seeing it for what it really is. It is more
nonsense. It astounds me that we can seemingly pass benchmark after
benchmark without going over the finish line. How can we make so much
important progress only to be stymied again and again by some silent
opposition?
My friends across the aisle have often complained about the slow pace
of the Senate. They have blamed the other side of the aisle for
preventing progress. Well, my side of the aisle has been ready for a
long time to repeal this job-killing mandate. I want you to know we
stand ready to vote.
Considering the high unemployment rates plaguing our country, it
seems absolutely incomprehensible that we would waste even another day
without addressing this mandate in the health care bill. Our job
creators have watched dueling amendments and proposals and
counterproposals. Well, that has gone on for 1 year.
I first circulated a Dear Colleague letter asking for cosponsors of
this 1099 repeal in June of last year. When we introduced it in July,
with 25 cosponsors, well, small businesses cheered. It gave them hope
common sense would prevail in Congress and that partisanship is
sometimes set aside to simply do the right thing.
But now they see there is yet again a delay tactic in the form of a
second-degree amendment to the 1099 repeal. They have been frustrated
time and time again--when it failed to advance in September and
November and appeared stalled well into the new year.
Today, we have a simple choice: We can pass my amendment with strong
bipartisan support and demonstrate we have the 60 votes necessary for
the House version or we can pass the second-degree amendment and push
this repeal off into limbo into Never Never Land yet again. We can
actually fix the problem in a bipartisan way or we can continue to kick
this can down the road.
If we pass the second-degree amendment, quite simply, what we have
voted yes to do is delay the repeal of the 1099 amendment and
eventually we are going to flirt with disaster on this and it will not
get done.
We need to focus all our energy on helping our job creators grow and
create more jobs, not force them into worrying about hiring more
accountants. Pardon my boldness but there is no reason to delay. An
identical version of my amendment passed the House with large
bipartisan support: 314 to 112. I urge my colleagues, with all I have,
to oppose the second-degree amendment my friend from New Jersey is
proposing.
Let's be clear. This latest distraction from 1099 repeal is just
that--it is a distraction. We all know it is not truly about a study to
look at health care costs. If we want to do a study, put the amendment
on some other piece of legislation. This is about derailing and
delaying the 1099 repeal because if the second-degree amendment passes,
it says: Instead of sending this to the President to become law, we
need to go back to the drawing board.
While the proponents of the second-degree amendment will claim it is
innocuous, make no mistake, it is designed to obliterate this amendment
because of a budgetary offset. Again, I remind us, a similar offset was
passed
[[Page 4508]]
unanimously recently by the Senate. Just like a Politico article from
yesterday noted: ``Senate Democrats are working on an amendment that
could kill the [Republicans' pay-for in the future].''
If the second degree passes, then we are essentially adding nearly
$25 billion to our debt over the next 10 years. While some may preach
the virtues of pay-as-you-go rules, when it comes right down to it,
they will undermine virtually any fiscally responsible pay-for.
So here we are again crossing the same bridge we have crossed so many
times before. In fact, the Senate refused this idea when we rejected
the Baucus amendment that repealed 1099 but was not paid for. That
amendment fell 23 votes short of passage because it fiscally did not
make sense.
So why are we still here aimlessly walking around in circles when we
ought to be marching straight ahead? Why are we proposing to send this
bipartisan legislation back to the House? Because that is what will
have to happen, when it ought to go directly to the President's desk
for signature.
Our vote today can send a message that we have all the votes
necessary to get this done and get it on the President's desk and
everybody can celebrate: our job creators, Democrats, Republicans,
Independents.
The logic of the second-degree amendment is absolutely baffling. Here
we are in the ninth inning and somehow our pay-for has become magically
unacceptable, even after a similar pay-for was approved unanimously by
the Senate before. Where were all the objections? Where was the demand
for further study when we unanimously approved a similar offset for the
doc fix legislation?
Let me be very clear: A vote in favor of the second degree is a vote
against our business and job creators. My amendment has been waiting
for a vote for 14 days now, and the repeal has been pending for nearly
1 year. Isn't enough enough?
The time for delay and further study must be over. Let's pass my
amendment today by an overwhelming vote of the Senate. Let's reject the
second degree. Let's get this piece of legislation to the President for
his signature and we can all celebrate. Small businesses, our job
creators, deserve no less.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
____________________
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, government funding is set to expire
next week on April 8. We are in the midst of the 2011 fiscal year that
ends September 30, and the Congress has only appropriated money through
April 8. If Congress does not act by that time, the government would
shut down.
Congress needs to act, but Congress needs to listen to the American
people and listen to the financial experts whom we have dealt with and
reduce spending and reduce the surging deficit we face this year, last
predicted to be $1.4 trillion. Nothing has ever been seen like it
before, and it has to be addressed. There is no way around it.
So we have this deadline hanging over our heads, and the reason is,
my colleagues in the Democratic leadership in the Senate will not agree
to the kind of substantial but realistic spending reductions the House
of Representatives has sent to us. The House has sent us a budget plan
that I think will work. But what we hear is, the sky will fall if we
trim the $61 billion from a $3.7 trillion budget--$3,700 billion that
we spend--if we reduce that spending by $61 billion, somehow this will
cause the country to sink into oblivion.
The American people know better than that. That is not realistic. Of
course, we can cut those kinds of numbers out of this huge budget we
have, and the American people will be better off for it.
As ranking member on the Budget Committee, I have looked at the
numbers, and that $61 billion reduces the baseline of Federal spending
by $61 billion this year, but over 10 years--because it is a baseline
reduction--it would save $860 billion. This is the kind of small but
significant step that does make a difference.
People say: It does not make any difference. Why don't we just
increase spending? Why do we cut spending at all? Of course, we have to
reduce spending. The American people know the borrowed money and
overspending of the past 2 years have failed to produce what it
promised. Instead, all that has been achieved through this massive
surge in Federal spending, through the stimulus package and other
programs, is a crushing debt burden that weakens our economy and is a
drag on our economy, as expert witnesses have told us. It threatens our
economic future. Alan Simpson, former Republican Senator, and Erskine
Bowles, formerly the Chief of Staff to President Clinton, were
appointed by President Obama to cochair the debt commission. The fiscal
commission reported to us, and jointly they submitted a written
statement that said if the United States fails to act, it faces ``the
most predictable economic crisis in its history.'' This is a real
warning. They said such a crisis could arrive in as soon as 1 or 2
years.
People have been saying: Oh, we are on the wrong track. If we do not
get off it, in 3 or 4 or 5 years, we are going to have a crisis. More
and more people are warning us that crisis is sooner. Mr. Bowles said:
In 1 year, give or take a little bit, we will have a crisis. Mr.
Simpson said: I think within 1 year.
The American people rightly expect their elected leaders to confront
this threat with seriousness and candor. But the President has never
once looked the American people in the eyes and told them the truth
about the financial crisis we face. Has he ever discussed those kinds
of words with the American people, that we face an actual crisis? We
could have a debt problem that hits us very quickly, just like the one
in 2008 that put us in a deep recession. We are in a fragile recovery
now, and we need to keep that recovery going. The last thing we need to
do is have another recession, or some sort of other financial collapse
that puts more people out of work and weakens an already struggling
economy. It is not necessary this occur.
The President and his Budget Director have, instead of being truthful
with us, falsely boasted to the American people that under their budget
we will ``live within our means'' and ``not add more to the debt'' and
that ``we're not going to spend any more money than we're taking in.''
He submitted his 10-year budget to the Congress, and that is what he
says his budget will do. But not one of those statements is true--not
one.
When the budget was announced, Mr. Bowles, whom the President
appointed to head the debt commission, said it is nowhere close to what
we need to be doing to get our house in order. In fact, the
Congressional Budget Office finds this: that our annual deficits never
once fall below $748 billion. I was saying $600 billion before based on
the President's estimates of his budget. Now the Congressional Budget
Office has done an independent analysis of the President's budget, and
they say the lowest single annual deficit, in 10 years, would be $748
billion.
Is it going down, you ask? Is this budget going to put us living
within our means and live on what we take in? In the outyears, the
deficits out 7, 8, 9, 10 years of the President's budget, they are
going up. In the 10th year, the budget deficit is $1.2 trillion--a
$1,200 billion deficit that year.
You might ask: What do those numbers mean? We spend, this year, about
$3.7 trillion through September 30. We take in $2.2 trillion. This is
why we are on an unsustainable path and we have to get off of it. It is
not a partisan matter; it is a matter of facing reality. We still have
Members of the Senate in denial. We have the majority leader down here
complaining that he might not get money for his cowboy poetry festival
in Nevada. Give me a break. This country is headed on the path of great
danger and we need to turn around.
Imagine the fate a CEO would face if, in the process of asking for
shareholders to buy company stock, he declared, ``We are not adding to
the debt,'' while his accountants were telling him the company's debt
was on a
[[Page 4509]]
path to double, as our debt is. The President even nominated a deputy
director for OMB, Heather Higginbottom, who has no budget experience
and who attempted to defend these claims before the Budget Committee
last week. I don't know, maybe they couldn't find anybody with
experience who would take the job. The best I can tell, she has never
had a single business course or an economics course, never managed any
kind of organization on budget, ever. She majored, I think, in
political science and campaigned for President Obama and Senator John
Kerry.
We need some seriousness here. We in Congress are not stepping up to
the plate, frankly. We are not taking the kind of decisive action
needed to curb our rising debt. And the majority leader, my good
friend, Senator Reid--which is a tough job, I have to tell my
colleagues; it is a tough job--but now he is saying the problem is
there is a division within the Republican Party. You see, we have these
extremists over here, the new Republicans who got elected the last
election promising to do something about spending and they are out of
touch. They are extremists. There are some good Republicans over here.
They have been here a long time, and we know how to get along and cut
deals and we are going to take care of this thing. You just have to
keep these people under control.
I might remind the leader that every single Republican either voted
for the $61 billion in cuts or called for more cuts. There is no
division in the Republican Party about the need to have reasonable and
significant reductions in the expenditures. There is essentially
unanimous Republican agreement that we ought to cut $61 billion or more
from this year's discretionary budget. By contrast, the majority leader
lost nearly one-fifth of his caucus on his proposal, which was
basically to do nothing--reduce spending by $4 billion. Ten Members or
more defected. They knew that wasn't enough, even under pressure from
the President and from the majority leader. So it is clear where the
momentum lies.
I wish to repeat again, though: This is not and cannot be seen as a
partisan squabble. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve talked to us a
few weeks ago, and he submitted a written statement to the Budget
Committee. This is what Mr. Bernanke said. He talked about the
Congressional Budget Office debt projections. I have made some
reference to those and how dangerous they show our path to be.
This is what Chairman Bernanke said:
The CBO projections, by design, ignore the adverse effects
that such high debt and deficits would likely have on our
economy. But if government debt and deficits were actually to
grow at the pace envisioned in this scenario, the economic
and financial effects would be severe. Diminishing confidence
on the part of investors that deficits will be brought under
control would likely lead to sharply rising interest rates on
government debt and potentially to broader financial turmoil.
Moreover, high rates of government borrowing would both drain
funds away from private capital formation and increase our
foreign indebtedness, with adverse long-run effects on U.S.
output, incomes, and standard of living.
He goes on to say:
It is widely understood that the federal Government is on
an unsustainable fiscal path. Yet, as a nation, we have done
little to address this critical threat to our economy. Doing
nothing will not be an option indefinitely; the longer we
wait to act, the greater the risks and the more wrenching the
inevitable changes to the budget will be. By contrast, the
prompt adoption of a credible program to reduce future
deficits would not only enhance the economic growth and
stability in the long run, but could also yield substantial
near-term benefits in terms of lower long-term interest rates
and increased consumer and business confidence.
This is the head of the Federal Reserve, the man supposedly most
knowledgeable about the economy of the United States of America. We are
not making this up.
We have a proposal from our Democratic majority in the Senate to do
nothing, basically--to do zero, nada--despite this kind of warning.
We are living in a fantasy world if we don't think we can cut $61
billion from this budget. My friend John McMillan, just elected the
director of Agriculture and Industries in Alabama, is facing a critical
crisis in his department. I saw the headline in the paper. He has 200
employees. He is going to have to lay off 60 of them. Cities and
counties are doing this kind of thing all over the country. Do we think
the State of Alabama will cease to exist if that happens? It is sad
that they have that kind of challenge before them. We don't have to do
that much right now, but if we took those kinds of steps--something
significant--we could make a bigger difference than a lot of people
realize in the debt we are facing.
Governor Cuomo in New York and Governor Christie in New Jersey and
Governor Brown in California and others all over the country are making
real, significant alterations in the level of spending, while we worry
about protecting the cowboy poetry festival in Nevada.
Remember this--people have forgotten this. Since President Obama took
office, Congress has increased discretionary spending on our non-
defense Federal programs by 24 percent. We didn't have the money for
that. We never should have increased spending that much. It was a big
error. But we know what they said: Don't worry, we are making
investments in the future. But you have to have money to make
investments. If you don't have money, how can you make investments? All
of this increase was borrowed. We are in huge debt and when we increase
spending, we have to borrow the money to increase spending. Every penny
is borrowed. We did an $800 billion stimulus package. Every penny was
borrowed. We pay $30 billion-plus a year interest on that borrowed
money for as long as I am alive and longer, no doubt. There is no plan
to pay off that debt. I know people are talking and they are working
things out and they said they are going to try to reach a compromise so
we don't have to shut down the government, and I certainly hope that is
true. But I do not believe we need any tax-and-spend compromise. I will
not support that. I don't think the American people will support it,
either. They know we spend too much. They know we have ramped up
spending $800 billion with the stimulus package, that nondefense
discretionary spending has gone up 24 percent in 2 years, and they know
we can reduce Federal spending without this country sinking into the
ocean. That is what they expect us to do. That is what Governors and
mayors are doing, county commissioners are doing, all over my State and
all over America.
We have to recognize that Washington is spending too much--not taxing
too little. How can we ask Americans to pay more in taxes when
Washington is not even willing to cut $61 billion?
I have a proposition for my colleagues who wish to raise taxes before
we consider asking the American people to pay another cent in taxes:
Why don't we first drain every cent of waste from the Federal
bureaucracy? We will never truly dig ourselves out of this crisis and
put this Nation on a real path to prosperity unless we bring our
spending under control. America's strength is measured not by the size
of our government but by the scope of our freedoms and the vigor and
vitality of the American people and their willingness to invest and
work hard for the future. That is what makes us strong. Endless
spending, taxing, and borrowing is a certain path to decline, and we
are on that path today, and we must get out of it.
We know the threat. We know what we need to do. The economy is trying
to rebound. So let's take some good steps today. Let's pass this $61
billion reduction in spending this fiscal year. It will amount to about
$860 billion over 10 years. It will be a very significant first step.
That is what is before us today--not the other issues. We have to
decide what we are going to do about funding the government between now
and September 30. That is the rest of this fiscal year. Let's take a
firm step on that. Let's begin to look at what we are going to do for
next year's budget and what we are going to do about our surging
entitlement programs that are on an unsustainable course. We can do all
of those things and leave our country healthy and vigorous and
prosperous for the future. I
[[Page 4510]]
truly believe that is the kind of thing we need to be doing now.
I am baffled that we don't know why the President is not leading
more. He is not talking directly to the American people about why this
is important. Is it just a political squabble to be ignored, with the
President going to Rio and talking about Libya? Or is it true, as Mr.
Bernanke says, we are on an unsustainable path? Or is it true that Mr.
Erskine Bowles, the President's own director of the fiscal commission,
says that we are facing the most predictable economic crisis in this
country's history, and he said it could happen within 2 years? Are we
making this up?
The American people get it. They say, What is going on in Washington?
You have to get your house in order. That is what this past election
was about. People understand we need some action and some leadership,
but we are not getting it. I truly believe if we could get together and
if we could get a bipartisan effort to look at this $61 billion--we
could disagree on how to reduce that spending; maybe the Republicans
have this idea and the Democrats have this idea--let's work all of that
out. But let's reach an agreement that actually reduces spending by
enough to make a difference. Then the world would say, Wow, now the
Congress is beginning to take some steps. That was a nice, good, strong
first step. Now if they will stay on that path, maybe the United States
is going to get on the road to prosperity again and stay out of this
dangerous debt crisis area we are in today and get on the right path to
prosperity. This country is ready to grow. It is ready to rebound. It
just needs a clear signal from Washington, in my opinion.
America's leaders, those of us in this Congress, have no higher duty,
no greater moral responsibility, than to take all appropriate steps to
protect the good people we serve from the clear and present danger we
face.
It is time to get busy about it, Madam President. I believe if we act
strongly and with clarity the American people will not only support it
but they will be happy with it, and it will make a positive difference
for our country.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
REPEAL OF 1099
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, later, as we move to the bill on small
business, I will be offering, I hope, a second-degree amendment to the
amendment offered by Senator Johanns, and I speak today on behalf of
middle-class families and on behalf of small businesses.
I wish to start by saying that I fully support--as I have already
done in a series of votes--repealing the 1099 reporting requirement,
but I strongly believe we have to do so in a manner that does not--does
not--increase the burden on our small businesses and employees. The
amendment of Senator Johanns certainly helps only small businesses
through the repeal of the 1099 provision, but--and this is less well-
known--I believe it actually hurts small business employees. It is a
double-edged sword. The Johanns amendment risks driving up health
insurance costs and cutting health insurance coverage for small
businesses.
As you know, the affordable care act provides tax credits to families
who earn under $74,000 per year to help them purchase health insurance.
Those tax credits are set at the start of the year. At tax time, when
families actually report their annual income, the tax credits are
reconciled with their annual household income to ensure they receive
the correct amount of assistance. But because income and other family
circumstances can change during the course of a year, individuals might
end up getting excess tax credits even though the amount of the payment
was correct at the time.
For example, a family with an unemployed worker who secures a job at
a small business midway through the year--and, hopefully, can do so, as
we continue to work on this economy to have it grow--has rightfully
received a tax credit while unemployed but could face a stiff tax hike
to repay the amount of the subsidy because the family's annual income
ends up higher for the second half of the year. This family received
the correct amount and did nothing wrong. Let me say that again. These
individuals did nothing wrong. While unemployed, these individuals
needed those tax credits to be able to get health insurance. That is
why we passed this reform, to help those very same middle-class working
families in need.
Now, under current law, we provide a reasonable repayment requirement
if the tax credit an individual receives exceeds the amount they should
have received because of unexpected changes in income or family status.
We don't give them a pass, but we don't expect all families with an
annual income of $70,000 to have $10,000 in savings to pay the surprise
tax bill they will get in April, either. So we set caps on what they
would have to pay back depending on what they earn. The Johanns
amendment makes harmful changes to these repayments for middle-class
families. Under the Johanns amendment, some families could have to pay
back as much as $12,000 in some cases, and that is too high a price. We
shouldn't ask small business employees to take that much of a hit. They
are the ones who are going to the exchanges to purchase coverage. They
are the ones working for the mom-and-pop shop that doesn't offer
coverage.
My amendment isn't about these families alone, however, as difficult
a situation as they may be in. This amendment is about what the Johanns
offset could do to health care costs and coverage for small businesses
and for those who make their living from small businesses. This risky
offset could drive up premiums and force more individuals to refuse
coverage. We are not talking about paying back tax credits; we are
talking about driving up the costs on families and small businesses,
many who have never even taken a tax credit to begin with.
My amendment would simply direct the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to decide the offset in the Johanns amendment and determine
its effect on small business. What is so wrong about that--determining
its effect on small business? We are trying to help small businesses by
eliminating the 1099 provision. Let's make sure we continue to help
them and not put extra costs on them. Specifically, we want to
determine whether there is an increase in health insurance costs or a
decrease in health coverage for small businesses. If the study finds
either, then current safe harbor provisions would remain in effect--the
same safe harbors we supported in the SGR bill, or the doc fix, in
December.
Passing 1099 would not be affected. That would move forward. So the
claim that somehow, ultimately, 1099 wouldn't be eliminated is false.
The 1099 would not be affected. That would move forward. We would
eliminate that responsibility from small businesses. So you can be both
for my amendment and the Johanns amendment because it would still
repeal 1099.
Let me make it clear. We all want 1099 repealed, and I have voted in
a series of ways to do exactly that. My amendment does not in any way
affect or delay the repeal of 1099. The only potential change my
amendment makes would be to the risky offset in the underlying
amendment and only if this study finds that it actually hurts small
businesses.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor
arguing that a study would simply delay repeal of 1099; that further
studying this risky offset would prolong the 1099 issue; that if we
just passed the amendment without protecting small businesses, this
bill can go right to the President. Well, we have actually
[[Page 4511]]
passed 1099 repeal already and shown we have the votes necessary to
make this become law. It is not going to the President to become law in
this bill because this bill hasn't even cleared the House.
At the same time, I have heard no mention of what this offset could
do to small businesses and their health care costs--not one word. I did
hear that further studying the impacts it may have on small businesses
would only delay repeal of 1099. A simple read of my amendment would be
enough to know that is incorrect. My amendment directs a study to be
done after--after--repeal of 1099 is signed into law. Let me make it
clear. Nothing in my amendment slows down repeal of 1099.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are also trying to frame
this debate as either you are for or against small businesses. But they
are helping and harming them at the same time with the Johanns
amendment. With this second-degree amendment, we can have a
conversation about helping small businesses and ensuring that small
business employees will not get hurt at the end of the day.
Now, we haven't had the Joint Tax Committee determine a revenue score
as yet, but it is important to point out that this amendment does not
spend--does not spend--an additional dime. It simply protects small
businesses from higher health care costs and coverage cuts.
If there is any revenue score associated with it, that would only be
due to the study finding that this offset drives up health care costs
or drives down health coverage for small businesses. Would we not want
to know that?
We are all here supposedly arguing to try to enhance the opportunity
for small businesses to have less burdens, to be able to grow, to be
able to prosper, to be able to create jobs. Well, we certainly would
want to know--we certainly would want to know whether this offset
drives up health care costs associated with small businesses or drives
down the health care coverage for small businesses.
Why is anyone afraid of that? Why is anyone fearful of that? So to
those who may consider opposing my amendment, think of this: On the one
hand, if you do not believe this offset will hurt small businesses,
there is no harm in voting for it because you believe the study will
not show premium increases or coverage cuts. So the offset would remain
in place. If you believe my amendment would have a revenue score, then
you are assuming the offset hurts small businesses. It is one way or
the other, not a gray area.
The idea of protecting small businesses in this manner has precedent.
I have a history working across the aisle to support small businesses,
including cosponsoring a Republican amendment to the Wall Street reform
bill which requires regulators to ensure new rules do not harm small
businesses. We thought it was a good idea then to protect small
businesses in the event new rules might unfairly impact them. I
strongly believe we should come together now to protect small
businesses if this risky offset drives up health care costs on small
businesses or forces cuts in their coverage.
I would just simply ask, who in the world, especially during these
fragile economic times, would want to do anything that could raise
costs on small businesses? Let's protect them and the 1099 repeal by
supporting my second-degree amendment.
Now, I listened to my colleague from Nebraska with whom I have worked
on some bipartisan efforts on housing for the disabled. We get along
very well. I respect him, and actually I supported 1099 repeal as one
of the 20 Democrats who voted for his amendment in November and other
issues such as housing for the disabled. So it is with some regret that
we find ourselves in a different view.
There have been questions raised about the sincerity of our
opposition to the manner in which the offset is included in the
Senator's amendment. The Senator from Nebraska says an almost identical
offset was passed unanimously by the Senate just 4 months ago. I think
our definitions of ``almost identical'' are very different.
Yes, it is true we made changes in the payback tax to pay for the doc
fix in December, but that provision was very different from the one we
are debating today. The one today, unlike before, removes protections
we included in December in the doc fix to protect families from
unlimited tax liability which could be as high as $12,000. I mean, you
are talking about taxing these families, through no fault of their own.
What family of three making $74,000 annually, gross, can afford an
unexpected $12,000 tax bill in April? I cannot think of many. But that
is exactly what could happen under the Senator's amendment.
That was not the case--not the case--in the provision that was
enacted at the end of last year in the doc fix. We provided a phaseout
that would have avoided this clip and thus tax shock on middle-class
families.
The Senator from Nebraska also said my second-degree amendment was
just a delay tactic. That simply is not true. I and 80 of my colleagues
have already passed 1099 repeal in the Senate this year. So to question
our support for 1099 repeal would be misleading.
My understanding is that the Johanns proposal is an amendment to the
small business bill we are debating, which has not passed the House. So
this amendment we are debating today would not go directly to the
President for his signature. It still needs to go through the whole
process of the House. We are not delaying anything in that regard.
Finally, the only way there would be any revenue shortfall--I say to
those who would make the assertion that our amendment creates a revenue
shortfall, well, then, what you have to be saying, if you make that
statement, is you believe the savings from the Johanns offset comes
from increasing premiums and reducing coverage on those who earn it
through making our Nation's small businesses run. That is not a
proposition I think they want to assert.
So I will come back to the floor later to offer this second-degree
amendment. And because it works to both repeal 1099 and ensure there is
not a tax on our small businesses and small business employees or a
diminution of health care coverage, I am sure we will get the support
of our colleagues.
I yield the floor.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 493, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 493) to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and
STTR programs, and for other purposes.
Pending:
McConnell amendment No. 183, to prohibit the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any
regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking
into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to
address climate change.
Vitter amendment No. 178, to require the Federal Government
to sell off unused Federal real property.
Inhofe (for Johanns) amendment No. 161, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the expansion of
information reporting requirements to payments made to
corporations, payments for property and other gross proceeds,
and rental property expense payments.
Cornyn amendment No. 186, to establish a bipartisan
commission for the purpose of improving oversight and
eliminating wasteful government spending.
Paul amendment No. 199, to cut $200,000,000,000 in spending
in fiscal year 2011.
Sanders amendment No. 207, to establish a point of order
against any efforts to reduce benefits paid to Social
Security recipients, raise the retirement age, or create
private retirement accounts under title II of the Social
Security Act.
Hutchison amendment No. 197, to delay the implementation of
the health reform law in the United States until there is
final resolution in pending lawsuits.
Coburn amendment No. 184, to provide a list of programs
administered by every Federal department and agency.
[[Page 4512]]
Pryor amendment No. 229, to establish the Patriot Express
Loan Program under which the Small Business Administration
may make loans to members of the military community wanting
to start or expand small business concerns.
Landrieu amendment No. 244 (to amendment No. 183), to
change the enactment date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, could I ask the Chair--I know we are
discussing the bill. But do we have a time constraint? I understand
that at 12 o'clock there may be some additional commentary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no formal time constraints at this
time.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me try to recap for just a moment because it is my
understanding there may be some colleagues coming down to the Senate
floor around 12 o'clock to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman and
extraordinary American, Geraldine Ferraro, whom we lost this week. I
most certainly want to be respectful to the Members who are coming to
the floor to pay tribute to our former colleague and an extraordinary
leader. But let me remind colleagues we are still trying to get to this
bill, an important bill for the country, an important bill to help put
this recession in our rearview mirror, an important bill that gives us
yet one more very carefully crafted tool to help create jobs on Main
Street, in rural areas, in suburban areas, and in urban areas all
across this country; that is, the 8-year reauthorization of the Small
Business Innovation and Research Program and Small Business Technology
Transfer Program.
This program is approximately 20 years old, first passed by Senator
Warren Rudman, when a report found its way to Congress that said,
alarmingly, agencies of the Federal Government, whether it was the
Department of Defense or NASA or NIH, were not accessing the power and
the technology of the small business community; that when they went out
to do research they were just looking at research offered by either
just universities and we are very proud of the work that our
universities do, but they were looking at large businesses. What did GE
have to offer? What did IBM have to offer?
It occurred to many Members of Congress at that time that there was a
tremendous amount of brain power and agility and quickness and cutting-
edge, innovative technologies resting in the minds and hearts and
dreams of entrepreneurs and small businesses in America the taxpayers
were not benefiting from.
As you can imagine, people might think of all this technology coming
out of New York or California. They might skip over a place such as
Montana where the Presiding Officer is from or Louisiana where this
Senator is from. So there were some very wise Members who said: Let's
create a program that will direct at least a portion of the research
and development funding of these large agencies so small businesses can
compete.
Now, these are grants not given out by formula or on a first-come/
first-served basis. These grants and contracts are given out based on
merit, about what looks promising, about potential, and about what the
taxpayers need in terms of dealing with problems.
One thing that comes immediately to mind is the terrible tragedy
unfolding in Japan as we speak with the potential meltdown, the process
of a nuclear reactor melting down. Some of the technology being
deployed to that situation, which is technology developed in the field
of robotics, was developed, a portion of it, through this SBIR Program.
So that makes very relevant the debate that we are having on the floor
today.
When people go home and now are turning on their televisions or
listening to their radios or over the Internet following those
unfolding dramatic developments in Japan, they know that one of the
companies that has been deployed and some of the material from the
United States actually was developed through this program. So that is
just one of a thousand examples that Senator Snowe and I have provided
in terms of testimony before the Small Business Committee to the
Congressional Record, and in our numerous speeches on the floor to talk
about the importance of this program.
I would like, as the manager of this bill--I am not sure it is going
to be possible, but I would most certainly like to have this bill voted
on and passed by the end of this week. I am not sure the leadership has
decided that is something that is possible. But I would like to send a
strong bill over to the House--hopefully, a bill that does not have
amendments on it that would warrant a Presidential threat of a veto--
and get this bill passed through the House and then passed on to the
President so he can sign it and send a very positive signal for his
agenda and all of our agendas for innovation--having America be the
best educated, the best competitors in the world in terms of the
economy, and giving our small businesses yet another tool.
We have worked on reducing the abuses in the credit card industry. We
have worked on capital access through a new lending program. We have
reduced fees, reduced taxes to the tune of $12 billion to our small
businesses throughout the country in the last Congress. We want to
continue to work on lowering taxes where we can, eliminating
regulations and supporting programs like this that work.
Let's eliminate or modify those programs that are not working, and
let's step up our support and reauthorize the programs that are. The
assessments done and the reviews of this program by the independent
researchers have been very positive across the board and outstanding.
Senator Snowe and I have taken into consideration those many reports
in the drafting of this bill and made some changes to the program so
that as it moves forward for the 8 years it will even be better.
One of my key goals and objectives is to make sure States such as
Louisiana or Mississippi or Montana or Wyoming, States that have not
previously been awarded many of these grants, know we have stepped up
some technical assistance and help so we can find the best technology
in this country to apply to some of our most pressing problems,
regardless of whether they are in the big cities and big places such as
New York, Los Angeles, CA. But we need our entrepreneurs around the
country to benefit by a program that they have access to as well.
So I am pleased that we can get back on the small business innovation
and research bill and small business technology transfer bill. Senator
Snowe and I will be coming to the floor periodically during the day to
continue to move this bill along.
I see my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, who is scheduled to
speak in just a few minutes. So at this time I will yield the floor.
Again, I hope, and I thank our colleagues for their cooperative nature
that they have been working in in terms of trying to get our bill
passed that will be so important to so many people in all of our
States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
____________________
REMEMBERING GERALDINE FERRARO
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators be permitted to speak for 5 minutes each on the
subject of Geraldine Ferraro: Senators Boxer, Hutchison, Stabenow,
Shaheen, Snowe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. We come to the floor with a heavy heart and great
sadness. Geraldine Ferraro, a former Member of the House of
Representatives, a Congresswoman from New York who was the first woman
to be nominated by a major party for Vice President, has lost her
gallant and persistent fight against cancer and has passed away.
I thank the leadership for offering the resolution noting the many
contributions she made to America and to express condolences to her
family.
For we women, before 1960, Gerry was a force of nature, a powerhouse.
She changed American politics. She changed the way women thought of
themselves and what we believed we could accomplish.
[[Page 4513]]
On July 11, 1984, when Walter Mondale called Gerry Ferraro and asked
her to be his Vice Presidential running mate, an amazing thing
happened. They took down the ``men only'' sign on the White House. For
Gerry and all American women, there was no turning back, only going
forward.
America knows Gerry as a political phenomenon. I knew her as a dear
friend and colleague. We served in the House together in the late
1970s. She left in 1984 to run for Vice President, and I left in 1986
to run for the Senate. We were among the early-bird women in the House
of Representatives. And as early birds, we were not afraid to ruffle
some feathers. We had some good times and passed some good legislation.
It must be historically noted that when Gerry came to the House in
1979, only 16 women were there. In 1984, when she left, we had moved to
23. But in 2011, on the day of her death, 74 women now serve in the
House, 50 Democrats, 24 Republicans, and 26 of those women are women of
color.
In the Congress, Gerry was a fighter. She was a fighter for New York.
She fought for transit, for tunnels. She loved earmarks, earmarks that
would help move her community forward. She also fought for the little
guy and gal. She was known for her attention to constituent services--
the senior getting a Social Security check, the vet who needed his
disability benefits, the kid from a blue-collar neighborhood like
herself who wanted to go to college. And she fought for women. She
fought for our status and she gave us a new stature.
When the campaign was over, she continued for all of her life to be a
source of inspiration and empowerment for women. In those early days of
the second wave of the American women's movement, the movement defined
women on what we did not have, what we did not have access to. What was
it we didn't have? Equal pay for equal work. It is hard to believe we
were not included in research protocols at NIH. And when it came to
having access to credit, we could not get a loan or a mortgage in our
own name in many circumstances. We needed a husband, a father, or a
brother to sign for it. But when Gerry was chosen for Vice President,
she showed us what we could be, what modern women in America had
become. Women felt if we could go for the White House, we could go for
anything. Gerry inspired.
On the night of July 19, 1984, in San Francisco at the Mosconi
Center, Gerry gave her acceptance speech. She became the first woman to
be nominated for Vice President for a major party. What a night. I was
there--the thrill, the excitement in the room, the turbo energy that
was there: 10,000 people jammed the Mosconi Center. Guy delegates gave
their tickets away to alternates, to their daughters, to people who
worked and helped out. They wanted to be there. People brought their
children. They carried them. They put them on their shoulders to see
what was about to occur.
When Gerry Ferraro walked on that stage, she electrified all of us.
The convention gave her a 10-minute standing and resounding ovation. We
couldn't sit down because we knew a barrier had been broken. And for
the rest, as she history, there would be more on the way.
The campaign was hard fought. She traveled over 55,000 miles, visited
85 cities, campaigned her heart out. But it was not meant to be. The
ticket lost to Reagan-Bush. But though she lost the election, she did
not lose her way. Gerry never gave up and never gave in. Her storied
career continued: a teacher at Harvard, a U.N. Ambassador on human
rights, always teaching, always inspiring, always empowering thousands
of women here and around the world.
Then in 1998, she was diagnosed with blood cancer. Once again, she
was determined not to give up and not to give in. She began the
greatest campaign of her life. She began the campaign for her own life.
She fought her cancer. She not only fought her cancer, she also fought
for cancer victims. She forged a relationship with Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison as well as my friendship. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will
tell the story herself. Her brother Allan Bailey suffered from the same
disease as Gerry. They met through an advocacy group on multiple
myeloma. Allan Bailey and Gerry Ferraro joined hands and joined
together and Kay Bailey Hutchison and I did, and we introduced the
Gerry Ferraro Research Investment and Education Act. I wanted it to be
Ferraro-Bailey, but Allan graciously said, Gerry is a marquis name. She
will attract a lot of attention, and we can get more money for research
and more interest in this dreaded disease.
That legislation passed. It showed sometimes when we come together
out of common adversity, we find common cause and we get things done.
That bill passed, and it is changing lives.
Gerry did various clinical trials. Often we talked. This is what she
said to me during the last few weeks. She said: I am glad I could be in
those clinical trials. In many ways they helped me live. But we also
knew the research would provide lessons so that others could live. Once
again, her mantra was: Never give up, never give in. She had toughness,
persistence, tenacity, and unfailing optimism in the face of adversity.
I believe it came from her own compelling and often riveting story.
It was that personal story that brought us together. We were both from
European ethnic backgrounds: She Italian, my proud Polish heritage. We
grew up in neighborhoods that were urban villages. Her father owned a
small neighborhood dime store. My father owned a grocery store, and
they were very much involved with their customers and community. We had
strong mothers who wanted to make sure we had good educations. When
Gerry's dad died, Gerry's mother took a job in the garment industry.
She sewed little beads on wedding dresses to make sure her brother and
Gerry had an education. Gerry did have that education. She went to
Marymount. She became a scholarship girl because she was so smart and
had so much talent. She felt it was the nuns who played such a big part
in her life. They coached her to be smart, and they coached her to be a
great debater. They taught her about her faith. For her, her faith was
about the beatitudes, especially the one that said: Hunger and thirst
after justice.
The other day when Gerry and I were talking, she reminded me that not
only did she go to Marymount, but so did Lady Gaga. She said: I am just
sorry I can't live to go to more alumni associations.
Then there was John, her beloved husband, a love story for the ages.
I was there at the church over a year ago when they renewed their vows
for their 50th anniversary. Their vows were not just for a day or for a
year or a decade. They believed their vows were for an eternity. Gerry
loved her husband, and she loved her children Donna, John, and Laura.
She was so proud of them--one a doctor, one an accomplished
businessman, another a TV producer and also worked on Wall Street. And
the grandchildren, there were always the pictures and the stories of
their many storied accomplishments.
Gerry Ferraro loved her family. She loved her extended family. That
went to her friends and her community. She loved America. Because she
believed, as she said to me: Only in America, Barbara, could somebody
who started out in a regular neighborhood, whose father passed away,
leaving a mother who taught her grit and determination, go on to run
for the Vice Presidency of the United States, to be an Ambassador for
human rights, and to make a difference in the lives of her family and
her community.
Gerry, we will miss you, but your legacy will live forever.
Mr. President, I now turn to the Senator from California, Barbara
Boxer, and then to Senator Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so proud to be here with my
colleagues Senator Mikulski and Kay Bailey Hutchison because of a woman
who brought us all together despite any differences we might have,
Geraldine Ferraro. I rise to pay tribute to Gerry.
I thank Senator Mikulski. Her remarks touched on every single point
[[Page 4514]]
that needs to be made about our friend. Gerry was a trailblazer. We all
remember the first female Vice Presidential nominee of a major party,
the first in U.S. history. She cracked open that glass ceiling for
women seeking higher office. It was a long time ago.
I just looked at an Associated Press photo of when Gerry arrived in
San Francisco to prepare for her speech at the convention. I was there
waiting for her to arrive--a much younger version of myself, I might
say. I don't remember what I said or did, but this picture tells a
story. We know the old saying: A picture says a thousand words. This
one says a million words. I have never seen anyone as excited as I
appear to be and was in this picture. Arms open wide, body language,
just incredulous that we had reached this milestone, all the while
knowing what a tough, tough time it would be for Gerry, as it is for
many women, whether they run for the Senate or for Governor or for Vice
President. It is a tough road still, especially all these many years
ago, more than 20 years.
Gerry was given a very hard time by the press. Gerry was given a very
hard time by her opponent. She proved without question that women can
stand up to the grilling. Women can stand up to the pressure. Women can
go toe to toe with anybody. I often say women are equal. We are not
better or worse. We are equal. Gerry proved it. When her campaign took
a tough turn and a lot of others would have tried to contain the
problem, she stood there in front of the press and said: Here I am. You
ask me anything you want, and I will stay here hour after hour. They
knew she meant it. She would have stayed there for days because that
was Gerry. She was open-hearted. She was straight from the shoulder.
She always said what was on her mind, and she did it in a way that was
also very appealing because you knew this was a woman who was willing
to look you in the eye and not give you any song and dance. It was what
it was. And for that she will be missed as a friend, as a colleague.
It is difficult today to imagine what it was like then. Now we see
our women figures here in the Senate and in the President's Cabinet and
in the Republican and Democratic Parties making a run for President and
Vice President. It is hard to imagine today that women were not
actively engaged in the highest of offices. Frankly, that is Geraldine
Ferraro's abiding legacy because, as Senator Mikulski so eloquently
stated, she did not win that race--it was a tough race; it was a very
tough race--but she proved a woman could do this.
When Gerry spoke about change, she felt in her heart the history-
making moment. I remember her in a white suit, as if it were yesterday.
In those years, TV people always said: Don't wear white. Gerry wore
white.
Ms. MIKULSKI. She was beautiful.
Mrs. BOXER. She was magnificent. And that smile and her
togetherness--at that moment in history, when not only was the whole
country watching, the whole world was watching--it was an electric
moment. I want to read what she said that night. She said:
By choosing a woman to run for our nation's second highest
office, you sent a powerful signal to all Americans. There
are no doors we cannot unlock. We will place no limits on
[our] achievements.
If we can do this, we can do anything.
And those words resonated not just with people who were interested in
politics but with women who were in the corporate world; women who were
going to law school--just a few in those years, now so many more; women
who just dreamed of going into health care, not as a nurse, although
some chose that--and some men do as well--but as physicians. This was
something I truly believe changed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes, and
then turn it over to Senator Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. It is
going to run us way past the recess time.
Mrs. BOXER. Well, Mr. President, there was only one Gerry Ferraro, so
I would go 5 minutes and turn it over to Senator Hutchison for as long
as she would want.
After graduation from college, Gerry got a job as a second grade
teacher at a public school in Queens. She applied to Fordham Law
School. That is the law school my husband went to. She was accepted
into the night program, despite a warning--listen to this--from an
admissions officer that she might be taking a man's place. She got into
law school. She was one of 2 women in a class of 179. Imagine, they
said to her: You will be taking a man's place in law school. She
persevered--one of just 2 women out of 179 students graduating in 1960.
Yes, she raised her family. She adored her family. There was not a
second that went by without her saying to one of us, anywhere in
earshot: I have to tell you about Laura, I have to tell you about John,
I have to tell you about what my kids are doing.
Did my colleague want to ask a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I ask if the Senator from California will yield for a
brief statement.
Mrs. BOXER. As long as it will not interrupt my statement.
Mr. DURBIN. I will have a longer statement for the Record because I
know Senator Hutchison is waiting, but I want to make one or two
comments about Geraldine Ferraro.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. First, my image of Geraldine Ferraro is this young
Congresswoman from California, with her arms outstretched, as you raced
toward one another in an iconic photograph of the two of you after she
won the Vice Presidential nomination. I will remember you and her in
that context forever. Second, it was my honor to serve with her in the
House and to count her as a friend. Third, in this long, long battle
she had, this medical battle, she never failed to remind all of us that
she was indeed one of the fortunate ones who had the resources to be
able to fight the battle, where many people did not.
I am going to miss Geraldine Ferraro. She was a great American.
Mrs. BOXER. I am very glad the Senator made that statement, and I
appreciate it very much.
When Gerry worked as an assistant district attorney, she formed a
Special Victims Bureau. She investigated rape, child and women abuse,
and abuse against the elderly at a time when no one was talking about
it.
She was elected to Congress. Senator Mikulski has gone into that, the
work on the Economic Equity Act. I was proud to work with both Senator
Mikulski and Gerry Ferraro on that and Senator Snowe and others.
I remember Senator Mikulski, Olympia Snowe, Gerry Ferraro, and
myself--we worked to open the House gym to women. It was a battle. We
had to resort to singing and everything else. We finally got into the
House gym. We said, yes, women need to work out too. That is the way it
was then. We only had 24 women in the House and Senate. Now we have 88
of us.
I will skip over her time as a broadcaster and all the things she did
that Senator Mikulski talked about--her work in women's rights--but I
wish to conclude with her brave spirit as she faced multiple myeloma,
the bone cancer that ultimately took her life. I wish to do it in this
context.
I have a good friend now, whose name is Robin, and her mother is
battling the same kind of cancer Gerry was battling. As we know, Gerry
was given 4 or 5 years and went on, thank God, for much longer.
This woman lives far away from her daughter Robin. When Gerry passed,
she called her daughter and said: I need to see you. Will you come out
and stay with me, as I battle this cancer?
Robin said: Well, what is it, mom? You are doing great.
She said: We just lost Gerry, and she was the one who kept my heart
and soul together and my spirits up, and I knew she was there battling.
Now that I have lost her, I don't know, I feel a hole, I am empty.
That is just the most eloquent thing I could say about Gerry. This
woman never met Geraldine Ferraro in person, but Gerry had that way
about her that she could reach you as if she was touching you. It is a
tremendous loss, first and foremost for the family, whom she adored
beyond words, and, secondly, for all the rest of us who just
[[Page 4515]]
need someone like that out there standing up and being brave and
telling it like it is and never giving up.
Mr. President, I am so honored I could be here with my colleagues,
and I am proud to yield to Senator Hutchison for as much time as she
needs.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Hutchison, the time is
allocated as 5 minutes, but I know you want to speak and were a very
dear friend. Please proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Boxer.
Mr. President, I do want to talk about this remarkable woman because
I think, as has been mentioned before, her loss is being felt
throughout America for many different reasons. She was a trailblazer,
and she was one of the great female role models of her generation.
I wrote a book in 2004 called ``American Heroines: The Spirited Women
Who Shaped Our Country.'' It was to profile the women who were the
earliest trailblazers in different fields--education, sports, politics,
journalism. Then I interviewed contemporary women who were still
breaking barriers in those fields.
In the public service chapter, I profiled Margaret Chase Smith
because she was the longest serving woman elected to the Senate in her
own right at the time and she was a true trailblazer. I then
interviewed Sandra Day O'Connor, our first woman Supreme Court Justice,
and Geraldine Ferraro, our first woman nominee for Vice President of a
major party.
I asked Gerry Ferraro in my interview with her: What was your most
important trait for success?
And she said:
I think the ability to work hard and, if something doesn't
work, to learn from the mistake and move on. That's what's
happened with my own life. It goes to the personal side from
watching my mother, who moved on after becoming a widow with
two kids to support. She was thirty-nine years old. . . .
Then I watched her move on and do whatever was necessary to
get the job of educating her children done. I'm exactly the
same way. I'll do whatever is necessary to get the job done,
whatever it is. And then if I do something that doesn't work,
then I go to the next goal.
I asked her what was her biggest obstacle. She almost laughed. She
said:
I'm sixty-eight. The obstacles in my life have changed with
time. An obstacle when I was a kid was being in a boarding
school away from my mother because my father had died. I had
no choice. It wasn't like the boarding schools or the prep
schools of today. I was in a semicloistered convent. It was
lonely, and I had to work hard. I wanted to go to college,
but we didn't have the money for college, so I knew I had to
get top marks in order to get scholarships. That was my
obstacle then.
Money was always an obstacle when I was a kid. I taught
when I went to law school at night, because I couldn't afford
to go during the day. When I applied [for law school], they
would say things like, ``Gerry, are you serious, because
you're taking a man's place,'' you know. . . .
And then [after getting out of law school]--
As was mentioned earlier, she was one of only two women in her
class--
I was faced with the challenge of trying to find a job. I
interviewed at five law firms. I was in the top ten percent
of my class.
But she did not get a job offer. Well, I related to that because I
graduated from law school, after her, in 1967, and law firms in Texas
did not hire women then either. So I know how she felt as she went
through obstacles and obstacles and obstacles. But she said: In the
end, ``each thing was an obstacle that I had to get by'' at the time.
But she didn't have too many obstacles because she just picked herself
up and kept right on going. She truly was an inspiration and a
trailblazer for women of our time.
Throughout her life as a public school teacher, as an assistant
district attorney, as a Congresswoman, and as a candidate for Vice
President, Gerry Ferraro fought for the causes that were important to
her. When she learned she had multiple myeloma, a somewhat rare blood
disease that is incurable, she drew upon that same fighting spirit. As
she waged the battle with her own disease, Gerry stepped into the
spotlight because she knew if she talked about it, with her high
profile, she could bring help to others.
Her testimony before Congress was instrumental in the passage of a
bill that Senator Mikulski, who is on the floor leading this effort
today, and I cosponsored together in 2001 and 2002. Our legislation
gave the research community the tools they need to discover what
triggers these deadly blood diseases, to devise better treatments, and
to work toward a cure. In our bill, Barbara and I decided to name the
Geraldine Ferraro Blood Cancer Education Program for Gerry Ferraro to
raise awareness and spread the lifesaving information about myeloma,
leukemia, and other forms of blood cancer. Gerry Ferraro was on the
floor of the House when her bill--our bill--passed the House of
Representatives on April 30, 2002. Her daughter was in the gallery with
my staffer, and there was so much joy in her eyes and her demeanor.
But then Gerry Ferraro went about the business of fashioning the
education program. She consulted with the doctors at Harvard, at Dana-
Farber, with Dr. Ken Anderson, her doctor. She consulted with him
because she wanted an interactive Web site because she knew that
doctors all over the country were searching for information on the
treatment of this disease because they were so unaware at the time of
what you could do to help patients.
Well, this is personal to me because my brother Allan also has
multiple myeloma, and I got involved in this because I watched him
bravely fight like Gerry Ferraro was doing. And my brother is a great
patient. He is tough like Gerry. He is fighting like Gerry. And he is
doing really well. But we knew how hard it was because we watched Allan
fight this disease and take many of the same drugs and have the same
doctor consultations as Gerry. So Gerry and Allan knew each other and
traded information, and the patients with these diseases do that. They
reach out, they help each other because they know it is the person with
the experience who knows how you feel when you just don't feel as
though you can get up in the morning. People such as Kathy Giusti, who
was also a good friend of Gerry Ferraro's, and Ken Anderson, they
traded information, and it helped all of them to know they had that
kind of support.
So she was an inspiration. Her dignity and grace in fighting multiple
myeloma will be one of the trademarks in her life, along with the other
great trailblazing she has done.
Just last month, the women of the Senate pulled together to return
the encouragement. We knew Gerry was having a hard time, and we took a
picture of the women of the Senate, we all signed it around the edges
and we sent it to her, saying: Thanks for being our champion. Thanks
for all you do for the women of our country.
Gerry was not just a champion for women running for public office,
she was a champion for women to succeed in every field, in every
sector. She took the first powerful swing at the glass ceiling. She
will not be here to see the woman President who is sworn into office,
who will finish the breaking of that glass ceiling. But we will all be
standing on the shoulders of Gerry Ferraro, and certainly that first
woman President will as well, because she took those first steps, such
as so many of the early trailblazers in all the different sectors. The
first ones don't see their success, but what they do by showing the
dignity and the courage and the tenacity and the grace does prepare the
way for the next generation or the next woman to move to the next
level, and that is what Gerry Ferraro has done for all the women of our
country.
I will always remember her friendship. I appreciate her leadership.
We will all miss her on a personal level, but we will always remember
in the bigger picture what she did for this country.
Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Mikulski. I yield the
floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Snowe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my good friends
and esteemed colleagues, Senator Barbara
[[Page 4516]]
Mikulski of Maryland and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, as we
honor a compatriot of ours from the House of Representatives, an
electoral trailblazer, and political torchbearer--the incomparable and
courageous, Geraldine Ferraro, who passed away last Saturday after a
brave and resilient 12-year battle with cancer.
As this august body will hear many times over, Geraldine was a
pioneering champion and a dynamic force for women and women's rights, a
stalwart legislator and colleague of all three of ours in the U.S.
House of Representatives, and always a dear friend through more than
three decades. As America's first female Vice-Presidential nominee for
a major party, Geraldine has forever secured a legendary position along
the timeline of American political history, as Walter Mondale selected
her as his running mate in the 1984 Presidential election.
(Ms. MIKULSKI assumed the chair.)
While America was learning about Geraldine on the national stage,
Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, and I knew her as a legislative,
sister-in-arms, if you will, as all of us served together in the U.S.
House of Representatives. Geraldine and I were members of the same
House freshman class that began service in January 1979 that brought
the total number of women in the 96th Congress in the House to 16.
And all four of us fought for myriad causes, most especially those
affecting America's women. Looking back, I take enormous pride, as I
know both Senators Mikulski and Boxer do, that we spoke as women first,
not as Republicans or Democrats, that women's issues transcended
partisan lines for us. The fact was, we just couldn't afford to draw
partisan lines with women underrepresented in Congress. And that idea
is what drove our agenda at the bipartisan Congressional Caucus for
Women's Issues, which I cochaired for over 10 years in the House of
Representatives and where Geraldine Ferarro was also at the vanguard in
amplifying issues for literally generations of women.
Our adherence to working together--and to the ideal of principle over
politics--became our foundation. We determined if we didn't act, who
would? And we started to make a difference for women, and not a moment
too soon. Indeed, there was indeed a time in America when our laws
specifically worked against women, when economic equality pertained
only to economic equality among men--not women, when our laws didn't
reflect the changing, dual responsibilities of women who were
increasingly working as well as caring for a family.
Well, we weren't going to accept the status quo any longer, and
certainly Geraldine was not one to ever countenance the notion of
``that's just the way it is.'' To the contrary. We confronted these
disparities for women head on and introduced a package of laws that
opened the doors of economic opportunity for the women of America by
revising laws and giving women the tools required to succeed. That
package was the multifaceted Economic Equity Act. Among a litany of
provisions, we called for a study of the government's pay practices,
sought to ensure equal credit for women in business ventures, and
battled with Geraldine Ferraro who led the effort to end pension award
discrimination against women who were discovering upon their husband's
death that, unbeknownst to them, they had been left with absolutely no
pension benefits.
And in a group of women legislators that was not, shall we say,
comprised of shrinking violets, no one gave greater voice to these
issues, no one demonstrated more passion in their advocacy, and no one
pressed for remedies to right these wrongs with more verve or skill
than Geraldine Ferraro. She was a bulwark against injustice and a
cherished champion for fairness in an America where women were
increasing their roles in American life and their presence in the U.S.
workplace and economy.
On a personal note, I can't help but think that part of our mutual
bond was that we came from similar backgrounds. Our families immigrated
to this great land--hers from Italy and mine from Greece. Our heritages
spoke to the very best of our Nation's mosaic and the American dream
where anything is possible and the only limits you have are those you
place on yourself. Indeed, the New York Times mentions how Geraldine's
mother crocheted beads on wedding dresses to send her to the best
schools. My Aunt Mary worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. night shift at a
textile mill in Lewiston, ME, to earn money to ensure my cousins and I
received a good education. Although Geraldine and I didn't agree on
everything, we shared an unequivocal determination to make a lasting
difference on issues for women and working families--an unerring focus
that surmounted politics and party labels.
Not surprisingly, more than 30 years later, Geraldine's legacy lives
on through the 74 women serving the other body today, as well as the 17
women currently serving in the Senate. How fitting it is that on the
Monday after she passed away, my 16 Senate women colleagues and I
submitted a resolution advocating for women's rights in North Africa
and the Middle East. We have the moral high ground in that clarion call
in no small part because of Geraldine's historic leadership and legacy.
In closing, I can't help but recall the great Lady Astor, who was the
first woman to ever serve in the British House of Parliament. In fact,
on the day she took her seat in that distinguished body, a Member of
Parliament turned to her and said, ``Welcome to the most exclusive
men's club in Europe.'' Demonstrating the kind of moxie and sense of
obligation that were hallmarks of America's Geraldine Ferraro, Lady
Astor responded ``it won't be exclusive for long.'' she said. ``When I
came in, I left the door wide open!''
Geraldine Ferraro espoused and exemplified what Lady Astor so
memorably articulated--that it is not enough to break old barriers and
chart a new course, you have to ensure that others are able to traverse
it as well. Geraldine spent a lifetime making certain that the path she
helped pave was available and accessible to every woman with the
courage and will to travel it. And so, today, it is a privilege for me
to extol this remarkable woman whose indelible imprint upon the
political and public policy arenas will be felt for generations to
come.
At this most difficult of times, our thoughts and prayers remain with
her husband of 50 years, John--as well as their children, Donna, John
Jr., and Laura and Geraldine's grandchildren. May they be comforted by
the knowledge that so many share in their profound sense of loss, as
well as the memory of a trailblazing woman who, above all else, was an
adoring and beloved mother and grandmother who leaves an indelible mark
upon her family, as well as an entire Nation.
Thank you, Madam President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I know we are about to recess, but I
wish to take a minute or two to add my voice to all the women in the
Senate who have been here today and thank the Presiding Officer for her
leadership for encouraging us to honor Geraldine Ferraro.
I remember being on the floor of the 1984 Democratic Convention when
she gave her acceptance speech for the Vice President of the United
States, and it was electric listening to her. It epitomized for me, and
I am sure every woman there, the fact that women could do anything.
Geraldine Ferraro worked tirelessly on behalf of human rights and
women's rights around the globe. She dedicated her public service to
the ideals of respect and equality and she lived a career that called
on all women to challenge the glass ceilings of the world. I think it
is particularly important because just because one woman breaks the
glass ceiling doesn't mean opportunities are open to every woman, and
she understood that and continued to encourage all the ceilings across
the world to be broken for women.
Gerry's life was a powerful example for all of us who are honoring
her
[[Page 4517]]
today and for our daughters and granddaughters. We thank her for
leading the way. She will be missed.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to reflect on the life
and legacy of Geraldine Ferraro who lost her heroic battle with cancer
on Saturday.
Geraldine Ferraro was first elected to public office in 1978 to
represent Queens in the U.S. House of Representatives.
As a member of the Public Works and Transportation Committee, she
pushed to improve mass transit around La Guardia Airport.
Later, she would cosponsor the Economic Equity Act, which was
intended to accomplish many of the aims of the never-ratified equal
rights amendment.
In 1984, former Vice President and a distinguished Member of this
body, Walter Mondale, chose Gerry to join him as his Vice Presidential
running mate, the first woman to be placed on a national ticket.
I was privileged to serve as the mayor of San Francisco in 1984 where
the Democratic Party held its convention that election year.
Twenty-seven years later, as I look back on that time, I realize what
an important and historical moment her selection was to American
politics.
I recall the emotion and enthusiasm of people--men and women--at the
Moscone Center in San Francisco when Gerry took the podium.
Sixty-four years after women won the right to vote, Geraldine Ferraro
represented a new beginning for our politics. It was an amazing
feeling.
While the election didn't go the Democrats' way that year, Gerry's
selection was a victory for a generation of young women who saw that
anything is possible and no position in government has a ``men only''
sign on the door.
As the first Vice Presidential nominee of a major party, she not only
put a crack in the glass ceiling that year, she demonstrated the
dedication and the competence of women in the political arena.
I didn't know her well, but I do know her experiences well.
I know how tough it was as a woman running for political office--only
to find out everyone else was discussing the style of your outfit.
I know how tough it was to be one of the first elected officials to
speak using phrases like, ``As a mother,'' or ``If I were pregnant . .
.''
I know how tough it was as a woman debating men in political debates
and then when it was over, debating a dozen reporters.
I know how tough it was as a woman who fought and won for change to
live to see other women make a dozen other cracks in that glass
ceiling.
But the same ideals Geraldine Ferraro fought for during her public
life are the same ideals we fight for today.
It would be another 24 years after that night in San Francisco before
another woman from a major party was nominated for Vice President.
And even though Hillary Rodham Clinton came close to being nominated
in 2008 as the Democratic Presidential candidate, a woman has yet to
occupy the Oval Office.
There are only 16 other women besides myself serving in the U.S.
Senate. In the 435 Member House, just 71 are women. And just six States
have women Governors.
Despite these statistics today, Geraldine Ferraro's career and
example gave women across the country hope and heart.
At the time when Gerry Ferraro and I were in office, people had
reservations about women in office. So the press pushed you further and
further--just to see how smart you were or how you would react.
When I was mayor, I had to do more homework than my counterparts; I
had to be prepared for every possible question--more questions and
detail than my counterparts.
There was a judgment that women were not effective. But that judgment
of effectiveness has changed.
It took some time, but women in office have shown we are capable of
offering legislation, working to pass it, and being just as effective
as our male counterparts.
Geraldine Ferraro gave it her all. She gave women everywhere an
example of determination. She continued that drive when she supported
other women in national office.
And she will continue to give us all hope and heart for decades to
come in her place in history.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life,
achievements, and legacy of Geraldine Anne Ferraro, who paved the way
for aspiring women leaders and politicians across the Nation and the
world to reach the highest positions of power.
Geraldine dedicated her life to defending women's and children's
rights and helping the less fortunate, whether in public service, as an
attorney, as a Congresswoman, or as Ambassador to the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights. Her career was a turning point for women in
politics, and an inspiration for women everywhere.
In the early 1950s, when women were not expected to attend college,
Geraldine was already breaking through the ``glass ceiling.'' The
daughter of Italian immigrants, she worked her way through college and
in 1956 became the first woman in her family to receive a college
degree. In 1960, she graduated with honors from law school, where she
was one of only 2 women in her graduating class of 179 students. She
became a strong advocate for abused women and for the poor while
serving as assistant district attorney for Queens County, NY, where she
headed a new bureau that prosecuted sex crimes, child abuse, and
domestic violence.
Her passion to change America for the better took her all the way to
the U.S. Congress, where she fought for equal pay, pensions, and
retirement plans for women. She was also a leader on environmental
issues. In 1984, she led passage of a Superfund renewal bill and called
for improvements in the handling of environmental site cleanups.
Geraldine will be remembered not only as a pioneer for women's and
children's rights but for human rights around the world. As the U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Geraldine
supported the Commission's decision to condemn anti-Semitism as a human
rights violation. And in 1995, she led the U.S. delegation in the
historic Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.
But what Geraldine will forever be remembered for is that she made
possible what was previously unthinkable, that a woman could be a
candidate for Vice President of the United States. When former Vice
President and Presidential candidate Walter Mondale selected Geraldine
Ferraro to be his running mate in 1984, she became the only Italian
American to be a major-party national nominee as well as the first
woman.
In 1984, Geraldine fought a tough race, venturing into unchartered
territory and blazing a trail. Even though Geraldine lost that race,
she went where no woman had ever been before, teaching us that ``when
women run, women win.''
A tireless champion for women in the political arena, Geraldine
helped women politicians gain a stronger voice and run for public
office. It is because of Geraldine that women today, including myself,
can go even farther than before. Generations of female politicians will
forever stand on her shoulders.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, an incredible woman died this week after
a long and hard-fought battle with cancer.
Geraldine Ferraro led a trailblazing life, constantly achieving and
proving the naysayers wrong.
She was one of two women in her graduating class from Fordham law
school, taking night classes after teaching all day.
She was an attorney in a male-dominated New York District Attorney's
Office.
She was the first woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives
from New York's 9th District in Queens--a district that most people
assumed would not elect her, not because she was a woman but because
she was a Democrat.
[[Page 4518]]
If she had done nothing more, Gerry Ferraro would have earned her
place in history.
But then, on July 11, 1984, just 64 years after American women won
the right to vote, Geraldine Ferraro agreed to be Walter Mondale's
running mate in his race for the White House--the first time in history
that a woman had ever run on the Presidential ticket of a major
political party.
``I didn't pause for a minute'' she later wrote.
It's hard for many people today, particularly young people, to
understand what a revolutionary act it was for Geraldine Ferraro to
agree to break that barrier. Less than 20 years earlier, want ads in
American newspapers were still segregated into ``men's jobs'' and
``women's jobs''--and believe me, Vice President of the United States
was not listed under ``women's work.''
As a result of Gerry Ferraro's courage, the doors of opportunity
swung open for millions of women--not just in politics, but in every
profession.
She said often that ``[c]ampaigns, even if you lose them, do serve a
purpose . . . [the] days of discrimination are numbered.'' She was
right.
For the last 12 years of her life, Gerry Ferraro fought a terrible
blood cancer called myeloma. Once again, she was a pioneer, using a new
drug which enabled her to live well beyond her physicians' initial
estimate.
Each injection cost over $1,000 and she went to twice weekly
treatments. She was always aware that she was fortunate to be able to
afford those life-extending treatments. Even when times were the worst,
Gerry Ferraro was an eloquent and energetic advocate for more funding
for cancer research, and for help for the 50,000 Americans who are
living with cancer and can't afford the treatments for their illness.
Gerry's mother taught her the first lessons about being a strong and
independent woman.
When Geraldine was just 8 years old, her father died. She saw her
widowed, immigrant mother work long hours as a seamstress so that she
could afford to send her children to good schools. She was living proof
for Gerry that, with hard work, you can make a good life for your
children in America. She never forgot what her mother did for her and
kept her maiden name after she married as a sign of respect.
Gerry Ferraro was a true egalitarian. When she learned that because
she was married she was paid less than male attorneys, she quit and ran
for Congress. She fought for the equal rights amendment and cosponsored
the Economic Equity Act to end pension inequality.
President Clinton appointed her to the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights, and later the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights.
I had the opportunity to serve with Gerry in the House of
Representatives in a very difficult time, and I am honored to have
called her my friend. I offer my deepest condolences to her husband
John, her children Donna, Laura and John Jr., and her eight
grandchildren. Geraldine's passing is a deep loss for so many people,
but her hard work and accomplishments will continue to live.
Mr. REID. Madam President, America's favorite people are pioneers. We
are a nation that celebrates those who first touched the moon,
discovered the technologies that changed the world, and fought for what
is right before everyone else.
We believe in the brave and admire those who believe in their own
dreams--those who pursue them fearlessly, who leave a trail for the
rest of us to follow and a legacy to emulate.
This week, America honors a woman we will always remember for
breaking one of the highest glass ceilings in history. For two
centuries, in election after election, Americans went into voting
booths and saw lots of Williams and Johns and Jameses on the ballot.
Then, in 1984, they saw the name Geraldine.
As the first woman on a major Presidential ticket, Geraldine Ferraro
continued America's proud pioneer tradition. It wasn't the first time
she led the way. Congresswoman Ferraro worked her way through law
school at a time when few women did so. When the people of Queens, NY,
elected her to the House of Representatives she was 1 of only 16 women
Members. There was only one at the time serving in the Senate. Today
there are 76 women serving in the House--one of whom was the first
woman Speaker of the House--and 17 in the Senate.
I served in the House of Representatives with Congresswoman Ferraro
and am deeply saddened by her death. She was an inspiration to my
daughter and nine granddaughters, and to all of us who believe in our
Nation's eternal pursuit of equality. On behalf of the people of
Nevada--a State settled, built, and strengthen by pioneers--I honor the
memory of my friend, Geraldine Ferraro.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Webb).
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
FINANCIAL TROUBLES
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to talk about our
Nation's financial troubles. Over the years, I have supported a
balanced budget amendment, spending caps, and spending cuts. Recently,
we had a proposal to fund the government for the remainder of the
fiscal year, and I voted against it because I felt we needed to do more
than the amendment proposed.
The fact is, we need to do much more. I agree Congress should cut
expenses. But taking whacks at only 12 percent of the budget--that part
of the budget that is the so-called discretionary spending portion
outside of Defense, that is not part of the mandatory spending, such as
all the entitlement programs, and that is only 12 percent of the budget
and includes funding for education and roads and bridges and medical
research and NASA and environmental research--even if we whacked all
that, it is still not going to solve the problem.
Cutting this domestic discretionary spending alone is barely a
bandaid, let alone a real cure.
What we need is a comprehensive long-term package. For example, when
American families fall on hard times, they just do not cut back on
eating out or going to the movies. The American family is forced to
make wholesale lifestyle sacrifices. Or take, for instance, when a
company, a corporation, faces the threat of bankruptcy. They do not
only cut salaries or stop buying office supplies, they go in and
restructure entire delivery schemes and future investments.
In the same way, we just cannot focus on slicing what is the
conversation that is going on down in the House of Representatives
right now, slicing one small part of the budget, which is discretionary
spending, because that is not going to reduce the annual deficit and
get at the national debt. We have to do more.
Even if we cut huge swaths of discretionary spending, including the
programs that help those who need it the most, our expenses for all the
other programs in government, mandatory programs, are still growing
exponentially. So everything has to be on the table.
Now, how in the world are we going to do this in the next few days?
By the time the clock runs out on April 8, where we are faced with
funding the government for the remaining 6 months of this fiscal year,
how are we going to do it? What would it look like if our debt keeps
growing?
[[Page 4519]]
Well, the Federal Government is going to have to start writing huge
checks to our creditors. Who is a creditor? China is a creditor, and we
are having to write for them huge checks on interest payments alone. We
will not have anything left to pay for things that we promised to our
people, and no one else will want to lend us any more money.
The money people have spent their lives paying in to Social Security
may not come back to them unless we can solve this budgetary crisis.
Bonds that have been bought and held for decades will go down in value
if we cannot meet our debt obligations. Of course, if we do not get to
the point that we can pay our debts, then the stock market could even
have a worse crash than we had last time.
So if we do not address this pending debt crisis now, our children
and grandchildren could be sorely affected by the financial condition
of this country in the future.
Every economist we have listened to lately has said that we need to
provide certainty to our creditors and to the markets. In other words,
they need to know that we will get our debt under control before
interest payments skyrocket and overwhelm our obligations. No one knows
how long we have before our creditors get nervous and start to make it
harder for the United States to borrow money. But they all agree we
have to put into place a long-term plan instead of waiting to act until
the crisis is upon us. The crisis is coming. It is coming on April 8.
That is the first crisis.
Assuming that we can get through this and get the government funded
for the remaining 6 months of the fiscal year--until the end of
September--the next crisis that is coming is the debt ceiling--probably
in early June--that has to be raised in order for the government to pay
its obligations.
And then we are going to have to have a plan for next year's budget,
the fiscal year that starts October 1, in order to get the votes to
increase the debt ceiling. So between now and June, first in a couple
of weeks, and then in a couple of months, we are going to have to
devise a comprehensive plan.
I am going to support cuts across the board. I am going to support
cuts in discretionary spending. But I also want to see cuts in what we
call tax expenditures, which are equivalent to spending, but are
nothing more than outrageous tax breaks to big corporations that make
billions of dollars in profits each year. For example, some of the
royalty payments that are not being paid by oil companies for their
privilege of extracting oil from Federal lands, particularly those
lands in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. There are corporations that
ship massive amounts of jobs overseas, and they get tax breaks for it.
There is also money made by U.S. citizens that is being held offshore
in foreign accounts, which is not reported to the United States, and
tax is not being paid on that income. So there is plenty of opportunity
to tighten up.
Another place that we can tighten up is to implement the changes that
we made in the health care bill that cut the fraud that plagues
programs like Medicare and Medicaid. It is costing us billions and
billions of dollars.
So there are tireless efforts that are being made by a lot of
Senators right now trying to work together to draft a comprehensive
plan. I came to the Senate to fight for my State and for our country,
and if we continue to allow a debt crisis to happen when, in fact, we
had the opportunity to avoid it, it is going to be far more reckless
than casting a vote that is going to be disliked by some. I am ready to
stand and have that fight. Yet we should not have to. We should, as the
Good Book says, ``Come, let us reason together.'' Then we can find a
comprehensive solution to this budgetary crisis.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
LIBYA
Mr. McCAIN. I would like to take time today to address the ongoing
situation in Libya. Last night, the President made a strong defense of
our military action in Libya. I welcome his remarks, and I appreciate
that he explained why this intervention was both right and necessary,
especially in light of the unprecedented democratic awakening that is
now sweeping the broader Middle East.
There has been much criticism of the President's handling of the
situation in Libya--some legitimate, some not. But the fact is, because
we did act, the United States and our coalition partners averted a
strategic and humanitarian disaster in Libya.
Even as we seek adjustments to U.S. policy where appropriate to
ensure that we accomplish the U.S. goal as stated by the President of
forcing Qadhafi to leave power, I believe the President's decision to
intervene in Libya deserves strong bipartisan support in Congress and
among all Americans.
It is worth remembering, especially for the critics of this
intervention, exactly what we would be facing in Libya now had we not
taken action. Just over 1 week ago, Qadhafi was bearing down on
Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people, and the main seat of the Libyan
opposition, as well as the provisional government that has now emerged.
Qadhafi pledged in his words: No mercy for these people. He pledged
to go house to house, to crush everyone opposed to him. Had we not
taken action in Libya, Benghazi would now be remembered in the same
breath as Srebrenica, a scene of mass slaughter and a source of
international shame.
Libyan refugees would now be streaming into Egypt and Tunisia
destabilizing those critical countries during their already daunting
political transitions. If we had allowed Qadhafi to slaughter Arabs and
Muslims in Benghazi who were pleading for the U.S. military to rescue
them, America's moral standing in the broader Middle East would have
been devastated. Al-Qaida and other violent extremists would have
exploited the resulting chaos and hopelessness. The forces of
counterrevolution in the region would have gotten the message that the
world would tolerate the violent oppression of peaceful demonstrations
for universal rights. This would have been a dramatic setback for the
Arab spring which represents the most consequential geopolitical
opportunity in centuries.
That is why Libya matters and why we were right to intervene. Yes,
there are many other places in the world where evil resides, where
monsters brutalize civilians. The United States cannot and should not
intervene in all of these places. But we were right to do so in Libya
because of the unique position this country now occupies at a moment of
historic change in the Middle East and North Africa. This does not mean
we should take the same actions toward other countries in the region as
we have toward Libya.
Each of these countries is different. Their challenges and situations
are different. When governments, both friend and foe, use force and
oppression to crush peaceful demands for universal rights, we need to
be clear in our condemnation, and we need to support the aspirations of
all people who seek greater freedom, justice, and economic opportunity.
But let's be clear. Qadhafi's brutal and vicious slaughter of fellow
Arabs and Muslims has set Libya completely apart from other countries
in the region, and it warranted the decisive military response we and
our international partners have taken. While some believe the President
should have sought a congressional authorization for the use of force,
or even a formal declaration of war prior to taking military action in
Libya, I think his actions were in keeping both with the
[[Page 4520]]
constitutional powers of the President and with past practices, be it
President Reagan's action in Grenada or President Clinton's action in
the Balkans.
Had Congress taken even a few days to debate the use of force prior
to acting in Libya, there would have been nothing left to save in
Benghazi. That is why our Founders gave the President the power as
Commander in Chief to respond swiftly and energetically to crises. What
we need now is not a debate about the past; that can come later. Many
of us who wanted a no-fly zone at the time still are convinced that
this could have been over by now. But the fact is, it is in the past.
What we need is a forward-looking strategy to accomplish the U.S.
goal--as articulated by the President--of forcing Qadhafi to leave
power. We have prevented the worst outcome in Libya, but we have not
yet secured our goal. As some of us predicted, U.S. and coalition
airpower has decisively and quickly reversed the momentum of Qadhafi's
forces, but now we need to refine U.S. strategy to achieve success as
quickly as possible.
As every military strategist knows, the purpose of employing military
force is to achieve policy goals. Our goal in Libya is that Qadhafi
must go, and it is the right goal. But let's be honest with ourselves:
We are indeed talking about regime change, whether the President wants
to call it that or not. While I agree with the President that we should
not send U.S. ground troops to Libya to remove Qadhafi from power, that
is exactly what Libyan opposition forces are fighting to do. They are
now on the outskirts of Qadhafi's hometown of Surt, and they appear to
have no intention of stopping there.
Thus far, U.S. and coalition airpower has cleared a path for the
opposition to advance. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizes
the use of ``all necessary measures'' to protect civilians in Libya. As
long as Qadhafi remains in power, he will pose an increasing danger to
the world, and civilians in Libya will not be safe.
Ultimately, we need to be straight with the American people and with
ourselves. We are not neutral in the conflict in Libya. We want the
opposition to succeed, and we want Qadhafi to leave power. These are
just causes. And we must therefore provide the necessary and
appropriate assistance to aid the opposition in their fight. That
certainly means continuing to use air power to degrade Qadhafi's
military forces in the field, and I am encouraged by the fact that we
are now bringing in AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft to provide more
close-in air support.
This is the Libyan people's fight, but we need to continue to help
make it a fairer fight, until Qadhafi is forced to leave power. I was
very encouraged today to hear our ambassador to the United Nations
suggest that the United States may provide arms to the opposition. We
should also provide them, if requested and as appropriate, with
resources, command and control technology, communications equipment,
battlefield intelligence, and training. We need to take every
responsible measure to help the Libyan opposition change the balance of
power on the ground.
Yes, it has been documented that many eastern Libyans went to fight
in Iraq, Many met their end there too. But Libyans are not rising up
against Qadhafi now under the banner of al-Qaida. To the contrary, they
have largely pledged their support to the Transitional National
Council, which is based in Benghazi, and representative of tribes and
communities across Libya. The leaders of this council are not unknown
to us. They have met with senior administration officials, including
the Secretary of State, as well as other world leaders. Their
supporters are brave lawyers, students, and human rights advocates who
just want to choose their own future free from Qadhafi. They have
declared their vision for Libya as, quote, ``a constitutional
democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human
rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its
citizens.'' If these moderate, democratic forces do not succeed in
Libya, we know exactly who would fill the void: the radicals and the
ideologues. We have seen this movie before.
We cannot make the assumption that time is on our side. It is not.
Perhaps Qadhafi's regime will crack tomorrow. I hope it will. But hope
is not a strategy. If our strategy does not succeed in forcing Qadhafi
to leave power sooner rather than later, we run the risk of a prolonged
and bloody stalemate. That is not in America's interest or in the
interest of the Libyan people. The risks are still too high of
repeating a similar outcome from the first gulf war--where we had
crushing sanctions and a no-fly zone in place, but still Saddam Hussein
managed to hold onto power, threaten the world, and brutalize his own
people for another 12 years. And only then, it took an armed invasion
to remove him from power. That is not a definition of success in Libya.
And it certainly is not a limited mission. It is a recipe for a costly
and indefinite stalemate. We must avert that outcome.
Our mission in Libya is going well, but we have not yet accomplished
our goal. I am extremely thankful and grateful for our many friends and
allies, especially our Arab partners, who are contributing to this
mission. However, none of this is a substitute for sustained U.S.
leadership. If our goal in Libya is worth fighting for, and I believe
it is, then the United States must remain strongly engaged to force
Qadhafi to leave power. Nothing less is desirable or sustainable.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011--Continued
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I was originally going to call up a pending
amendment, No. 215, the Rockefeller amendment. I am informed that
amendment is at present the subject of some negotiation and a consent
package. I do wish to speak briefly today in support of the amendment
filed by Senator Rockefeller and on his behalf, since he is away from
the Senate today attending the funeral of a close friend.
Like Senator McConnell, I have expressed deep reservations about the
consequences of unilateral regulation of greenhouse gases by the EPA.
In my view, this will result in long and expensive regulatory processes
that could lead to overly stringent and very costly controls on carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. This regulatory framework
is so broad and potentially far-reaching that it could eventually touch
nearly every facet of this Nation's economy, putting unnecessary
burdens on industry and driving many businesses overseas through
policies that have been implemented purely at the discretion of the
executive branch and absent a clearly stated intent of the Congress.
Our farms, factories, transportation systems, and power-generating
capacity all would be subject to these new regulations. This
unprecedented, sweeping authority over our economy at the hands of the
EPA is at the heart of the concern expressed by Senator McConnell, and
ultimately, whichever way one ends up voting on his amendment, that
common concern defines this debate.
It is not a new concern for me. When this administration declared in
November of 2009 that the President would sign a politically binding
agreement at the United Nations framework on climate change in
Copenhagen, I strongly and publicly objected. I sent a letter to the
President stating:
Only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress or a
treaty ratified by the Senate could actually create such a
commitment on behalf of our country.
I have also expressed on several occasions my belief that this
administration appears to be erecting new regulatory barriers to the
safe and legal mining of coal resources in Virginia and other States.
My consistent message to the EPA is that good intentions do not in and
of themselves equal clear and unambiguous guidance from Congress. We
can see this in the approach
[[Page 4521]]
the EPA has taken or attempted to take on the regulation of coal ash,
on regulating industrial and commercial boilers, on approving new
levels of ethanol into gasoline, and, most importantly, its overreach
to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources. I have repeatedly
raised these issues with the administration and my colleagues in the
Senate.
In examining this issue, I have also reviewed carefully the Supreme
Court's holding in Massachusetts v. EPA.
My opposition to the EPA's present regulatory scheme with respect to
carbon dioxide or stationary sources stems in part from my reading of
this case. I am not convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to
regulate or to classify as a dangerous pollutant something as basic and
ubiquitous as carbon dioxide. I say that as one of the few Members of
this body who are engineers.
To quote one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices from the
last century, Justice Cardozo:
The legislation which has found expression in this code is
not canalized within the banks that keep it from overflowing.
The case Justice Cardozo was commenting on dealt with a different
issue but the constitutional precept still applies. Congress should
never abdicate or transfer to others the essential legislative
functions given to it and it alone by the Constitution.
The sweeping actions the EPA proposes to undertake clearly overflow
the appropriate regulatory banks established by Congress, with the
potential to affect every aspect of the American economy. Such action
represents a significant overreach by the executive branch.
Notwithstanding these serious concerns with what I view as EPA's
potentially unchecked regulation in a number of areas important to the
economy, I do have concerns about the McConnell amendment for a number
of reasons.
First, the McConnell resolution would jeopardize the progress this
administration has made in forging a consensus on motor vehicle fuel
economy and emission standards. The Obama administration has brokered
an agreement to establish one national program for fuel economy and
greenhouse gas standards. This agreement means that our beleaguered
automotive industry will not face a patchwork quilt of varying State
and Federal emission standards. Significantly, this agreement is
directly in line with the holding in Massachusetts v. EPA which dealt
with motor vehicle emissions. In fact, it dealt with new car motor
vehicle emissions.
Both in the Clean Air Act and in subsequent legislation enacted by
the Congress, there has been a far greater consensus on regulation of
motor vehicle emissions than on stationary sources with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions. It has been estimated that these new rules,
which are to apply to vehicles of model years 2012 to 2016, would save
1.8 billion barrels of oil and millions of dollars in consumer savings.
That agreement, however, and the regulations that would effectuate it
rest upon enforcement of the Clean Air Act, which would essentially be
overturned by the McConnell amendment.
We have before us a different but equally effective mechanism to
ensure that Congress and not unelected Federal officials can formulate
our policies on climate change and on energy legislation. The
Rockefeller amendment, which I have cosponsored, would suspend EPA's
regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for 2 years.
This approach would give Congress the time it needs to address
legitimate concerns with climate change and yet would not disrupt or
reverse the progress made on motor vehicle fuel and emission standards.
The majority leader had previously assured me and Senator Rockefeller
of his commitment to bring the Rockefeller amendment to the floor. I
very much appreciate his stated intention to do so. I hope we will have
the opportunity to vote on this measure within the next day or so.
Finally, let me say that I share the hope of many Members of this
body from both sides of the aisle that we can enact some form of energy
legislation this year. I have consistently outlined key elements I
would like to see in an energy package. I have introduced legislation,
along with Senator Alexander, to encourage different forms of energy
legislation that would in and of themselves help produce a cleaner
environment and more energy independence. We should all be exploring
those types of mechanisms that will, at the same time, incentivize
factory owners, manufacturers, and consumers to become more energy
efficient and to fund research and development for technologies that
will enable the safe and clean use of our country's vast fossil fuels
and other resources.
The second thing I would say--just as a comment--since I was shown a
letter earlier today from the Chamber of Commerce strongly suggesting
the only viable alternative in this debate is the McConnell amendment,
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter that was
sent last September by the Chamber of Commerce and more than a dozen
other business entities, associations in support of the Rockefeller
amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
September 14, 2010.
Hon. Daniel Inouye,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Vice Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran: Unless
Congress acts this Fall new Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) rules regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under
the Clean Air Act will go into effect on January 2, 2011. The
rules impose a significant burden across the U.S. economy,
including the sectors that will create jobs and lead us in
our economic recovery. It is Congress' prerogative to enact a
national climate policy, not the EPA's. Fortunately, there
are opportunities for Congress to exercise its prerogative
prior to the end of the legislative session.
We urge your strong support for measures to temporarily
restrict EPA's authority to implement the GHG rules affecting
stationary sources, and to give Congress the time necessary
to consider the appropriate regulatory approach for those
sources.
According to EPA, as many as six million of America's
industrial facilities, power plants, hospitals, agricultural
and commercial establishments eventually will be subject to
these rules, at a considerable cost and burden on jobs, state
resources and the ability to move forward on a national
climate policy. State implementing agencies have no guidance
on issuing the required permits, the measures needed to
comply are not known, and both state implementing agencies
and covered commercial facilities will be left in a bind.
There is the very real prospect that investments by
businesses across the entire economy--the investments that
will drive economic recovery and job creation--will be
delayed, curtailed or, even worse, cancelled.
The appropriations process can ensure that the potentially
damaging impacts of EPA's rules are postponed for a two or
three year period pending Congressional action. Indeed, the
approach would allow any restrictions on funding in a manner
that still allows EPA's rules on motor vehicles to continue
in effect unchanged. More importantly, the appropriations
process provides Congress an important oversight and
management tool that will inform the further development of a
national climate policy. Other approaches, such as a
codification of EPA's ``tailoring'' rule to ease the
potential burden on smaller businesses have been suggested.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of American businesses
affected by the GHG rules will not be protected by a simple
codification of EPA's rules.
Representatives Nick Rahall and Rick Boucher and Senator
Jay Rockefeller have introduced legislation (the Stationary
Source Regulations Delay Act, H.R. 4753 and S. 3072,
respectively) to place a two year moratorium on the EPA's
actions to regulate GHGs from stationary sources.
Senator Rockefeller has received a commitment from Majority
Leader Harry Reid to hold a vote on his bill in September. We
support the concept of a two-year postponement and urge your
strong support as an appropriate legislative measure is
developed and considered. Simply, a two-year moratorium will
prevent the negative economic impacts anticipated from the
EPA GHG rule.
In short, American businesses, investment, and jobs need
your active support. We urge you to support efforts to
postpone EPA regulation of GHG emissions from all stationary
sources through targeted amendments to relevant
appropriations measures or legislation
[[Page 4522]]
based on the Rahall/Boucher or Rockefeller bills.
Sincerely,
American Chemistry Council, American Farm Bureau
Federation, American Forest & Paper Association,
American Frozen Food Institute, American Petroleum
Institute, American Iron and Steel Institute, Ball Clay
Producers Association, CropLife America, International
Diatomite Producers Association, Industrial Minerals
Association--North America, Missouri Forest Products
Association, National Association of Chemical
Distributors, National Association of Manufacturers,
National Association of Oilseed Processors, National
Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National
Industrial Sand Association, National Lime Association,
National Mining Association, National Petrochemical &
Refiners Association, Society of Chemical Manufacturers
and Affiliates, The Aluminum Association, The
Fertilizer Institute, Treated Wood Council, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. WEBB. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 183
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say to my good friend
from Virginia, I agree with everything he said up to the last 3
minutes, because we have something that needs to be talked about. I
would only make reference to the letter that has been entered into the
Record that, yes, did make that statement, that if the choice is to do
nothing at all or to have the Rockefeller amendment, it is better to
delay something bad for 2 years. But that is not the choice.
The choice is--and he has referred to it as the McConnell amendment;
that happens to be the bill I introduced and is now offered as an
amendment to the Small Business Act--and it is one that will actually
resolve the problem.
I think it is necessary to set the record straight as to what the two
alternatives are. I call them covers. This is kind of a term that is
used inside these Halls when someone is wanting to vote against
something that people at home want and they give them something else to
vote for so we can offer cover--something that normally is
meaningless--such as these two cover votes.
The cap-and-trade agenda--I think we all understand--is destroying
jobs in America and certainly decreasing our domestic energy supply. As
a consequence, the consumers are going to pay more for their gas, for
their electric bills, in a tax on affordable energy. But it can be
stopped. It can be stopped by the passage of the Energy Tax Prevention
Act of 2011 or, as we are looking at it now, that same bill being
encompassed as an amendment called amendment No. 183 to the Small
Business Act.
Let me go back, if I could, kind of in history to make sure people
understand where we are today and how we got here. Many years ago, back
in the 1990s, they came forward--and this was during the Clinton-Gore
administration--with the Kyoto treaty. They went to Kyoto, Japan, and
said: We want to join with all the other countries and we want to
reduce emissions from CO2. This was a treaty you would sign
on to and most of the European countries did and many others did.
I might add now, many years later, none of them that signed on to it
were able to accomplish any kind of reduction, meaningful reduction in
emissions. But nonetheless, we had that.
I can remember standing at this podium and saying back then that we
are not going to ratify any agreement that is made at Kyoto that does
not affect the developing countries the same as the developed
countries. In other words, if it is not going to cover China, Mexico,
and different countries in Africa, then we do not want to be the only
ones this affects because it is going to be a very punitive situation.
Secondly, we were not going to ratify any kind of a treaty that was an
economic hardship on our country. We successfully stopped it.
Then, in 2003, they started introducing legislation that would do by
legislation what the Kyoto treaty would have done, but it would only
affect the United States of America. At that time, Republicans were the
majority. I was the chairman of the committee that is called the
Environment and Public Works Committee. We had the jurisdiction over
this issue. So I almost unilaterally was able to stop this legislation
from taking place. We had the same legislation that came up again in
2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009, and it has been before us for votes now in
the Senate seven different times. Each time we defeated it. I might
add, we defeated it by a larger margin each time we defeated it.
It is kind of interesting because I have had so many people say to
me: Inhofe, what if you are wrong? What if CO2 is damaging
to the environment? What if it causes some of these problems people say
it does? Well, I have to say, the science has been mixed. The science
has been cooked in many cases. The United Nations came up with the
IPCC, which was the science that was used to base all these new
programs on, and it has been pretty much scandalized in the climategate
situation. But, nonetheless, that is something we do not need to talk
about. The point is, we were able to stop any legislation.
Why did we want to stop legislation that puts restrictions on
CO2? Well, one reason is--and it came up very clearly, and I
always give my appreciation to Lisa Jackson. Lisa Jackson is the Obama-
appointed Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I asked
her the question some time ago in a public hearing, live on TV. I
asked: If we were to pass any of these pieces of legislation--at that
time I think it was the Waxman-Markey bill--would this have any
meaningful reduction in terms of CO2 emissions in the world?
The answer was, no, it would not because this would only apply to the
United States of America. If we do it here, we will take all the
financial hardship of doing it; however, as we lose our manufacturing
base, they will go to other countries where there are less emission
requirements. China is a good example. China's doors are open now to
try to say: Come, we are cranking out three to four coal-fired
generating plants in China every week. So, manufacturers, come here. We
have the energy you need. So they were then able to do it.
When the Obama administration came in, with a strong majority in both
the House and the Senate, they said: All right, we will tell you what.
Since you are not going to pass cap and trade, then we will do it
through regulations.
What would cap and trade do to America? Granted, by everyone's
admission, it would not reduce emissions at all worldwide. So what
would it cost? Well, the cost was put together back during the Kyoto
treaty by the Wharton School at that time. Since then, MIT, CRA, many
others have come in. The range is always between $300 and $400 billion
a year.
I am not as smart as a lot of guys around here, so when I hear about
billions and trillions, I say: How does that affect people in my State
of Oklahoma? So I have the math that I do. I say to the Presiding
Officer, I take the total number of people and families in my State of
Oklahoma who file a tax return, and then when they come up with
something that is going to cost our Nation $300 to $400 billion, I do
the math. What that would amount to for my average family in Oklahoma
who files a tax return is $3,100 a year, and they do not get anything
for it.
Anyway, the President came in with the new majority, and he said:
Well, if you are not going to pass this, we are going to go ahead and
do it by regulation. We will have the Environmental Protection Agency
do it by regulation.
To do that, they had to have what is called an endangerment finding;
that is, a finding that CO2 is an endangerment to health.
The courts never said we have to regulate CO2. They said: If
you want to, you can. That was the choice of this administration and of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
So I asked the question again at one of the hearings--this is of the
same Administrator Jackson; this was a year ago December--I said: I
have a feeling you are going to come up with an endangerment finding so
you have justification for regulating CO2 the same as if we
were passing legislation to do it. Her response was kind of a smile. I
[[Page 4523]]
said: To have an endangerment finding, you have to base that on
science. What science are you going to base it on? She said: Well,
primarily, the IPCC. That is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. That is the United Nations. They are the ones that started all
this fun stuff.
With that, it was not more than 2 weeks later that the scandal broke
with the recovery of some of the e-mails that were sent out by the IPCC
that they had, in fact, cooked the science. Nonetheless, there are
lawsuits that are pending right now and all that to try to stop the EPA
from regulating CO2.
They are doing other regulatory things right now. They are trying to
do regional haze regulation. They are trying to do regulation on ozone,
changing the standards, trying to do what they call boiler MACT,
utility MACT, other regulations. But, nonetheless, this one we are
talking about today is the regulation of greenhouse gases.
This is what is happening right now. To keep them from doing it, I
introduced a piece of legislation called the Energy Tax Prevention Act
of 2011. My good friend over in the House of Representatives, Fred
Upton, has been a friend of mine for many years. He is the chairman of
the appropriate committee over there; the same as I am the ranking
member of the appropriate committee here. So we introduced together the
Upton-Inhofe legislation or, if you are over on this side, I call it
the Inhofe-Upton legislation. That would take away the jurisdiction of
the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases. If we
take away the jurisdiction, they cannot do it. That is the ultimate
solution. That is the moment of truth, as we are going to read in
tomorrow morning's Wall Street Journal. So they are taking that up.
They will pass it over there. But on a partisan basis over here, they
will try to kill it.
So what we have done is, Leader Mitch McConnell and I have offered an
amendment that encompasses my bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act I
just referred to, as an amendment on the Small Business Act. That is
scheduled for a vote tomorrow morning. I hope it does happen.
The reason I am talking today--I have already covered this several
times, and I am sure people are tired of hearing it--but they have
cover votes that are coming up, and we know this is going to happen.
But why is it this administration wants to do something that is going
to drive the energy costs of America upward?
This administration has said over and over again they do not want
gas, they do not want oil, they do not want coal. And we cannot run
this machine called America without oil, gas, and coal.
There is a motivation here; that is, it has come from this
administration that they want to replace fossil fuels--oil, gas, and
coal--with what they call green energy. Someday that might happen. It
will be long after I am gone, I am sure. But they might have the
technology to run this country on what they call renewable energy.
Right now, we are going to use as much as we can. We are for wind
power, we are for Sun power, solar power, all the other options. But,
nonetheless, we still have to have fossil fuels to run the country.
Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy for the Obama administration, said:
Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of
gasoline to the levels in Europe.
That is $8 a gallon. This is the administration saying we want to
increase the price of gasoline to be equal to what it is in Western
Europe. So this is something that has been a policy of this
administration for a long time. In fact, President Obama himself said
that under the cap-and-trade plan--this is what they are trying to do
now--``electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.''
The President had it right. The point of cap-and-trade regulation is
to make us pay more for energy bills, and the Obama administration and
EPA are here to make that happen. In a recent editorial, the Wall
Street Journal calls the Energy Tax Prevention Act, my bill, ``one of
the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the
Senate docket in years.''
Why is that? It is because the EPA's regulations will raise energy
prices and strangle economic growth. As the National Association of
Manufacturers stated:
At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from
the most severe recession since the 1930s, [EPA] regulations
. . . will establish disincentives for the long-term
investments necessary to grow jobs and expedite economic
recovery.
That is the National Association of Manufacturers. The families, the
workers, and the consumers are all going to feel the pain.
In a study that Charles River Associates International did, they
estimate that EPA's cap-and-trade regulations could increase wholesale
electricity costs by 35 to 45 percent. What we are talking about is--
everyone understands--if they are able to do these regulations, the EPA
doing what the legislature refused to do; that is, regulate the
emissions of fossil fuels, it will increase electricity prices about 40
percent.
What do we get in return? I think we have already mentioned we do not
get anything for this because it would drive our jobs elsewhere, and it
would only affect the United States of America.
The claims that the Energy Tax Prevention Act--that is the amendment
we will be voting on tomorrow--would undermine health protections or
fuel economy standards are disingenuous on their face. The amendment
does not touch EPA's authority to regulate criteria or hazardous air
pollutants. What is more, both emissions of CO2 and real
pollution have been in steady decline. Yet instances of asthma have
been on the increase. So as the emissions decline, the instances have
actually increased. Carbon dioxide emissions do not cause asthma,
either directly or indirectly, and they do not harm public health.
The Energy Tax Prevention Act is not about asthma and public health,
but it is about protecting jobs.
By the way, there is a very well respected scientist by the name of
Richard Lindzen from MIT, and he wrote a letter to me which I received
a couple of days ago--well, it was actually a little bit longer than
that.
As to the impact of increasing CO2 on general
welfare, there is widespread agreement that modest warming
should improve welfare for the U.S. Under the circumstances,
we are in the bizarre situation of declaring something to be
a pollutant when the evidence suggests that it is beneficial.
In other words--I hesitate saying this. I am the first one to admit I
am not a scientist, but certainly Professor Lindzen is. He says, Here
we are talking about reducing something that is not a problem certainly
to health.
Then the other thing having to do with the Highway--this was
mentioned by the Senator from Virginia a few moments ago--that somehow
this is going to impair our standards of lowering gas consumption. The
amendment doesn't prohibit the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration from setting fuel economy standards. It stops the EPA
from regulating carbon dioxide from tailpipes after 2016. So the
regulation would have no effect on that whatsoever. That is not done by
the EPA; that is done by the National Highway Safety Administration,
called NHTSA.
The vote comes down to a simple choice: Are you for jobs and
affordable energy or President Obama's strategy of energy taxes and
bureaucratic regulations? Of course, when you look at the things that
are coming along--I mentioned when I started talking that there is
something called ``cover,'' that if there is something out there that
the people at home are clamoring for, that they want--in this case they
want this amendment that will stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse
gases--then if they can vote for something else that does nothing, they
can say, Well, I voted for this. It is called cover.
The Rockefeller vote would be nothing, except kicking the can down
the road for 2 years, and in the meantime the regulation goes on.
Under the Baucus amendment, this is something that is called the
tailoring rule. It is a little more complicated because when you talk
about the emissions that we are concerned with that
[[Page 4524]]
the EPA would be regulating, they would be on any emissions that would
affect all the farmers, the schoolhouses, and everybody else. Well, the
Baucus amendment would exempt some of these smaller ones. However, if
you listen to the Farm Bureau, which has been very helpful in this all
along--I think I have their quotes here. Yes. Listen to this, the
American Farm Bureau, a recent quote, just this year:
Farmers and ranchers would still incur the higher costs of
compliance passed down from utilities, refiners and
fertilizer manufacturers that are directly regulated as of
January 2, 2011.
So if the Baucus amendment passes, it is going to still be
regulated--the refiners, the manufacturers--and that is going to be
passed down and it is going to increase the cost of power and energy
and that is why the Farm Bureau is so emphatic. In fact, I just left
the Farm Bureau a couple of minutes ago before I came here, talking
about this very subject.
The manufacturers feel the same way. The Industrial Energy Consumers
of America wrote the Baucus approach:
does not solve the underlying problem that regulating
[greenhouse gases] under the Clean Air Act is very costly for
manufacturing, will impact global competitiveness and
encourage capital investment outside the United States.
Why would that be? Because if China ends up with all the jobs, then
they are the ones who would be getting the investment.
The only way to stop the higher costs of compliance, which the Farm
Bureau fears, is to pass the Energy Tax Prevention Act which is now
Senate amendment No. 183.
The contrast couldn't be starker. I was told that tomorrow morning we
may see the moment of truth going on--and I think it is going to be in
the Wall Street Journal--that people are going to realize there is only
one way to stop this massive tax and regulation increase that will
come. It won't be by the Rockefeller amendment and it won't be by the
Baucus amendment. It will be by the Inhofe-McConnell amendment that
hopefully will be voted on tomorrow and that will take out from the
jurisdiction of the EPA the ability to regulate greenhouse gases. That
is what we are hoping will happen, and I think when people realize it,
they are not going to be fooled by some of these what I refer to as
cover votes.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to talk a little bit about the
McConnell amendment that I think we will vote on on the floor of the
Senate this week. This is the amendment that really clarifies whether
Congress ever intended to give the Environmental Protection Agency the
authority to regulate greenhouse gases. They have a finding that gives
them that authority, but the people who were involved in passing that
law initially say that wasn't the intention of the law; that if it is
the intention of the law, the Congress should step up and clarify that.
I think this amendment clearly expresses the view of the American
people that the Congress should do its job, not leave it to the
regulators to do the job. Senator McConnell has brought that amendment
to the floor. It is an amendment that Senator Inhofe has worked on
regarding this topic for a long time. Senator Barrasso has also worked
on this topic.
I am convinced that as the ballots are cast and the votes are made
this week on this bill and on this amendment, Senators from both
parties are going to say: No, that is not the job of the EPA. It is not
what the Congress intended EPA to do.
This is a great example of the Congress trying to step up and make
the point that the regulators should not be able to do by regulation
what the legislators are unwilling to do by legislation.
This issue was discussed last year--the cap-and-trade law that passed
the House in the last Congress. People around America looked at it and
said that higher prices were not the way to get more efficient energy
policies. The way to get more efficient energy policies is to look for
ways to produce more American energy, to have a marketplace that has
more choices than the ones we have now. As people looked at this issue,
they said: Let's find more American energy of all kinds, and let's be
conservationists and encourage that we use that energy as efficiently
as possible, and let's also be out there researching and investing in
the future so that we know what we want our energy picture to look like
a generation from now--not that we blindly rush in and think high
prices will solve our energy problems.
We all know that the President of the United States, before the
election in 2008, in talking to the editorial board of the San
Francisco Chronicle, made the comment that under his energy policies,
energy prices would necessarily skyrocket. The President has looked at
this economy closely--I hope--over the last 2 years of his Presidency,
and clearly every signal from the administration now is that they have
concerns about $4-a-gallon gasoline, even though there are people in
that advisory group who at one time said gas prices should be as high
as the gas prices in Europe and that is the way to solve our use of
gasoline. We don't live in Europe. We live in a country that is large,
expansive, and requires travel and commerce. So high gas prices are not
the answer to our transportation problems, and higher utility bills are
not the answer to our energy problems.
In fact, as people looked at the potential of cap and trade on
utility bills, they looked at how much of our utilities come from coal.
Of course, cap and trade--and the EPA regulations that would try to
impose cap and trade by regulation--cap and trade is particularly
focused on coal-based utilities. From the middle of Pennsylvania to the
western edge of Wyoming, 50 percent of the electricity in the country
comes from coal. Mr. President, in your State and my State, a
significant majority of the electricity comes from coal. In Missouri,
it is 82 percent of the electricity that comes from coal.
In our State, the utility providers got together--the rural electric
cooperatives, the municipal utilities, the privately owned and publicly
owned--and funded a study with which nobody ever found fault. Nobody
has challenged the study. In that study, in our State the average
utility bill would go up about 80 percent in the first 10 years under
cap and trade. It would come close to doubling in the first 12 years.
For many utility customers, it would double. If the average bill is
going to go up 80 percent, for many customers out there, their bill
would double in 10 years, and for the average customer, it would double
in about a dozen years. Who benefits from that?
At a hearing the other day with the EPA Administrator, I talked about
a visit I had last fall with someone who explained to me that he was an
hourly employee at a company--by that point, with the discussion of cap
and trade, almost all Missourians knew our utility bills would double
in about 10 years--and he said: If my utility bill doubles, that is a
bad thing. If my retired mother's bill doubles, that is worse. If the
utility bill at work doubles and my job goes away, then the other bills
don't matter that much because I can't pay mine and help my mom pay
hers.
That individual has a Ph.D. in common sense, if not economics. That
is what happens if we allow these bills to go up. Because of that
discussion, I stand here today absolutely confident that, in the
foreseeable future, Congress will not impose that penalty on our
economy. If the Congress won't impose that penalty on our economy, we
should not let regulators impose that penalty on our economy.
What the McConnell amendment does--again, with the hard work of
Senators Inhofe, Barrasso, and others--is simply redefine the authority
or
[[Page 4525]]
maybe reemphasize the definition Congress thought it was giving the
Environmental Protection Agency, and it says: You can't regulate these
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. It doesn't stop the Clean Air
Act's provisions to protect clean air in every way that was anticipated
until the recent determination that somehow EPA had the authority to
also regulate greenhouse gases, but it does refocus the EPA on the
intention of the Clean Air Act, not their expansion of the Clean Air
Act.
By the way, the EPA has no ability to expand the Clean Air Act. That
is the job of the Congress of the United States. Fine, if we want to
have that debate. In fact, we had that debate last year. The House
passed a bill that would have done what the EPA's new sense of their
own mission would do, and I think the American people spoke pretty
loudly about that. Because of that, the last Congress didn't pass that
bill. The House of Representatives passed a bill, but the Senate didn't
pass that bill. This Congress isn't going to pass that bill either, and
I would predict that the next Congress won't pass that bill.
Why won't they pass the bill? Why won't we pass a bill in this
Congress? Why won't the next Congress pass a bill? They know it has a
devastating impact on our economy; and if the Congress doesn't want
there to be a devastating impact on our economy, we also shouldn't want
the Environmental Protection Agency to do something that would have a
devastating impact on our economy.
In fact, when we look at the economies around the world, the
economies that have the greatest problems with air and water are the
economies that failed; the economies where, at some point, those
countries decide, ultimately, they are going to do whatever it takes to
get back to where they can have jobs that allow families to live.
The EPA is bound, and should be bound, by what the Congress initially
intended with the Clean Air Act, not what the EPA thinks today is their
job--and particularly if it is not a job that everybody in this
building knows the legislators will not do. If the legislators won't do
it, the legislators shouldn't let the regulators do it, and this simply
clarifies that.
I urge my colleagues this week to vote for this amendment, to make it
clear to the Environmental Protection Agency that they have plenty of
things to do and many things that we will support them as they do, but
this isn't one of them. This hurts our economy. It is not their
mission. It was not the intention of the Clean Air Act. This amendment
allows that to be reinforced once again by the Congress, the group that
is supposed to pass the laws. Laws aren't supposed to be passed by
regulators. I suppose they are intentionally determined to be
implemented by regulators but not created by regulators or created by
the administration. That is our job.
This bill reemphasizes our job. Again, it doesn't let the regulatory
group do a job that increases the utility bill, that doubles the
electric bill in Missouri, and raises the electric bill for the vast
preponderance of Americans, for people retired, on a fixed income.
Clearly, jobs will go away if those electric bills are raised, and they
will not go to other places in the United States in most cases; they
will go to other countries that care a whole lot less about what comes
out of the smoke stack than we do.
So if the EPA is allowed to do with greenhouse gases what it says it
wants to do, we will lose the jobs and the problem will get greater
because these jobs will go to countries that care a whole lot less
about emissions than we do.
Let's let the legislators do their job. I encourage my colleagues to
vote for this amendment this week as they think about how we approach
this important issue--about our economy, about our jobs, about our
families and our future.
I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, rightfully so, the focus in this Congress
is very much about the economy and job creation, and it is appropriate
that we have before the Senate a piece of legislation dealing with
small business. We know small business and entrepreneurship is a path
to job creation.
We are spending a lot of time in this Senate, in the House, and in
Washington, DC, discussing the economy, and one of the things that is
front and center today is the need for us to be much more responsible
in our spending habits. In my view, the Federal Government is
financially broke. Rightfully so, we ought to pass a continuing
resolution that reduces spending for the remaining 6 months of this
fiscal year. We ought to quickly move to a budget and to an
appropriations process that allows for the give-and-take, the
consideration of those things that we can afford to spend money on, the
things that are appropriately the role of the Federal Government, and
find those places in which we can again significantly reduce spending.
That is an important aspect of whether we are going to get our economy
back on track and jobs created.
I think often we write off what happens in Washington, DC. The
American people see us as just Republicans and Democrats having one
more battle about spending and deficits. These are things I have heard,
topics I have heard discussed my entire life coming out of Washington,
DC. The reality is, this is an important issue at an important time in
our country's history. In the absence of an appropriate resolution of
this spending issue, in my view, the standard of living Americans enjoy
today will be reduced, inflation will return, the value of the dollar
will be diminished, and the standard of living we have become
accustomed to as Americans, as I say, will be diminished. But worse
than that, the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to pursue
the American dream will be less than what we want it to be, certainly
less than what I experienced as an American growing up in this country.
Yes, it is no fun for us, as elected officials, to talk about what
needs to be cut, spending that needs to be reduced. I certainly stand
willing to work with my colleagues and with the President and others to
see we accomplish that goal of reducing spending, and the consequences
of that being a better budget picture and a reduced deficit. But there
is a positive aspect of what we can do to reduce our budget deficit
that goes beyond just cutting spending; that is, to create jobs, to
create economic expansion.
The optimism this country needs can be restored by decisions we make
in the Congress. Those decisions revolve around a business or an
entrepreneur, a small business man or woman's decision that it is time
to expand their plant, it is time to invest and put in more equipment,
that it is time to hire an additional employee.
In my view, one of the reasons that is not happening is the tax
environment that has been created, the uncertainty that we have with
what our Tax Code is going to be, the lack of access to credit, the
uncertainty our bankers and other financial lenders face in determining
whether they can make a loan to a creditworthy customer, and especially
the one I want to talk about briefly today, which is the regulatory
environment in which the business community finds itself.
This effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate
greenhouse gases, in my view, is very negative toward job creation in
two ways: One, it increases the cost of being in business, and that
occurs at a time in which we don't expect other countries to abide by
the same regimen that we may create--that our Environmental Protection
Agency may create--around the world, that we would not expect other
countries to abide by those same rules and regulations the EPA is
putting in place.
That means, once again, American workers, American business is at a
competitive disadvantage in comparison to those who make decisions
about
[[Page 4526]]
where plants are located, and we lose access to world markets because
someone else can sell something cheaper than we can because of rising
costs of production.
So even if there is an effort that excludes agriculture or small
business from this legislation, the cost of production goes up, because
in addition to the direct effect of having those regulations apply to
your business, there is the indirect increase in cost related to fuel
and energy costs--electricity and gas.
Clearly, to me, if you care about job creation, you would make
certain that the Environmental Protection Agency does not head down the
path that it is going, because of the increased cost of being in
business and the consequence that has for American business to be able
to compete in a global economy.
The second aspect of that is, and I think it is one of the real drags
on today's recovery from the recession, is the uncertainty. No business
person feels comfortable today in making a decision to expand or to put
more people to work, to hire an additional employee, to invest in plant
or equipment, because they do not know what the next set of regulations
is going to do to their bottom line.
So with the uncertainty of this issue, we have had the drag upon our
economy with the thought that Congress might pass the legislation
labeled cap and trade. It became clear when the Senate adjourned at the
end of 2010 that that was not going to happen. But then the uncertainty
became, but what is the Environmental Protection Agency going to do?
As I visit plants, facilities across Kansas and talk to family owners
of small businesses, manufacturers, the most common question I get from
a business owner is, what next is government going to do that may put
me out of business? It is unfortunate. It seems as though government is
no longer even neutral in regard to the success of a business in the
United States but has become an adversary.
I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment. I think it
is a clear statement that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot do
what it intends to do. It eliminates the uncertainty that a business
person faces, and it reduces the cost of being in business in a way
that says, we are going to grow the economy and put people to work.
We are going to have a lot of conversation on the Senate floor, we
are going to have discussions with the administration, with our
colleagues in the House of Representatives, about what spending we are
going to cut. And those are difficult conversations. But I come back to
the point that we as Americans have the opportunity to be optimistic.
What we need to do for us to have a bright future, what we can do to
have a positive conversation with the American people about what good
things are yet to come, revolves around the fact that we will get rid
of onerous regulations that serve no valid purpose in improving our
environment and create great uncertainty and ever increasing costs for
being in business.
We can have this conversation in a vacuum. But the reality is, our
economy does not operate in a vacuum. Our business folks in Kansas and
across the country have to compete in a global economy. This
legislation that Senator McConnell and Senator Inhofe have offered
eliminates that uncertainty, reduces the cost of being in business, and
allows us to have optimism about the future of the American economy
and, most importantly, optimism for the people who sit around their
dining room table wanting to make certain they either can keep a job or
find a job.
I see the McConnell amendment as that moment of optimism. The message
we send to the American worker, to those who are employed and to those
who are unemployed, that this Senate understands that unless we get rid
of the impediments toward growing an economy, we have little optimism
about the future of job creation.
The McConnell amendment sends that message. It does it in a way that
makes a lot of sense for the American economy and for the American
worker.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators
permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
REMEMBERING REID S. JONES
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of
the Commonwealth's finest, the late Mr. Reid S. Jones. A native of
Pulaski County, KY, Reid was a prime example of a man who was a true
American hero and who valued his faith, his family, and his community.
A rich tradition of business success and pride in hard work and
achievement always seemed prevalent throughout the history of Reid's
family, so it came as no surprise when Reid began to exhibit early
signs of entrepreneurial instincts. As a young boy, members of his
hometown witnessed Reid leading a small goat down a road from the
country store operated by his parents to a local family farm as he
tried to make a sale. It was this ambition and drive that made Reid S.
Jones a leader, a war hero, and a guiding force for all who knew him.
Reid, who passed away on April 15, 2005, joined the U.S. Army in 1944
at a crucial point during World War II. Eighteen years old, Reid felt a
strong desire to serve and protect his country as well as to defend the
rights and freedoms of others. He courageously fought in the Battle of
the Bulge, one of the deadliest battle for American forces of the war.
Reid's leadership got him promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, and
he remained in Germany for a short time after the war to help begin the
reconstruction process.
After returning home from the war to his new bride Elva Sears, Reid
received a bachelor's degree from Union College in Barbourville, KY. He
decided to further his dedication for educational excellence and became
a history teacher, principal, and basketball coach for the Pulaski
County and Somerset City school systems. His firm yet compassionate
character made Reid well-respected by his peers and fondly remembered
by his former students. Later in the 1960s he became a district sales
manager for the Fram Corporation, an automotive product brand best
known for their oil filters. His eye for detail and strong ambition to
get things done earned him frequent recognition for exceeding sales
quotas and helped him play an instrumental role in placing Fram
products in Wal-Marts across the southeastern United States.
Reid's ``jack of all trades'' ability eventually led him to open his
own automotive businesses, as well as become a 32nd-degree Mason, a
member of the Oleika Shriners Temple, and the board of directors of the
First United Methodist Church.
In addition to serving his community through business and educational
work, Reid deeply cherished the relationships he had with his friends
and family. He has often been remembered through the strong friendships
he formed with members of the Somerset community, as he met daily with
friends at his automotive businesses for coffee and southern
storytelling. His dedication to public service and education, led his
wife, along with his daughter, Dr. Sonya Jones, to establish The Jones
Educational Foundation, to provide scholarships and assistance for
people of south-central Kentucky and beyond who seek greater education
and who show effort and ability.
There is no doubt that because of Reid's character, his dedication to
family and friends, and his contributions to higher education and the
business
[[Page 4527]]
community, that his town, the Commonwealth, and the country have been
forever changed for the better.
The Commonwealth Journal recently published an article about Mr. Reid
S. Jones and a contribution that his daughter made to the Jones
Educational Foundation on behalf of his dear friend, the late James
Eastham. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Commonwealth Journal, Jan. 30, 2011]
Foundation launches Reid S. Jones Memorial Fund With Contribution
Honoring James `Onion' Eastham
The Jones Educational Foundation Inc., a 501(c)3 not-for-
profit corporation based in Somerset, has launched the Reid
S. Jones Memorial Fund with a $1,000 contribution made by Dr.
Sonya Jones honoring the late James Arthur ``Onion'' Eastham.
According to Dr. Jones, president and CEO of The Jones
Foundation, the donation is intended to pay tribute to the
friendship between James ``Onion'' Eastham, a man who was
regarded highly in the Somerset community, and her father.
Further, the fund is meant to honor veterans from all the
wars in which the United States has fought. The initial
donation honors veterans who served in the European and
Pacific theaters of World War II.
``I had been thinking about the Foundation setting up a
fund for veterans in Dad's name ever since I made a donation
in his memory to help restore the Soldiers and Sailors
Memorial building at Union College,'' Dr. Jones said.
Reid Jones graduated from Union in 1989. He went on to do
graduate work in education at Eastern Kentucky University.
``When Mr. Eastham passed away in late December, I knew it
was time,'' Dr. Jones added. ``Dad thought so much of his
friend that I felt he would want me to do something special
to honor Onion's memory.''
Reid Sievers Jones (April 24, 1926 to April 15, 2005)
entered the U.S. Army at a crucial point in the history of
World War II. He was stationed in Germany, and he fought in
the Battle of the Bulge. He was a survivor in what has been
called ``one of the bloodiest battles'' of World War II.
Conducted in the dense mountainous region of Belgium, the
Battle of the Bulge was Adolf Hitler's last major offensive
against the Allies. The battle ran from Dec. 16, 1944, until
Jan. 25, 1945.
When he enlisted in the Army as a private, Reid Jones was
18 years of age. He married Elva Sears on Dec. 30, 1944,
shortly before shipping out to the European front. He was
promoted to the rank of staff sergeant and remained in
Germany for a short time after the war to help begin the
process of reconstruction.
James ``Onion'' Eastham (Sept. 22, 1923, to Dec. 28, 2010)
served in the Asiatic-Pacific theater where he was awarded
two bronze stars for duty at and during the Luzon and
Southern Philippine campaigns. He also received the
Philippine Liberation Ribbon with a bronze star for duty
involving combat with the enemy.
Reid Jones and Onion Eastham were ``two of a kind,'' said
Jimmy Eastham, son of the former Somerset City Council member
who served as staff sergeant and crew chief aboard a B-25
bomber in the United States Marine Corp.
Jones and Eastham both were salesmen after the war. Jones
worked for many years for Fram Corp. and Eastham for the
Morton Salt Co. The two men liked to get together and engage
in the high art of Southern storytelling. Both formed strong
friendships with other men in the Somerset community.
``Dad and Onion Eastham were part of a group of men who
convened initially at Dad's car lot out on East Mt. Vernon
Street, then at Dad's automotive parts store on Ogden Street
in the building now owned by Dr. Byron Owens,'' Dr. Jones
said.
``After Dad retired from Fram, he devoted most of his time
to the automotive business and our family's business and our
family's rental properties,'' Dr. Jones continued.
``When Dad closed one automotive parts store housed in the
same building with Mother's antiques and collectibles, he and
his buddies met for coffee at the Sugar Shack over on the
strip,'' she said.
Meeting for coffee was part of their ``daily routine,''
said Jimmy Eastham.
From time to time, the group also included Bobby Claunch,
Howard Eastham, Ledger Howard, Penny Starnes, Don Stone, Jim
Williams and Bob Williams in addition to Reid Jones and Onion
Eastham.
Like his father, Jimmy Eastham served as a member of
Somerset City Council. He and the Eastham family have given
their enthusiastic endorsement to the Reid S. Memorial Fund
with Dr. Jones' cornerstone contribution in memory of James
``Onion'' Eastham.
``It is a good idea to establish the fund even if it
weren't done in the name of my father,'' Eastham said.
Both Reid Jones and James Eastham were ``very patriotic,''
according to Virginia Eastham, mother of Jimmy, Lisa (Bandy)
and Wayne Eastham.
When Reid Jones returned from the war, he worked first as a
teacher and principal in the Pulaski County and Somerset City
school systems. He is remembered, particularly by former
students at Shopville High School as a firm teacher who was
not afraid to exercise discipline when he thought it was
needed.
Later, in the 1960s, he joined Fram Corp., based in
Providence, R.I., as a district sales manager. Frequently, he
was recognized for exceeding sales quotas. He was
instrumental in placing Fram products in Wal-Marts across the
southeastern United States.
Reid Jones was a 32nd degree Mason and a member of Oleika
Shriners Temple in Lexington. He served on the board of
directors of First United Methodist Church.
In addition to being an influential member of Somerset City
Council, James ``Onion'' Eastham was a member of the Somerset
Masonic Lodge #111 and a long-standing member of the Kiwanis
Club. He was also a member of First Baptist Church where he
taught Sunday school and served as chair of a building
committee for the church's new sanctuary.
As a member of Somerset City Council from 1964 to 1982,
Eastham played an active role in helping to establish
Somerset Community College and finding a location for what is
now Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital. He considered running
for mayor, but his job as a regional salesman for Morton Salt
Co. created time constraints that caused him not to seek
office.
According to Clarence Love, city clerk during the years
Eastham served on council, ``he was very conscientious.'' In
Love's opinion, Eastham was an ``excellent councilman.''
Jimmy Eastham said he thought his father most likely would
be remembered most for ``standing for what he believed in.''
The Reid S. Jones Memorial Fund was established, first and
foremost, to help veterans with educational issues.
``A veteran might return from Afghanistan ready to go to
law school and need some assistance,'' Dr. Jones said. ``Or,
a veteran might return and want to become a law enforcement
officer or a mechanic.''
As interest on the fund grows, money will be awarded to
veterans who demonstrate great potential for success in
professional and vocational arenas.
Primarily, the Reid S. Jones Memorial Fund intends to honor
``the warrior spirit,'' Dr. Jones said, ``the spirit of
courage and bravery'' that has helped keep the United States
free.
The Reid S. Jones Memorial Fund is now open for tax-
deductible contributions. Interested parties may e-mail Dr.
Jones at: [email protected] or phone her at 606-
875-2967.
____________________
BELLARMINE UNIVERSITY KNIGHTS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the
impressive accomplishments of a remarkable men's basketball team in the
Commonwealth, the Bellarmine University Knights.
On March 26, the Knights made school history by winning the 2011
National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II basketball
championship. By defeating the Brigham Young University-Hawaii
Seasiders 71 to 68, Bellarmine brought home its first national
championship title in any sport. Senior guard Justin Benedetti
described the atmosphere in the MassMutual Center in Springfield, MA,
where the championship game was held to be like a home game for the
Knights, as many fans traveled to fill the crowd of nearly 3,000.
The morning following their championship win, hundreds of fans,
alumni, and students cheered as the team returned to campus and filed
off the bus holding high their national trophy. I applaud not only the
team's athletic achievement, but also the teamwork and sportsmanship on
display as they represented my hometown, Louisville, and our
Commonwealth in front of the country's basketball fans.
A state that honors basketball will honor the 2011 Bellarmine Knights
team as among the best for seasons to come. Fans will remember a team
of unselfish players whose only goal was to win. And they will remember
head coach Scott Davenport, who taught his players to play basketball
the way it was meant to be played.
Coach Davenport built this team around talented local players--the
entire roster hails from Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. A Louisville
native, he led his Knights to a 33-2 overall record this year on their
way to the Division II championship. He can now add this collegiate
championship to the one he
[[Page 4528]]
earned coaching the Ballard High School Bruins of Louisville, KY, to
the State championship in 1988. It is no wonder he was recently named
the 2011 Schelde North America/Division II Bulletin Coach of the Year.
I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Scott Davenport
upon receiving this distinguished honor.
Family members, friends, and the Louisville community are justifiably
proud of this team's achievement and the recognition they have earned.
This season was a special one for Bellarmine University that we will
remember for a long time to come.
I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Bellarmine
University Knights men's basketball team upon earning their first
national title. I wish them continued success both on and off the
court.
____________________
HEALTH CARE RALLY
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, on Saturday, March 26 several hundred
medical students from across the country came to our State Capital in
Montpelier, VT, to rally in support of Vermont going forward with a
Medicare for All Single Payer health care system.
These young people were absolutely clear in understanding that for
them to be the great physicians and nurses that they want to be, our
health care system must change. They believe, as I do, that health care
is a right and not a privilege and that a single payer program is the
most cost-effective way of achieving that goal. I am very pleased to
submit for the Record the statement of principle signed by these
medical school students.
I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
As medical students from around the country converge this
weekend on the steps of the State House to support Vermont's
movement toward a single-payer health system, we want to
contribute additional perspectives on our state's discussion
of Health Care Reform.
As the Vermont legislature considers Health Care Reform,
we, a group of UVM medical students who are invested in the
future of Vermont, believe that current and future health
care legislation should work toward the following goals:
1. Ensure that every Vermonter has health care coverage
through a sustainable system that maintains a desirable
environment in which to practice medicine.
2. Replace the current fee for service system that both
limits access to physicians and compromises the quality of
care given to patients.
3. Empower Vermont to retain and attract high quality
physicians to ensure adequate health care for future
Vermonters.
Our proposals to help meet these goals are:
1. Initiate a program that reduces the tuition of out-or-
state students to in-state levels in exchange for commitment
to practice in Vermont after training is complete.
2. Improve funding for the existing loan repayment program
through Vermont AHEC to encourage primary care providers to
practice in under-served areas of the state.
3. Address the current inequity in the ``provider tax''
such that out of state providers treating Vermont patients
contribute fairly to the Vermont Medicaid program.
4. Simplify the administrative burden upon the provider by
developing a system that has a single payer with best-
practice guidelines as opposed to the current fee-for-service
system.
By addressing these issues in upcoming legislation, we are
of the opinion that the quality of health care in Vermont
will improve. A sustainable system that addresses many of the
national problems with medicine will encourage a strong
physician population throughout the state, as well as secure
Vermont's future as the healthiest state in America.
As medical students who will inherit the reform currently
being debated in Montpelier, we are committed to help shape a
sustainable universal health care system. It is our great
hope that these changes will be enacted to enable us to
provide the best care possible to our future patients.
Larry Bodden, Calvin Kagan, Bud Vana, Ben Ware, John
Malcolm, JJ Galli, Vanessa Patten, Nick Koch, Uz Robison,
Pete Cooch, Rich Tan, Bianca Yoo, Prabu Selvam, Dave Reisman,
Adam Ackrman, Nazia Kabani, Stas Lazarev, Sara Staples,
Therese Ray, Kelly Cunningham, Hannah Foote, Laura Sturgill,
Megan Malgeri, Kati Anderson, Serena Chang, Caitlan Baran,
Leah Carr, Mariah Stump, Daniel Edberg, Franki Boulos,
Chelsea Harris, Vinnie Kan, Mairin Jerome, Jimmy Corbett-
Detig, Dan Liebowitz, Laura Caldwell, Damian Ray, Mei Lee
Frankish.
The University of Vermont does not endorse this
organization or their position in connection with this or any
other political campaign, policy position or election.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to discuss an amendment entitled
``the Greater Accountability in the Treasury Small Business Lending
Fund Act of 2011.''
As ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, it is my
responsibility to ensure that small businesses have access to
affordable credit. In this regard, I have worked on a bipartisan basis
with Senator Landrieu, chair of the Small Business Committee, to
include provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that
enhanced the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs. Those measures resulted
in a 90-percent national increase in SBA lending at a crucial time in
our Nation's lending crisis. I also authored provisions, recently
enacted into law, to increase the SBA's maximum loan limits for its
microloan, 7(a), and 504 loans, to make the SBA more relevant to the
needs of today's borrowers. Additionally, I have been supportive of
efforts to increase the arbitrarily imposed cap on member business
lending at credit unions--at no cost to taxpayers--so that credit
unions can play a greater role in helping to address the problems that
small businesses continue to face in accessing credit.
But, unfortunately, I was unable to vote in favor of the Small
Business Jobs Act of 2010, even though it included many of my
priorities, due to my significant concerns with the Treasury Small
Business Lending Fund--SBLF or lending fund--provisions included into
that bill. I opposed the inclusion of the lending fund for several
reasons. While I will not reiterate all of those here, I will discuss a
few of them briefly.
First, the lending fund is essentially an extension of the Troubled
Assets Relief Program, TARP, which was terminated by the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This fact was confirmed
by the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP in its May
Oversight Report.
Second, it is possible that instead of promoting quality loans, the
lending fund could encourage unnecessarily risky behavior by banks.
Under the current law, the Treasury Department lends funds to banks at
a 5-percent interest rate, which can be reduced to as low as 1 percent
if the institutions in turn increase their small business lending. If
the banks fail to increase their small business lending, the interest
rate they pay could rise to a more punitive 7 percent. This could lead
to an untenable situation where banks would make risky loans to avoid
paying higher interest rates--a behavior known as ``moral hazard.''
Third, I still believe that the lending fund could put taxpayer
resources at risk. The score for the Small Business Lending Fund is
convoluted. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, score for the lending
fund listed it as raising $1.1 billion over 10 years, based on a cash-
based estimate. However, the very same CBO score highlighted that if
CBO were permitted to base its score on a fair-value estimate, which
accounts for market risk, the score would be a $6.2 billion loss. In
fact, the CBO score stated:
Estimates prepared on a ``fair-value'' basis include the
cost of the risk that the government has assumed; as a
result, they provide a more comprehensive measure of the cost
of the financial commitments than estimates done on a FCRA
[Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA)] basis or on a cash
basis. CBO estimates that the cost of the SBLF on such a
fair-value basis (that is, reflecting market risk) would be
$6.2 billion.
While I favor outright repeal of the Small Business Lending Fund, I
know that will be very difficult--and likely impossible, given that the
majority party in the Senate and the President strongly supported its
enactment. And so I am focusing my efforts on making as many
improvements to the fund as possible, a responsibility that all of us
in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be able to
coalesce around.
We undoubtedly have a shared responsibility to ensure that taxpayer's
dollars, in this case $30 billion for the Small Business Lending Fund,
are used
[[Page 4529]]
in a transparent, prudent, and responsible manner. If we foster an
environment in which banks are free to make risky loans to avoid higher
interest rates, if we permit banks to accept loans without any formal
guarantee of repayment, we fail our responsibility to our constituents
and do a disservice to our Nation's 30 million small businesses.
The following is a description of some of the amendment's provisions.
One section would require that banks that receive Small Business
Lending Fund distributions, must--within 10 years--repay the money they
receive. While the current law directs that within 10 years of
receiving the funds, the banks should repay them to the Treasury
Department, it also gives discretion to the Treasury Secretary to
extend--even indefinitely--the period of time that banks have, to repay
the government. Again, this is a commonsense provision to ensure that
taxpayer's dollars do not go to waste.
Another provision would establish a sunset of 15 years for the Small
Business Lending Fund. Under the current law, no such end date exists.
The Lending Fund must not be authorized to continue in perpetuity.
The amendment would also prohibit, moving forward, banks that have
received TARP distributions from also obtaining small business lending
funds. Under the current law, banks that have received money through
the TARP program remain eligible to receive small business lending
funds as well, unless they default on TARP repayment. My provision is
not inferring that banks who received TARP funds are bad actors, or
that they are being penalized for participating in the program. Rather,
it is a simple recognition that the Federal government should be
limiting the frequency with which it subsidizes private banks with
taxpayer funds at favorable interest rates. This crucial amendment will
prohibit banks from ``double dipping'' into taxpayer funds.
Another provision would provide that the Small Business Lending Fund
cease operations if the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is
appointed receiver of 5 percent or more of any eligible institutions.
It is essential that the lending fund is not a bailout and if there are
strong indications that this fund has serious systemic difficulties, it
must be halted until the problems within the program are corrected.
Another provision would provide that only healthy banks participate
in the Small Business Lending Fund. This amendment prevents banks who
apply for the SBLF from counting expected SBLF funds as tier 1 capital
in order to artificially strengthen their capital position in order to
receive government funds. This provision ensures that banks would have
to stand on their own two feet, rather than being able to count the
anticipated future receipts of taxpayer funds, when determining if the
banks are healthy enough to be provided those funds in the first place.
My amendment would also help ensure that regulators have more
meaningful controls over the Small Business Lending Fund. For there to
be meaningful controls over the SBLF, it is essential that all bank
regulators, whether State or Federal, have a real voice in the lending
fund's ability to lend to regulated banks. This amendment gives State
bank regulators the ability to determine whether or not a bank which
they regulate should receive capital investment through the SBLF
program. The current lending fund only gives State bank regulators an
advisory role over whether or not a bank they regulate will receive
SBLF funds. As this fund is targeted towards community banks, most of
the banks applying for this program will be regulated at the State
level. If we are really going to include State regulators and make this
an inclusive regulator process, it is essential that State regulators
have the power to affect a bank's application.
And my amendment would also establish an appropriate benchmark for
assessing changes in small business lending by recipients of capital
investments under the Small Business Lending Fund. As it is currently
written, the SBLF uses 2008 as a benchmark year to determine how much
banks will have to increase their lending to small firms. My concern is
that 2008 was a true low mark for small business lending. This
benchmark shortchanges small businesses. Using 2007, or some other
measure, as a benchmark may increase the number of loans, banks
participating in the SBLF program would have to make to small firms.
This legislation is not a silver bullet, and I recognize that we
should continue to vet these issues further. But it does attempt to
deal with many of the significant problems that I have with the lending
fund. Regrettably, these are precisely the types of issues that could
have been resolved, had the lending fund received hearings and been
properly vetted in the Senate--as one would expect of any legislative
proposal of this magnitude.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the section by section of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Greater Accountability in the Treasury Small Business Lending Fund
Act (``Act'')
*This Act revises the Department of Treasury (``Treasury'')
Small Business Lending Fund (``Lending Fund'') program
established in H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010
(``Jobs Act'').
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This legislation shall be referred to as ``the Greater
Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011.''
SEC. 2. REPAYMENT REQUIREMENT.
This section requires that financial institutions that
receive Lending Fund distributions must--within 10 years--
repay the money that they receive. Under current law, the
Secretary of Treasury (``Secretary'') has the authority to
postpone, indefinitely, repayment.
SEC. 3. SUNSET ON THE LENDING FUND.
Under existing law, the Lending Fund is authorized to exist
forever. This section requires that the Lending Fund sunset
within 15 years of the date that the Lending Fund was
enacted.
SEC. 4. TRIGGER TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
This section prohibits the Secretary from making any new
purchases (i.e. prohibits the Secretary from providing
additional money, through the Lending Fund) if the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation is appointed receiver of 5
percent or more of the number of eligible financial
institutions that have obtained a capital investment under
the Lending Fund program.
SEC. 5. DISALLOWING FUTURE LENDING FUND PURCHASES OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE
TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM (``TARP'').
This section prohibits--as of the date of this Act being
enacted--the Secretary from making additional purchases,
through the Lending Fund, of a financial institution (i.e.
providing money to a bank) that participated in the TARP
program. This section would end the double-dipping practice
of financial institutions that have previously received
taxpayer funds, at low (subsidized) interest rates, through
TARP, doing so again, through the Lending Fund.
SEC. 6. ALLOWING ONLY ``HEALTHY'' FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE LENDING FUND.
Under current law, when determining whether a bank is
financially sound, for the purpose of receiving Lending Fund
dollars, the Secretary can take into consideration what the
bank's strength would be after receiving the funds. This
section changes the law to require that the Secretary
determine whether a bank is financially stable, without being
able to include future Lending Fund distributions into the
equation. Therefore, a bank must be stable on its own,
(without regard to future Lending Fund dollars), in order to
be approved to participate in the program.
SEC. 7. ENSURING THAT REGULATORS HAVE MORE MEANINGFUL
CONTROLS OVER THE LENDING FUND.
This section requires that the Secretary must obtain
prudential regulators' approval--rather than consultation--
before an individual applicant financial institution can
receive distributions through the Lending Fund program.
SEC. 8. BENCHMARK ADJUSTMENT.
This section changes the benchmark by which a financial
institution's small business lending has increased from the
current level (the 4 full quarters immediately preceding the
date of the Jobs Act being enacted) to a new benchmark of
calendar year 2007. This section addresses concerns that the
Lending Fund may reward banks that would have increased their
lending even in the absence of government support, as the
Fund's incentive structure is calculated in reference to
lending levels, which were low by historical standards.
[[Page 4530]]
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
F_____
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF PLUM LAKE, WISCONSIN
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Johnson and I congratulate
the residents of the town of Plum Lake in Vilas County, WI, as they
celebrate the 100th anniversary of their town's founding. Plum Lake
comprises the communities of Sayner and Star Lake, both of which have
long traditions as vacation destinations because of the friendly people
and the magnificence of the lakes and forests, as well as the abundance
of fish and game. Folks looking to escape the day to day grind can
retire to this beautiful area year round to hunt, fish, water and snow
ski, and hike along nature trails. Visitors are often surprised to
discover that the town's slogan, ``Birthplace of the snowmobile,''
reflects its invention there by Carl Eliason in 1924.
The town of Plum Lake was officially formed by an ordinance passed by
the Vilas County Board on January 5, 1911. The ordinance went into
effect April 1, 1911, creating the new town from territory detached
from the town of Arbor Vitae. The first town meeting was held in Sayner
on April 14, 1911.
In the 19th century, Plum Lake was the center of a vibrant lumber
industry, which eventually gave way to tourism. Two years before the
founding of the town, in the summer of 1909, Herb Warner and others
began construction on one of Wisconsin's oldest golf courses, the Plum
Lake Golf Club, which opened in 1912. Plum Lake also boasts one of
Wisconsin's oldest summer camps, Camp Highlands, which began when Harry
O. Gilette, a University of Chicago Laboratory School headmaster,
brought 10 boys to a remote point on Plum Lake for a summer in the
wilderness in 1904.
Today, Plum Lake maintains both its majestic views and its place as a
prime vacation destination. We are very proud to represent this
community and we congratulate the town of Plum Lake on this historic
milestone. We join with all Wisconsinites in expressing our pride in
the treasures of our State.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 4:24 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 1079. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United
States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and
for other purposes.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, from the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
Special Report entitled ``Report on the Activities of the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs during the
111th Congress'' (Rept. No. 112-7).
____________________
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 Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 659. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to protect Medicare beneficiaries' access to home health
services under the Medicare program; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Barrasso,
Mr. Coburn, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Roberts):
S. 660. A bill to protect all patients by prohibiting the
use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research
to deny or delay coverage of items or services under Federal
health care programs and to ensure that comparative
effectiveness research accounts for advancements in
personalized medicine and differences in patient treatment
response; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 661. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to ensure the safe and proper use of dispersants in the
event of an oil spill or release of hazardous substances, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Mr. VITTER:
S. 662. A bill to provide for payments to certain natural
resource trustees to assist in restoring natural resources
damaged as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 663. A bill for the relief of Al-Housseynou Ba; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Crapo):
S. 664. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to clarify the capital gain or loss treatment of the sale or
exchange of mitigation credits earned by restoring wetlands,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 665. A bill to promote industry growth and
competitiveness and to improve worker training, retention,
and advancement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Johnson of South
Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Tester):
S. 666. A bill to require a report on the establishment of
a Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma Network Site
of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the northern Rockies
or Dakotas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Udall of New
Mexico):
S. 667. A bill to establish the Rio Grande del Norte
National Conservation Area in the State of New Mexico, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Kyl, Mr. Thune, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Wicker, Mr. Burr, Mr. Coburn, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 668. A bill to remove unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats from seniors' personal health decisions by
repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ISAKSON:
S. 669. A bill to amend the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act to improve the compensation system, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND:
S. 670. A bill to authorize States and their political
subdivisions to regulate fuel economy and emissions standards
for taxicabs; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr.
Hatch, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Whitehouse,
Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lee, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Thune, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Burr, and Mr.
Chambliss):
S. 671. A bill to authorize the United States Marshals
Service to issue administrative subpoenas in investigations
relating to unregistered sex offenders; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. REID (for Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. Moran, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Roberts, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Thune, and
Ms. Snowe)):
S. 672. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend and modify the railroad track maintenance credit;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 673. A bill to require the conveyance of the
decommissioned Coast Guard Cutter STORIS; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. VITTER:
S. Res. 111. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate that Congress should reject any proposal for the
creation of a system of global taxation and regulation; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Toomey):
S. Res. 112. A resolution congratulating the Pennsylvania
State University IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon (``THON'') on
its continued success in support of the Four Diamonds Fund at
Penn State Hershey Children's Hospital; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mrs. Shaheen):
S. Res. 113. A resolution commemorating the 2011
International Year of Forests; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms.
Mikulski, Ms.
[[Page 4531]]
Ayotte, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Collins, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mrs. Hagan, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu,
Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mrs.
Shaheen, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reid, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Begich, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Merkley, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reed, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Tester, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Webb, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Chambliss):
S. Res. 114. A resolution honoring Congresswoman Geraldine
A. Ferraro, the first woman selected by a major political
party as its candidate for Vice President of the United
States, and extending the condolences of the Senate on her
death; considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 17
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Lugar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 17, a bill to repeal the
job-killing tax on medical devices to ensure continued access to life-
saving medical devices for patients and maintain the standing of United
States as the world leader in medical device innovation.
S. 33
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of S. 33, a bill to
designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as
wilderness.
S. 146
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson)
were added as cosponsors of S. 146, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the work opportunity credit to certain
recently discharged veterans.
S. 216
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Blumenthal) was added as a cosponsor of S. 216, a bill to increase
criminal penalties for certain knowing and international violations
relating to food that is misbranded or adulterated.
S. 242
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 242, a bill to
amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the roles and
responsibilities of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
S. 248
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Begich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 248, a bill to allow an earlier
start for State health care coverage innovation waivers under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
S. 282
At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 282, a bill to rescind
unused earmarks.
S. 398
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) and the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) were added as cosponsors of S.
398, a bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to improve
energy efficiency of certain appliances and equipment, and for other
purposes.
S. 409
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Manchin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 409, a bill to
ban the sale of certain synthetic drugs.
S. 424
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 424, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve access to
ambulance services under the Medicare program.
S. 453
At the request of Mr. Brown of Ohio, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 453, a bill to
improve the safety of motorcoaches, and for other purposes.
S. 520
At the request of Mr. Coburn, the names of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) were added as
cosponsors of S. 520, a bill to repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise
Tax Credit.
S. 534
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Bennet) was added as a cosponsor of S. 534, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced rate of excise tax
on beer produced domestically by certain small producers.
S. 540
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) was added as a cosponsor of S. 540, a bill
to prevent harassment at institutions of higher education, and for
other purposes.
S. 570
At the request of Mr. Tester, the name of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 570, a bill to prohibit
the Department of Justice from tracking and cataloguing the purchases
of multiple rifles and shotguns.
S. 575
At the request of Mr. Tester, the names of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Nelson) were added as cosponsors of S. 575, a bill to
study the market and appropriate regulatory structure for electronic
debit card transactions, and for other purposes.
S. 584
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 584, a bill to
establish the Social Work Reinvestment Commission to provide
independent counsel to Congress and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services on policy issues associated with recruitment, retention,
research, and reinvestment in the profession of social work, and for
other purposes.
S. 593
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of S. 593, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the tax rate for excise tax on
investment income of private foundations.
S. 595
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) and the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) were added as cosponsors of S. 595, a bill
to amend title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to require the Secretary of Education to complete payments under
such title to local educational agencies eligible for such payments
within 3 fiscal years.
S. 633
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 633, a bill to prevent fraud
in small business contracting, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 183
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Paul) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 183
proposed to S. 493, a bill to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR
programs, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 197
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the names of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 197 proposed to S. 493, a bill to reauthorize and improve
the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other purposes.
[[Page 4532]]
AMENDMENT NO. 241
At the request of Mr. Risch, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 241 intended to be
proposed to S. 493, a bill to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR
programs, and for other purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 659. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
protect Medicare beneficiaries' access to home health services under
the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague
from Washington in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access
Protection Act of 2011, to prevent future unfair administrative cuts in
Medicare home health payment rates.
Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health
care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically complex
services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have helped to
keep families together and enabled millions of our most frail and
vulnerable older and disabled persons to avoid hospitals and nursing
homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security
of their own homes. Moreover, by helping these individuals to avoid
more costly institutional care, they are saving Medicare billions of
dollars each year.
That is why I find it so ironic--and troubling--that the Medicare
home health benefit continually comes under attack.
The health care reform bill signed into law by the President last
year includes $40 billion in cuts to home care over 10 years. Moreover,
these cuts are a ``double-whammy'' because they come on top of $25
billion in additional cuts to home health imposed by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services through regulation in the last several
years.
These cuts are particularly disproportionate for a program that costs
Medicare less than $20 billion a year. This simply is not right, and it
certainly is not in the best interest of our nation's seniors who rely
on home care to keep them out of hospitals, nursing homes, and other
institutions.
The payment rate cuts implemented and proposed by CMS are based on
the assertion that home health agencies have intentionally ``gamed the
system'' by claiming that their patients have conditions of higher
clinical severity than they actually have in order to receive higher
Medicare payments. This unfounded allegation of ``case mix creep'' is
based on what CMS contends to be an increase in the average clinical
assessment ``score'' of home health patients over the last few years.
In fact, there are very real clinical and policy explanations for why
the average clinical severity of home care patients' health conditions
may have increased over the years. For example, the incentives built
into the hospital diagnosis-related group--or DRG--reimbursement system
have led to the faster discharge of sicker patients. Advances in
technology and changes in medical practice have also enabled home
health agencies to treat more complicated medical conditions that
previously could only be treated in hospitals, nursing homes, or
inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
Moreover, this unfair payment rate cut is being assessed across the
board, even for home health agencies that showed a decrease in their
clinical assessment scores. If an individual home health agency is
truly gaming the system, CMS should target that one agency, not
penalize everyone.
The research method, data and findings that CMS has used to justify
the administrative cuts also raise serious concerns about the validity
of the payment rate cuts. For example, while changes in the need for
therapy services significantly affect the case mix ``score,'' the CMS
research methodology disregards those changes in evaluating whether the
patient population has changed. Moreover, the method by which CMS
evaluates changes in case mix coding is not transparent, does not allow
for true public participation, and is not performed in a manner that
ensures accountability to Medicare patients and providers in terms of
its validity and accuracy of outcomes.
The legislation we are introducing today will establish a reliable
and transparent process for determining whether payment rate cuts are
needed to account for improper changes in ``case mix scoring'' that are
not related to changes in the nature of the patients served in home
health care or the nature of the care they received. This process will
still enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact rate
adjustments provided there is reliable evidence that higher case mix
scores are resulting from factors other than changes in patient
conditions. The legislation will also prevent the implementation of
future Medicare payment rate cuts in home health until the Secretary is
able to justify the payment cuts through the improved process set forth
in the bill.
Home health care has consistently proven to be a compassionate and
cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Additional deep cuts
will be completely counterproductive to our efforts to control overall
health care costs. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2011
will help to ensure that our seniors and disabled Americans continue to
have access to the quality home health services they deserve, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Coburn,
Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Roberts):
S. 660. A bill to protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data
obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny or delay
coverage of items or services under Federal health care programs and to
ensure that comparative effectiveness research accounts for
advancements in personalized medicine and differences in patient
treatment response; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. KYL. 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. 660
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 ``Preserving Access to
Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and
Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2011'' or the ``PATIENTS Act of
2011''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN USES OF DATA OBTAINED FROM
COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; ACCOUNTING
FOR PERSONALIZED MEDICINE AND DIFFERENCES IN
PATIENT TREATMENT RESPONSE.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services--
(1) shall not use data obtained from the conduct of
comparative effectiveness research, including such research
that is conducted or supported using funds appropriated under
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-5) or authorized or appropriated under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), to
deny or delay coverage of an item or service under a Federal
health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(f))); and
(2) shall ensure that comparative effectiveness research
conducted or supported by the Federal Government accounts for
factors contributing to differences in the treatment response
and treatment preferences of patients, including patient-
reported outcomes, genomics and personalized medicine, the
unique needs of health disparity populations, and indirect
patient benefits.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as affecting the authority of the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
or the Public Health Service Act.
______
By Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 665. A bill to promote industry growth and competitiveness and to
improve worker training, retention, and advancement, and for other
purposes;
[[Page 4533]]
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Selecting
Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success, SECTORS, Act, which
Senator Sherrod Brown and I are introducing. This legislation would
amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish an industry or
sector partnership grant program administered by the Department of
Labor.
The SECTORS Act provides grants to industry clusters--interrelated
group of businesses, service providers, and associated institutions--in
order to establish and expand sector partnerships. By providing
financial assistance to these partnerships, this legislation would
create customized workforce training solutions for specific industries
at a regional level. A sector approach is beneficial because it can
focus on the dual goals of promoting the long-term competitiveness of
industries and advancing employment opportunities for workers, thereby
encouraging economic growth. Existing sector partnerships have long
been recognized as key strategic elements within some of the most
successful economic development initiatives throughout the country.
Unfortunately, current federal policy does not provide sufficient
support for these critical ventures.
As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, one
of my key goals is to ensure that manufacturers have access to a
capable workforce. Unfortunately, manufacturers across the country have
raised significant concerns about whether the next generation of
workers is being trained to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech
workplace.
In fact, in my home State of Maine, the manufacturing sector has shed
an alarming 26,200 jobs in the past ten years, or 1/3 of the State's
manufacturing employment. And since the beginning of 1990, our state
has lost 43,000 jobs. It is therefore critical that we as a Nation
provide unemployed manufacturing workers the training needed to excel
as our manufacturing sector becomes increasingly technical. This
legislation provides a crucial link between establishing worker
training programs and fostering new employment opportunities for those
who have been affected by the manufacturing industry's decline. By
promoting this innovative partnership, we will take a crucial step
toward rejuvenating our economy.
Throughout the country, sector partnerships are being used to promote
the long-term competitiveness of industries and to advance employment
opportunities. For example, the State of Maine has created the North
Star Alliance Initiative. The Alliance has brought together Maine's
boat builders, the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood
Composites Centers, Maine's marine and composite trade association,
economic development groups, and investment organizations for the
purpose of advancing workforce training.
Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy,
despite difficult times, remains the envy of the world. Ideas by
innovative Americans across the spectrums of professions and industries
have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives of millions
throughout the world. We must continue to encourage all avenues for
advancing our nation's economic well-being if America is to compete at
the vanguard of innovation. The SECTORS Act will help align America's
workforce with the needs of our Nation's employers to promote a robust
and growing economy.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr.
Conrad, and Mr. Tester):
S. 666. A bill to require a report on the establishment of a
Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma Network Site of the
Department of Veterans Affairs in the northern Rockies or Dakotas, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. BAUCUS. 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. 666
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 ``Veterans Traumatic Brain
Injury Care Improvement Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A POLYTRAUMA
REHABILITATION CENTER OR POLYTRAUMA NETWORK
SITE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS IN
THE NORTHERN ROCKIES OR DAKOTAS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The States of the northern Rockies and the Dakotas are
among those States in the United States with the highest per
capita rates of veterans with injuries from military service
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(2) Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has become known as one of
the ``signature wounds'' of military service in Iraq and
Afghanistan due to its high occurrence among veterans of such
service.
(3) A recent RAND Corporation study estimates that as many
as 20 percent of the veterans of military service in Iraq and
Afghanistan have a traumatic brain injury as a result of such
service, and many of these veterans require ongoing care for
mild, moderate, or severe traumatic brain injury.
(4) The Department of Veterans Affairs recommends that all
veterans experiencing a polytraumatic injury be referred to a
Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or a Polytrauma Network
Site.
(5) The Department of Veterans Affairs Polytrauma System of
Care includes 4 Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers and 22
Polytrauma Network Sites, none of which are located in North
Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, eastern Washington, or
Wyoming, an area that encompasses approximately 740,000
square miles.
(6) The vastness of this area imposes significant hardships
on veterans residing in this area who require care within the
Department of Veterans Affairs Polytrauma System of Care and
wish to live close to home while receiving care within such
system of care.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit to Congress a report on the feasibility and
advisability of establishing a Polytrauma Rehabilitation
Center or Polytrauma Network Site for the Department of
Veterans Affairs in the northern Rockies or the Dakotas. One
of the locations evaluated as a potential location for the
Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma Network Site,
as the case may be, shall be the Fort Harrison Department of
Veterans Affairs hospital in Lewis and Clark County, Montana.
(2) Requirements.--The report required by this subsection
shall include the following:
(A) An assessment of the adequacy of existing Department of
Veterans Affairs facilities in the northern Rockies and the
Dakotas to address matters that are otherwise addressed by
Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers and Polytrauma Network
Sites.
(B) A comparative assessment of the effectiveness of
rehabilitation programs for individuals with traumatic brain
injuries in urban areas with the effectiveness of such
programs for individuals with traumatic brain injuries in
rural and frontier communities.
(C) An assessment whether the low cost of living in the
northern Rockies and the Dakotas could reduce the financial
stress faced by veterans receiving care for traumatic brain
injury and their families and thereby improve the
effectiveness of such care.
(D) An assessment whether therapies that can prevent or
remediate the development of secondary neurologic conditions
related to traumatic brain injury can be interrupted by
stress caused by living in an urban area.
(3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with
appropriate State and local government agencies in the
northern Rockies and the Dakotas in preparing the report
required by this subsection.
______
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Hatch, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Kyl,
Mr. Graham, Mr. Lee, Ms. Collins, Mr. Thune, Mr. Coburn, Mr.
Burr, and Mr. Chambliss):
S. 671. A bill to authorize the United States Marshals Service to
issue administrative subpoenas in investigations relating to
unregistered sex offenders; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce
and speak in favor of the Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act of 2011,
which would give administrative subpoena authority to the Director of
the U.S. Marshals Service for the investigation of sex offenders who
have failed to register as
[[Page 4534]]
required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. The
language of the bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations during
the last Congress, which was included in a broader child crimes bill
last year that passed both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the
Senate, but did not become law.
To understand the need for this bill, it is important to understand
the history of recent child crimes legislation in Congress. When the
Adam Walsh Act, which I cosponsored, was enacted in July 2006 to create
a more uniform and enforceable sex offender registry system, over
150,000 convicted sex offenders were believed to be unregistered and
missing from the various state sex offender registries. A key component
of the Walsh Act, one requested by John Walsh himself, was to give the
U.S. Marshals Service primary enforcement authority to locate and
arrest unregistered sex offenders who had crossed state lines or had
earlier been convicted under federal law. The Walsh Act, however, did
not provide the Marshals Service with administrative subpoena authority
to perform these investigations, which can span jurisdictions and move
quickly. The Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act will fix this gap in
the law and grant the Marshals Service this long-needed authority.
It is very surprising that this authority does not already exist in
light of the hundreds of administrative subpoena authorities that are
in place for various federal agencies, including the EPA, the DEA, the
FBI, the CFTC, and even the Appalachian Regional Commission. In March
2006, the Congressional Research Service reported that ``[t]here are
now over 300 instances where federal agencies have been granted
administrative subpoena power in one form or another.'' In reality,
that number is even higher. According to the Department of Justice's
2002 Report to Congress on the Use of Administrative Subpoena
Authorities by Executive Branch Agencies and Entities, the Office of
Legal Policy ``identified approximately 335 existing administrative
subpoena authorities held by various executive branch entities under
current law.'' Most of these authorities are for civil enforcement or
regulatory compliance--matters far less critical and time-sensitive
than locating a fugitive sex offender who has intentionally evaded
registering his location or place of employment to avoid detection by
law enforcement.
There is no reason why the Marshals Service should not have this type
of authority. In these fast-moving investigations across state lines,
law enforcement simply cannot afford delays, especially on weekends and
holidays when U.S. Attorney's Offices are closed and grand jury
subpoenas are unavailable. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand
explained the delays and limitations of traditional grand jury
subpoenas in fast-moving investigations when she testified before the
Senate Judiciary Committee on another administrative subpoena proposal
in June 2004:
Although grand jury subpoenas are a sufficient tool in many
investigations, there are circumstances in which an
administrative subpoena would save precious minutes or hours.
. . . For example, the ability to use an administrative
subpoena will eliminate delays caused by factors such as the
unavailability of an Assistant United States Attorney to
immediately issue a grand jury subpoena, especially in rural
areas; the time it takes to contact an Assistant United
States Attorney in the context of a time-sensitive
investigation; the lack of a grand jury sitting at the moment
the documents are needed (under federal law, the `return
date' for a grand jury subpoena must be on a day the grand
jury is sitting); or the absence of an empaneled grand jury
in the judicial district where the investigation is taking
place, a rare circumstance that would prevent a grand jury
subpoena from being issued at all.
The reality is that sex offenders often fail to register precisely so
they can evade detection and move to a new place where they won't face
scrutiny. During the hearings and floor debates on the Adam Walsh Act,
the Senate heard of the heart-breaking tragedies caused when sex
offenders knowingly evaded registration so they could disappear from
detection. Senators from Washington and Idaho went to the floor to
describe the registry failures and disappearance of Joseph Duncan, who
shortly after his release from custody in 2005, absconded from
Minnesota and traveled across the country to Idaho, where he kidnapped
Dylan and Shasta Groene from their home in the middle of the night. In
the course of the kidnapping, he murdered the children's mother,
brother, and the mother's boyfriend by beating them to death with a
framing hammer. He then took the children to remote campgrounds across
the state line into Montana, where he brutally abused them and later
killed Dylan. As one Senator explained during the debate: ``Joseph
Duncan was essentially lost by three States. He moved from State to
State to avoid capture. No one knew where he was nor even how to look
for him.''
A similar tragic story involved the convicted sex offender who killed
Florida 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. John Couey had failed to tell
authorities that he was living in a trailer just feet from Jessica's
home. In 2005, he kidnapped Jessica from her bedroom and took her to
his home where he raped and killed her. Ernie Allen, the President of
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, cited Couey in
his congressional testimony in support of the Walsh Act, explaining
that he ``was not where he was supposed to be and [his] presence was
unknown to the police or Jessica's family even though he lived 150
yards down the street from her and had worked construction at her
elementary school.''
As the Lunsford and Groene cases demonstrate, some sex offenders
evade the registry requirements because they want to offend again. In
these cases, time is law enforcement's enemy. According to the
Department of Justice's guide for families with missing children, ``the
actions of parents and of law enforcement in the first 48 hours are
critical to the safe recovery of a missing child.'' The Lunsford case
illustrates how vital it is for law enforcement to quickly locate sex
offenders during a missing child investigation. John Couey reportedly
told law enforcement that he kept young Jessica alive for three days
before he smothered her inside a plastic trash bag. In a case like
Jessica's, this type of authority literally could mean the difference
between life and death.
This legislation has broad support. When I drafted this language last
Congress, I shared it with the Marshals Service and lawyers who work in
the field of protecting children from exploitation. These professionals
were not only supportive, but also very clear about the need for this
subpoena authority.
I strongly support this legislation and am thankful to the broad
bipartisan group, including Senators Blumenthal, Hatch, Klobuchar,
Grassley, Whitehouse, Cornyn, Kyl, Graham, Lee, Collins, Thune, Coburn,
Burr and Chambliss, who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I
hope the full Senate will take up and pass this legislation soon.
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. 671
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 ``Finding Fugitive Sex
Offenders Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE.
Section 566(e)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) issue administrative subpoenas in accordance with
section 3486 of title 18 solely for the purpose of
investigating unregistered sex offenders (as that term is
defined in section 3486 of title 18).''.
SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA
STATUTE.
(a) In General.--Section 3486(a)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (i)(II), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
[[Page 4535]]
(C) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) an unregistered sex offender conducted by the United
States Marshals Service, the Director of the United States
Marshals Service; or''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the
following:
``(D) As used in this paragraph--
``(i) the term `Federal offense involving the sexual
exploitation or abuse of children' means an offense under
section 1201, 1591, 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252,
2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423, in which the victim is an
individual who has not attained the age of 18 years; and
``(ii) the term `sex offender' means an individual required
to register under the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 3486(a)
of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``United State'' and
inserting ``United States'';
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking ``or (1)(A)(ii)'' and
inserting ``or (1)(A)(iii)''; and
(3) in paragraph (10), by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)(ii)''
and inserting ``paragraph (1)(A)(iii)''.
______
By Mr. REID (for Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
Moran, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Thune, and Ms. Snowe)):
S. 672. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
and modify the railroad track maintenance credit; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
extend the Section 45G short line freight railroad tax credit.
Section 45G creates an incentive for short lines to invest in track
rehabilitation by providing a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar
spent on track improvements. If this credit is allowed to expire at the
end of the year, private-sector investments in infrastructure in our
communities will fall by hundreds of millions of dollars.
``Short line'' railroads are small freight rail companies responsible
for bringing goods to communities that are not directly served by large
railroads. Supporting small railroads allows the communities
surrounding them to attract and maintain businesses and create jobs.
The evidence of the success of this credit can be found in communities
across America.
This credit has a real impact for the people of my state. West
Virginia is the second biggest producer of railroad ties in the
country. Since the credit first was enacted, approximately 750,000
railroad ties have been purchased above what would have otherwise been
purchased with no incentive. Those railroad ties translate directly
into jobs. This credit does not create just West Virginia jobs, it
benefits manufacturers of ties, spikes, and rail all across America.
Over 12,000 rail customers across America depend on short lines. This
credit creates a strong incentive for short lines to invest private
sector dollars on private-sector freight railroad track rehabilitation
and improvements. Shippers rely on the high quality service these
railroads provide to get their goods to market. Unfortunately, this
credit is scheduled to expire at the end of 2011.
This bill would extend the 45G credit through 2017 and provide the
important long-term planning certainty necessary to maximize private-
sector transportation infrastructure investment. 54 Members of this
body sponsored legislation that extended this credit last Congress and
I hope there will be similar support again this year.
I thank the Chair and ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation that will benefit small businesses throughout the
country.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 111--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT CONGRESS
SHOULD REJECT ANY PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION OF A SYSTEM OF GLOBAL
TAXATION AND REGULATION
Mr. VITTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Finance:
S. Res. 111
Whereas many proposals are pending in Congress--
(1) to increase taxes;
(2) to regulate businesses; and
(3) to continue runaway Government spending;
Whereas taxpayer funding has already financed major, on-
going bailouts of the financial sector;
Whereas the proposed cap-and-trade system would result in
trillions of dollars in new taxes and job-killing
regulations;
Whereas a number of nongovernmental organizations are
proposing that a cap and trade regulatory system be adopted
on a global scale;
Whereas the ``outcome document'' produced by the September
20-22, 2010, United Nations Summit on the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) commits the nations of the world,
including the United States, to supporting ``innovative
financing mechanisms'' to supplement foreign aid spending;
Whereas the term ``innovative financing mechanisms'' is a
United Nations euphemism for global taxes;
Whereas the ``Leading Group on Innovative Financing for
Development,'' a group of 63 countries, seeks to promote the
implementation of ``innovative financing mechanisms'';
Whereas a ``Task Force on International Financial
Transactions for Development'' is working within the Leading
Group and with the United Nations to propose and implement
global tax schemes;
Whereas ``innovative financing mechanisms'' are going to be
on the agenda for the G8 and G20 summits in France in 2011;
Whereas new international taxation and regulatory proposals
would be an affront to the sovereignty of the United States;
Whereas the best manner by which to overcome the economic
downturn in the United States includes taking measures that
would--
(1) lower tax rates;
(2) reduce Government spending; and
(3) impose fewer onerous and unnecessary regulations on job
creation; and
Whereas the worst manner by which to overcome the economic
downturn in the United States includes taking measures that
would--
(1) increase tax rates; and
(2) expand government intervention, including intervention
on a global scale: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Congress
should reject any proposal for the creation of--
(1) ``innovative financing mechanisms'' or global taxes;
(2) an international system of government bailouts for the
financial sector;
(3) a global cap-and-trade system or other climate
regulations that would--
(A) punish businesses in the United States; and
(B) limit the competitiveness of the United States; and
(4) a global tax system that would violate the sovereignty
of the United States.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 112--CONGRATULATING THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
IFC/PANHELLENIC DANCE MARATHON (``THON'') ON ITS CONTINUED SUCCESS IN
SUPPORT OF THE FOUR DIAMONDS FUND AT PENN STATE HERSHEY CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL
Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Toomey) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 112
Whereas the Pennsylvania State IFC/Panhellenic Dance
Marathon (referred to in this preamble as ``THON'') is the
largest student-run philanthropy in the world, with 700
dancers, more than 300 supporting organizations, and more
than 15,000 volunteers involved in the annual event;
Whereas student volunteers at the Pennsylvania State
University annually collect money and dance for 46 hours
straight at the Bryce Jordan Center for THON, bringing energy
and excitement to campus for a mission to conquer cancer and
awareness about the disease to thousands of individuals;
Whereas all THON activities support the mission of the Four
Diamonds Fund at Penn State Hershey Children's Hospital,
which provides financial and emotional support to pediatric
cancer patients and their families and funds cancer research;
Whereas each year, THON is the single largest donor to the
Four Diamonds Fund at Penn State Hershey Children's Hospital,
having raised more than $69,000,000 since 1977, when the 2
organizations first became affiliated;
Whereas in 2011, THON set a new fundraising record of
$9,563,016.09, besting the previous record of $7,838,054.36,
which was set in 2010;
Whereas THON has helped more than 2,000 families through
the Four Diamonds Fund, is currently helping to build a new
Pediatric Cancer Pavilion at Penn State Hershey Children's
Hospital, and has helped support pediatric cancer research
that has caused some
[[Page 4536]]
pediatric cancer survival rates to increase to nearly 90
percent; and
Whereas THON has inspired similar events and organizations
across the United States, including at high schools and
institutions of higher education, and continues to encourage
students across the United States to volunteer and stay
involved in great charitable causes in their community: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the Pennsylvania State University IFC/
Panhellenic Dance Marathon (``THON'') on its continued
success in support of the Four Diamonds Fund at Penn State
Hershey Children's Hospital; and
(2) commends the Pennsylvania State University students,
volunteers, and supporting organizations for their hard work
putting together another record-breaking THON.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 113--COMMEMORATING THE 2011 INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF
FORESTS
Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mrs. Shaheen) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry:
S. Res. 113
Whereas United Nations Resolution 61/193, adopted by the
General Assembly on December 20, 2006, designates the year
2011 as the International Year of Forests;
Whereas the forests of the United States are essential to
the health, environment, social fabric, and economy of the
United States, as well as to the individual well-being of the
people of the United States;
Whereas the forests of the United States are owned,
managed, and conserved by a mosaic of family, business, and
public entities, with the largest segment of forests owned by
11,000,000 Americans;
Whereas privately-owned forests supply 92 percent of the
trees harvested for the wood products that the people of the
United States use every day;
Whereas the forest products industry--
(1) accounts for approximately 5 percent of the total
United States manufacturing Gross Domestic Product (GDP);
(2) is among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in
48 States; and
(3) employs nearly 900,000 Americans;
Whereas wood products are 1 of the most environmentally
friendly building materials, resulting in a maximum reduction
in energy use of 17 percent and a more than 250 percent
reduction in air and water pollution, when compared to
alternative materials;
Whereas forests supply more than 50 percent of the current
renewable energy consumed in the United States;
Whereas as of 2011, the forests and forest products of the
United States sequester and store 12 percent of annual United
States carbon emissions and, with the proper incentives, can
increase the percentage of annual carbon emissions that are
sequestered and stored;
Whereas 53 percent of the fresh water supply of the lower
48 States originates in forests and \1/4\ of the supply
originates in private forests;
Whereas 60 percent of at-risk plants and animals rely on
private forests, and more than 90 percent of at-risk species
rely on all forests for habitat;
Whereas the 14,000,000 Americans who hunt and the
44,000,000 Americans who fish depend on private forests for
most of the habitat for fish and wildlife;
Whereas the United States leads the world in sustainable
forest practices;
Whereas even while forested acreage as a whole is
increasing, permanent loss of forests in ecologically and
economically important areas is expected to increase, with
57,000,000 acres of private forests facing significant
development pressures in the next 2 decades;
Whereas more than 58,000,000 acres of United States forests
are at risk due to insects and disease, especially invasive
forest pests, which threaten the health and vitality of
forests;
Whereas more than 400,000,000 acres of private forests are
at risk due to wildfires, especially in areas where forested
boundaries and communities meet; and
Whereas more than 170,000,000 acres of privately owned
forests will change hands in the next 2 decades, with a
potential loss of the public benefits derived from those
forests: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate, in commemoration of the 2011
International Year of Forests--
(1) recognizes the multiple contributions that forests of
the United States make to the traditions, health, and way-of-
life of the United States;
(2) recognizes the growing threats faced by forests of the
United States; and
(3) expresses support and appreciation for--
(A) the 11,000,000 people of the United States who own the
majority of the private forests of the United States; and
(B) the thousands of forestry professionals who work every
day in the forests of the United States who work to conserve
the publicly and privately owned forests of the United
States.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 114--HONORING CONGRESSWOMAN GERALDINE A. FERRARO, THE
FIRST WOMAN SELECTED BY A MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY AS ITS CANDIDATE FOR
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND EXTENDING THE CONDOLENCES OF
THE SENATE ON HER DEATH
Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Mikulski, Ms.
Ayotte, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs.
Hagan, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs.
Murray, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Barrasso, Ms. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Begich, Mr. Bennet,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Cardin, Mr.
Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Manchin, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Tester, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico,
Mr. Warner, Mr. Webb, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Chambliss)
submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 114
Whereas Congresswoman Geraldine A. Ferraro served the
people of the Ninth Congressional District of New York for 6
years;
Whereas Congresswoman Ferraro worked her way through law
school at Fordham University, at a time when very few women
did so;
Whereas Congresswoman Ferraro then joined the Queens County
District Attorney's Office, where she supervised the
prosecution of a variety of violent crimes, including child
and domestic abuse;
Whereas in 1978, New York's Ninth Congressional District in
Queens elected Congresswoman Ferraro to the U.S. House of
Representatives, where she was one of only 16 women members
of the House;
Whereas when she was nominated as the running mate of Vice
President Walter F. Mondale in the 1984 presidential race,
Congresswoman Ferraro became the first woman ever chosen to
run on the national ticket of either of the 2 major political
parties of the United States;
Whereas Congresswoman Ferraro's candidacy continues the
progress begun by women who achieved political firsts before
her and helped to tear down barriers to the full and equal
participation of women in national politics;
Whereas in January 1993, President Clinton appointed Ms.
Ferraro a United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, a role from which she championed
the rights of women around the world; and
Whereas Geraldine Ferraro's 1984 bid for Vice President
helped our daughters join our sons in believing they could
achieve anything they set their minds to: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That--
(1) the Senate recognizes that Geraldine A. Ferraro's vice-
presidential candidacy forever enriched the American
political landscape and forged a new path for women of the
United States;
(2) the Senate pays tribute to Congresswoman Geraldine A.
Ferraro's work to improve the lives of women and families not
only in the Ninth Congressional District of New York, whom
she represented so well, but also the lives of women and
families all across the United States;
(3) the Senate requests the Secretary of the Senate to
transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of
Congresswoman Geraldine A. Ferraro; and
(4) when the Senate adjourns today, it stand adjourned as a
further mark of respect to the memory of Congresswoman
Geraldine A. Ferraro.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 258. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Cochran,
and Mr. Shelby) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 493, to reauthorize and
improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 259. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Tester)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
bill S. 493, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 260. Mr. BROWN of Ohio submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by him
[[Page 4537]]
to the bill S. 493, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 261. Mr. BROWN of Ohio submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by him to the bill S. 493, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 262. Mr. BENNET submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 493, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 263. Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Rockefeller) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 161 proposed by Mr. Johanns (for himself and
Mr. Manchin) to the bill S. 493, supra; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
SA 264. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Tester)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
bill S. 493, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 265. Ms. STABENOW submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 493, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 266. Ms. SNOWE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 493, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 267. Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. Corker) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
493, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 258. Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Cochran, and Mr.
Shelby) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
bill S. 493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title V, add the following:
SEC. 504. EXTENSION OF THE PLACED IN SERVICE DATE FOR LOW-
INCOME HOUSING CREDIT RULES FOR BUILDINGS IN GO
ZONES.
Section 1400N(c)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2012'' and inserting
``January 1, 2013''.
______
SA 259. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Tester) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 493, to
reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 116, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 504. EXEMPTION OF OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES FROM BAN ON LEAD
IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.
(a) Exemption.--Section 101(b) of the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a(b)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) Exception for off-highway vehicles.--
``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an
off-highway vehicle.
``(B) Off-highway vehicle defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term `off-highway vehicle'--
``(i) means any motorized vehicle--
``(I) that is manufactured primarily for use off of public
streets, roads, and highways;
``(II) designed to travel on 2 or 4 wheels; and
``(III) having either--
``(aa) a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and
handlebars for steering control; or
``(bb) a nonstraddle seat, steering wheel, seat belts, and
roll-over protective structure; and
``(ii) includes a snowmobile.''.
(b) Additional Amendment.--Such section is further amended
in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``any''.
______
SA 260. Mr. BROWN of Ohio submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR
and STTR programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
At the end of title V, add the following:
SEC. 504. MANUFACTURING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SBIR AND STTR
PROGRAMS.
The Administration shall establish a portal within the
centralized SBIR website that--
(1) announces manufacturing opportunities when available;
and
(2) publishes any Administration rules and guidance
relating to such opportunities.
______
SA 261. Mr. BROWN of Ohio submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR
and STTR programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
On page 90, line 13, after ``agency'' insert ``, including
in the manufacturing sector and, to the extent practicable,
the effects of patent rights granted to inventions arising
out of SBIR on job creation and savings in the manufacturing
sector''.
______
SA 262. Mr. BENNET submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR
programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. ___. MARKET RESEARCH TO IDENTIFY QUALIFIED RECIPIENTS OF
AWARDS UNDER THE SBIR OR STTR PROGRAM.
Section 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(s) SBIR and STTR Awardees.--
``(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `covered contract' means a contract to
perform research, development, or production that has an
expected annual value that is more than $150,000 and not more
than $25,000,000;
``(B) the term `recipient of an award under an SBIR program
or STTR program' includes a team of small business concerns
that received an award under an SBIR program or STTR program;
and
``(C) the terms `SBIR program' and `STTR program' have the
meanings given those terms under section 9.
``(2) Market research.--Before a contracting officer for a
Federal agency issues a request for proposals relating to a
covered contract, the contracting officer shall perform
market research to determine whether a recipient of an award
under the SBIR program or STTR program is qualified to
perform the covered contract using technology developed using
the award.
``(3) Full and fair consideration.--If a contracting
officer for a Federal agency identifies a recipient described
in paragraph (2) after performing market research under
paragraph (2), the contracting officer shall ensure that the
recipient is given full and fair consideration in the award
of the covered contract.''.
______
SA 263. Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Rockefeller)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 161
proposed by Mr. Johanns (for himself and Mr. Manchin) to the bill S.
493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 4, before line 1, insert the following:
(b) Study of the Effects on Small Businesses of Increases
in the Amounts of Health Care Credit Overpayments Required to
Be Recaptured.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a study to determine if the amendments made by
this section--
(A) will result in an increase in health insurance premiums
within the Exchanges created by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act for employees or owners of small
businesses; or
(B) will result in an increase in the number of individuals
who do not have health insurance coverage, a disproportionate
share of which are employees and owners of small businesses.
(2) Effect of increases.--If the Secretary determines under
paragraph (1) that there will be an increase described in
subparagraph (A) or (B), or both, then the amendments made by
this section shall not apply to taxable years ending after
the date of such determination and the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 shall be applied and administered to such taxable
years as if such amendments had never been enacted.
______
SA 264. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Tester) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 493, to
reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 116, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 504. EXEMPTION OF OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES FROM BAN ON LEAD
IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.
Section 101(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) Exception for off-highway vehicles.--
``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an
off-highway vehicle.
``(B) Off-highway vehicle defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term `off-highway vehicle'--
``(i) means any motorized vehicle--
[[Page 4538]]
``(I) that is manufactured primarily for use off of public
streets, roads, and highways;
``(II) designed to travel on 2 or 4 wheels; and
``(III) having either--
``(aa) a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and
handlebars for steering control; or
``(bb) a nonstraddle seat, steering wheel, seat belts, and
roll-over protective structure; and
``(ii) includes a snowmobile.''.
______
SA 265. Ms. STABENOW submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the bill S. 493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR
programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 116, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 504. SUSPENSION OF STATIONARY SOURCE GREENHOUSE GAS
REGULATIONS.
(a) Defined Term.--In this section, the term ``greenhouse
gas'' means--
(1) water vapor;
(2) carbon dioxide;
(3) methane;
(4) nitrous oxide;
(5) sulfur hexafluoride;
(6) hydrofluorocarbons;
(7) perfluorocarbons; and
(8) any other substance subject to, or proposed to be
subject to, any regulation, action, or consideration under
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) to address climate
change.
(b) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (d), and
notwithstanding any provision of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.), any requirement, restriction, or limitation
under such Act relating to a greenhouse gas that is designed
to address climate change, including any permitting
requirement or requirement under section 111 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 7411), shall not be legally effective during the 2-
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(c) Treatment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
any action by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency before the end of the 2-year period
described in subsection (b) that attempts to classify a
greenhouse gas as a pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), except for purposes
other than addressing climate change, for any source other
than a new motor vehicle or a new motor vehicle engine (as
described in section 202(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a))
shall not be legally effective during such period.
(d) Exceptions.--Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply
to--
(1) the implementation and enforcement of the rule entitled
``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards'' (75 Fed. Reg.
25324 (May 7, 2010) and without further revision); or
(2) the finalization, implementation, enforcement, and
revision of the proposed rule entitled ``Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles'' published at 75 Fed.
Reg. 74152 (November 30, 2010).
SEC. 505. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION STANDARDS.
(a) Preserving One National Standard for Automobiles.--
Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) With respect to standards for emissions of greenhouse
gases (as defined in section 330) for model year 2017 or any
subsequent model year for new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines--
``(A) the Administrator may not waive application of
subsection (a); and
``(B) no waiver granted prior to the date of enactment of
this paragraph may be considered to waive the application of
subsection (a).''.
(b) Agricultural Sources.--In calculating the emissions or
potential emissions of a source or facility, emissions of
greenhouse gases that are subject to regulation under title
III of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) solely on
the basis of the effect of the gases on global climate change
shall be excluded if the emissions are from--
(1) direct or indirect changes in land use;
(2) the growing of commodities, biomass, fruits,
vegetables, or other crops;
(3) the raising of stock, dairy, poultry, or fur-bearing
animals; or
(4) farms, forests, plantations, ranches, nurseries,
ranges, orchards, greenhouses, or other similar structures
used primarily for the raising of agricultural or
horticultural commodities.
SEC. 506. ENERGY SECURITY.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Security in Energy and Manufacturing Act of 2011'' or the
``SEAM Act of 2011''.
(b) Extension of the Advanced Energy Project Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 48C of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(6) Additional 2011 allocations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish a
program to consider and award certifications for qualified
investments eligible for credits under this section to
qualifying advanced energy project sponsors with respect to
applications received on or after the date of the enactment
of this paragraph.
``(B) Limitation.--The total amount of credits that may be
allocated under the program described in subparagraph (A)
shall not exceed the 2011 allocation amount reduced by so
much of the 2011 allocation amount as is taken into account
as an increase in the limitation described in paragraph
(1)(B).
``(C) Application of certain rules.--Rules similar to the
rules of paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) shall apply for
purposes of the program described in subparagraph (A), except
that--
``(i) Certification.--Applicants shall have 2 years from
the date that the Secretary establishes such program to
submit applications.
``(ii) Selection criteria.--For purposes of paragraph
(3)(B)(i), the term `domestic job creation (both direct and
indirect)' means the creation of direct jobs in the United
States producing the property manufactured at the
manufacturing facility described under subsection
(c)(1)(A)(i), and the creation of indirect jobs in the
manufacturing supply chain for such property in the United
States.
``(iii) Review and redistribution.--The Secretary shall
conduct a separate review and redistribution under paragraph
(5) with respect to such program not later than 4 years after
the date of the enactment of this paragraph.
``(D) 2011 allocation amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `2011 allocation amount' means
$5,000,000,000.
``(E) Direct payments.--In lieu of any qualifying advanced
energy project credit which would otherwise be determined
under this section with respect to an allocation to a
taxpayer under this paragraph, the Secretary shall, upon the
election of the taxpayer, make a grant to the taxpayer in the
amount of such credit as so determined. Rules similar to the
rules of section 50 shall apply with respect to any grant
made under this subparagraph.''.
(2) Portion of 2011 allocation allocated toward pending
applications under original program.--Subparagraph (B) of
section 48C(d)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting
``(increased by so much of the 2011 allocation amount (not in
excess of $1,500,000,000) as the Secretary determines
necessary to make allocations to qualified investments with
respect to which qualifying applications were submitted
before the date of the enactment of paragraph (6))'' after
``$2,300,000,000''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b)
of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
``48C(d)(6)(E),'' after ``36C,''.
______
SA 266. Ms. SNOWE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the bill S. 493, to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR
programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE __--SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND
SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Greater Accountability in
the Lending Fund Act of 2011''.
SEC. __02. REPAYMENT DEADLINE UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS
LENDING FUND PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 4103(d)(5)(H) of the Small
Business Jobs Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 4741 note) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a
period;
(B) by striking subclause (II); and
(C) by striking ``will--'' and all that follows through
``be repaid'' and inserting ``will be repaid'';
(2) by striking clause (ii); and
(3) by striking ``that--'' and all that follows through
``includes,'' and inserting ``that includes,''.
(b) Effective Date; Applicability; Savings Clause.--
(1) Effective date; applicability.--The amendments made by
this section shall--
(A) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) apply to any investment made by the Secretary of the
Treasury under the Small Business Lending Fund Program
established under section 4103(a)(2) of the Small Business
Jobs Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 4741 note) (in this subsection
referred to as the ``Program'') on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Savings clause.--Notwithstanding the amendments made by
this section, an investment made by the Secretary of the
Treasury under the Program before the date of enactment of
this Act shall remain in full force and effect under the
terms and conditions under the investment.
[[Page 4539]]
SEC. __03. SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND SUNSET.
Section 4109 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (12
U.S.C. 4741 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting ``and shall be limited
by the termination date in subsection (c)'' before the period
at the end; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Termination of Program.--
``(1) Investments.--On and after the date that is 15 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal
Government may not own any preferred stock or other financial
instrument purchased under this subtitle or otherwise
maintain any capital investment in an eligible institution
made under this subtitle.
``(2) Authorities.--Except as provided in subsection (a),
all the authorities provided under this subtitle shall
terminate 15 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.''.
SEC. __04. SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND TRIGGER.
Section 4109 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (12
U.S.C. 4741 note), as amended by section __03, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) FDIC Receivership.--The Secretary may not make any
purchases, including commitments to purchase, under this
subtitle if the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is
appointed receiver of 5 percent or more of the number of
eligible institutions that receive a capital investment under
the Program.''.
SEC. __05. SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND LIMITATION.
(a) In General.--Section 4103(d) of the Small Business Jobs
Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 4741 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``, less the amount of any CDCI investment
and any CPP investment'' each place it appears;
(2) by striking paragraph (7);
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (8), (9), and (10) as
paragraphs (7), (8), and (9), respectively; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) Prohibition on tarp participants participating in
the program.--An institution in which the Secretary made a
investment under the CPP, the CDCI, or any other program
established by the Secretary under the Troubled Asset Relief
Program established under the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.) shall not
be eligible to participate in the Program.''.
(b) Effective Date; Applicability; Savings Clause.--
(1) Effective date; applicability.--The amendments made by
this section shall--
(A) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) apply to any investment made by the Secretary of the
Treasury under the Small Business Lending Fund Program
established under section 4103(a)(2) of the Small Business
Jobs Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 4741 note) (in this subsection
referred to as the ``Program'') on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Savings clause.--Notwithstanding the amendments made by
this section, an investment made by the Secretary of the
Treasury under the Program before the date of enactment of
this Act shall remain in full force and effect under the
terms and conditions under the investment.
SEC. __06. PRIVATE INVESTMENTS UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS
LENDING FUND PROGRAM.
Section 4103(d)(3) of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010
(12 U.S.C. 4741 note) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``matched''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``both under the
Program and''.
SEC. __07. APPROVAL OF REGULATORS.
(a) In General.--Section 4103(d)(2) of the Small Business
Jobs Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 4741 note) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Consultation
with'' and inserting ``Approval of'';
(2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``the Secretary shall'' and inserting ``the Secretary may not
make a purchase under this subtitle unless'';
(3) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``consult with''; and
(B) by striking ``to determine whether the eligible
institution may receive'' and inserting ``determines that,
based on the financial condition of the eligible institution,
the eligible institution should receive'';
(4) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``consider any views received from''; and
(B) by striking ``regarding the financial condition of the
eligible institution'' and inserting ``determines that, based
on the financial condition of the eligible institution, the
eligible institution should receive such capital
investment''; and
(5) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``consult with''; and
(B) by inserting ``determines that, based on the financial
condition of the eligible institution, the eligible
institution should receive such capital investment'' before
the period at the end.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4103(d)(3)(A) of the
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 4741 note) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``to be consulted under paragraph (2) would
not otherwise recommend'' and inserting ``required to make a
determination under paragraph (2) does not approve'';
(2) by striking ``to be so consulted''; and
(3) by striking ``to be consulted would recommend'' and
insert ``would approve''.
SEC. __08. BENCHMARK FOR SMALL BUSINESS LENDING.
Section 4103(d)(5)(A)(ii) of the Small Business Jobs Act of
2010 (12 U.S.C. 4741 note) is amended by striking ``for the 4
full quarters immediately preceding the date of enactment of
this Act'' and inserting ``during calendar year 2007''.
______
SA 267. Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. Corker) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 493, to
reauthorize and improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE VI--DEBIT INTERCHANGE FEE STUDY
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Debit Interchange Fee
Study Act of 2011''.
SEC. 602. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) in response to the proposed debit interchange rule of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System mandated
by section 1075 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, the Chairman of Board, the
Comptroller of the Currency, the Chairperson of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Chairman of the
National Credit Union Administration Board have publicly
raised concerns about the impact of the proposed rule;
(2) while testifying before the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on February 17,
2011, the Chairman of the Board stated in response to
questions about the small bank exemption to the interchange
rule, ``. . .there is some risk that the exemption will not
be effective and that the interchange fees available through
smaller institutions will be reduced to the same extent we
would see for larger banks'';
(3) the Acting Comptroller of the Currency, in comments to
the Board, cited safety and soundness concerns and stated,
``. . .we believe the proposal takes an unnecessarily narrow
approach to recovery of costs that would be allowable under
the law and that are recognized and indisputably part of
conducting a debit card business. This has long-term safety
and soundness consequences - for banks of all sizes. . .'';
(4) the chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation stated in comments to the Board regarding the
proposed rule their concern that the small bank exemption
would not work, stating, ``. . .we are concerned that these
institutions may not actually receive the benefit of the
interchange fee limit exemption explicitly provided by
Congress, resulting in a loss of income for community banks
and ultimately higher banking costs for their customers'';
(5) the chairman of the National Credit Union
Administration Board, in comments to the Board, cited concern
with making sure there are ``meaningful exemptions for
smaller card issuers''; and
(6) all of the comments and concerns raised by the banking
and credit union regulatory agencies cast serious questions
about the practical implementation of section 1075 of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
and further study and consideration are needed.
SEC. 603. RULEMAKING AND EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) Extension for Rulemaking Timelines and Revised
Effective Date.--Section 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act (15 U.S.C. 1693o-2) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3)(A), by striking ``9 months after
the date of enactment of the Consumer Financial Protection
Act of 2010'' and inserting ``24 months after the date of
enactment of the Debit Interchange Fee Study Act of 2011'';
(2) in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i), by striking ``9 months
after the date of enactment of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010'' and inserting ``24 months after the
date of enactment of the Debit Interchange Fee Study Act of
2011'';
(3) in subsection (a)(8)(C), by striking ``9-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010'' and inserting ``24-month
period beginning on the date of enactment of the Debit
Interchange Fee Study Act of 2011'';
(4) in subsection (a)(9), by striking ``12-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010'' and inserting ``30-month
period beginning on the date of enactment of the Debit
Interchange Fee Study Act of 2011'';
(5) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking ``1-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010'' and inserting ``24-month
period beginning on the date of enactment of the Debit
Interchange Fee Study Act of 2011''; and
[[Page 4540]]
(6) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``1-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010'' and inserting ``24-month
period beginning on the date of enactment of the Debit
Interchange Fee Study Act of 2011''.
(b) Earlier Rulemaking Voided; New Rulemaking Required.--
Any regulation proposed or prescribed by the Board pursuant
to section 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (as
amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act) prior to the date that is 6 months after the
date of completion of the study required under section 604
shall be withdrawn by the Board and shall have no legal
effect.
SEC. 604. STUDY.
(a) Study Required.--Not later than 12 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the study agencies shall
jointly submit a report to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives regarding
the impact of regulating debit interchange transaction fees
and related issues under section 920 of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act.
(b) Subjects for Review.--In conducting the study required
by this section, the study agencies shall examine the state
of the debit interchange payment system, including the impact
of section 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act on
consumers, entities that accept debit cards as payment, all
financial institutions that issue debit cards, including
small issuers, and debit card networks, and shall
specifically examine--
(1) the costs and benefits of electronic debit card
transactions and alternative forms of payment, including
cash, check, and automated clearing house (ACH) for
consumers, merchants, issuers, and debit card networks,
including--
(A) individual consumer protections, ease of acceptance,
payment guarantee, and security provided through such forms
of payments for consumers;
(B) costs and benefits associated with acceptance,
handling, and processing of different forms of payments,
including labor, security, verification, and collection where
applicable;
(C) the extent to which payment form impacts incremental
sales and ticket sizes for merchants;
(D) all direct and indirect costs associated with fraud
prevention, detection, and mitigation, including data breach
and identity theft, and the overall costs of fraud incurred
by debit card issuers and merchants, and how those costs are
distributed among those parties; and
(E) financial liability and payment guarantee for debit
card transactions and associated risks and costs incurred by
debit card issuers and merchants, and how those costs are
distributed among those parties;
(2) the structure of the current debit interchange system,
including--
(A) the extent to which the current structure offers
merchants and issuers, particularly smaller merchants and
issuers sufficient competitive opportunities to participate
and negotiate in the debit interchange system;
(B) an examination of the benefits of allowing interchange
fees to be determined in bilateral negotiations between
merchants and issuers, including small issuers directly;
(C) mechanisms for allowing more price discovery and
transparency on the part of the consumer; and
(D) the ability of new competitors to enter the payment
systems market and an examination into whether structural
barriers to entry exist; and
(3) the impact of the proposed rule reducing debit card
interchange fees issued by the Board entitled, ``Debit Card
Interchange Fees and Routing'' (75 Fed. Reg. 81,722 (Dec. 28,
2010)), if such proposed rule were adopted without change,
including--
(A) the impact on consumers, including whether consumers
would benefit from reduced interchanges fees through reduced
retail prices;
(B) the impact on lower and moderate income consumers and
on small businesses with respect to the cost and
accessibility of payment accounts and services, the
availability of credit, and what alternative forms of
financing are available and the cost of such financing;
(C) the impact on consumer protection, including anti-
fraud, customer identification efforts, and privacy
protection;
(D) the impact of reduced debit card interchange fees on
merchants, including a comparison of the impact on small
merchants versus large merchants;
(E) the potential consequences to merchants if reduced
debit interchange fees result in elimination of the payment
guarantee or other reductions in debit card services to
merchants or shift consumers to other forms of payments;
(F) the impact of significantly reduced debit card
interchange fees on debit card issuers and the services and
rates they provide, if fees do not adequately recoup costs
and investments made by issuers and the potential impact on
the safety and soundness of issuers;
(G) whether it is possible to exempt or treat differently a
certain class of issuers within the debit interchange system,
such as small issuers and the impact of market forces on such
treatment;
(H) the extent to which a transition to a fee cap from an
interchange fee that is proportional to the overall cost of a
transaction could provide a reasonable rate of return for
issuers and adequately cover fraud and related costs;
(I) the impact on other entities that utilize debit card
transactions, including the debit card programs of Federal
and State entities.
(J) the impact of shifting debit transaction routing from
card issuers to merchants, including resulting changes to
interchange fees and costs for card issuers; and
(K) the impact of mandating a specific number of enabled
networks on merchants and debit card issuers, including the
specific and unique impact on small issuers.
SEC. 605. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System.
(2) Study agencies.--The term ``study agencies'' means the
Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National
Credit Union Administration.
(3) Small issuers.--The term ``small issuers'' means debit
card issuers that are depository institutions, including
community banks and credit unions, with assets of less than
$10,000,000,000.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Armed Services
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 10 a.m., to
conduct a hearing entitled, ``Public Proposals for the Future of the
Housing Finance System''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Foreign Relations
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Select Committee on Intelligence
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Human Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting the
Civil Rights of American Muslims.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services, and International Security
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee
on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal
Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a
hearing entitled, ``Tools to Present DOD Cost Overruns.''
[[Page 4541]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia
Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on March 29, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled,
``Strengthening the Senior Executive Service: a Review of Challenges
Facing the Government's Leadership Corps.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on
Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate
on March 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
AIRPORT AND AIRWAY EXTENSION ACT OF 2011
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1079, which
is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1079) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United
States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and
for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 1079) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
HONORING CONGRESSWOMAN GERALDINE A. FERRARO
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 114,
submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 114) honoring Congresswoman Geraldine
A. Ferraro, the first woman selected by a major political
party as its candidate for Vice President of the United
States, and extending condolences of the Senate on her death.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or
debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 114) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 114
Whereas Congresswoman Geraldine A. Ferraro served the
people of the Ninth Congressional District of New York for 6
years;
Whereas Congresswoman Ferraro worked her way through law
school at Fordham University, at a time when very few women
did so;
Whereas Congresswoman Ferraro then joined the Queens County
District Attorney's Office, where she supervised the
prosecution of a variety of violent crimes, including child
and domestic abuse;
Whereas in 1978, New York's Ninth Congressional District in
Queens elected Congresswoman Ferraro to the U.S. House of
Representatives, where she was one of only 16 women members
of the House;
Whereas when she was nominated as the running mate of Vice
President Walter F. Mondale in the 1984 presidential race,
Congresswoman Ferraro became the first woman ever chosen to
run on the national ticket of either of the 2 major political
parties of the United States;
Whereas Congresswoman Ferraro's candidacy continues the
progress begun by women who achieved political firsts before
her and helped to tear down barriers to the full and equal
participation of women in national politics;
Whereas in January 1993, President Clinton appointed Ms.
Ferraro a United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, a role from which she championed
the rights of women around the world; and
Whereas Geraldine Ferraro's 1984 bid for Vice President
helped our daughters join our sons in believing they could
achieve anything they set their minds to: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That--
(1) the Senate recognizes that Geraldine A. Ferraro's vice-
presidential candidacy forever enriched the American
political landscape and forged a new path for women of the
United States;
(2) the Senate pays tribute to Congresswoman Geraldine A.
Ferraro's work to improve the lives of women and families not
only in the Ninth Congressional District of New York, whom
she represented so well, but also the lives of women and
families all across the United States;
(3) the Senate requests the Secretary of the Senate to
transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of
Congresswoman Geraldine A. Ferraro; and
(4) when the Senate adjourns today, it stand adjourned as a
further mark of respect to the memory of Congresswoman
Geraldine A. Ferraro.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30
a.m., Wednesday, March 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed
expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later
in the day; that following any leader remarks, there be a period for
the transaction of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted
to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally
divided or controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with
the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling
the final half; further, that following morning business, the Senate
resume consideration of S. 493, the small business jobs bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, rollcall votes in relation to
amendments to the small business jobs bill are expected during
tomorrow's session. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if there is no further business
to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn
under the provisions of S. Res. 114 as a further mark of respect to the
memory of Congresswoman Geraldine A. Ferraro.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:03 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, March 30, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 4542]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The House met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the Speaker.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Cherry blossoms draw thousands of visitors to the Capitol city, Lord.
Their silent beauty causes busy residents to stop their frenzied motion
and simply gaze for a moment. Reflected in pools or clustered together
on lawns, wrinkled with age, their new life displays a unified motion
of gentle friendship.
Today, in our prayer, Lord, we offer voice to their song of spring
and praise You and bless You for this momentary revelation of Your
unique mystery and the blessing upon this Nation. Lord, this powerful
gift of the Japanese people invites us to pray for our friends in their
hour of need and suffering. Spring's fragile beauty will not be
manipulated or contained for very long. In and through this passing
glimpse of glory, the truth of Your promise is revealed. So, we learn
the importance of Your timing and the art of subtle cohesion in natural
forces.
Lord, grant us patience that You will have Your way with us now and
always.
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 Texas (Mr. Burgess) come forward
and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. BURGESS 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.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas) laid before the House the
following communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2011.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on March 17, 2011 at 6:52
p.m.:
That the Senate agreed to H. Con. Res. 30.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
Robert F. Reeves,
Deputy Clerk.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader:
March 16, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(A) of rule X
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I designate the
following Members to be available to serve on investigative
subcommittees of the Committee on Ethics during the 112th
Congress:
Zoe Lofgren of California
Ben Chandler of Kentucky
John P. Sarbanes of Maryland
Terri A. Sewell of Alabama
Paul Tonko of New York
Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico
David N. Cicilline of Rhode Island
William R. Keating of Massachusetts
Adam B. Schiff of California
Yvette D. Clarke of New York
Best regards,
Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader.
____________________
ROTARY INTERNATIONAL ASSISTS JAPAN
(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. Mr. Speaker, all Americans have
provided sympathy for the people of Japan due to the massive earthquake
and tsunami, but I was grateful to learn last week at the Lexington
Rotary Club, led by President Nick Pizzuti, that The Rotary Foundation
is taking direct action. Special Assistant Bill Walker of the Second
District Office is a dedicated Lexington Rotarian. The Rotary Japan and
Pacific Islands Disaster Fund has been established for donations online
worldwide. Rotary International President Ray Klinginsmith of
Kirksville, Missouri, is promoting the people-to-people assistance in
the best tradition of Rotary with his creed: Building Communities,
Bridging Continents. Japan is a leading Rotary nation, and it is
fitting the incoming RI president-nominee to continue the relief
assistance is Sakuji Tanaka of the Rotary Club of Yashio, Saitama,
Japan.
As a Rotarian, I appreciate Rotarians worldwide, with hundreds of new
clubs in formerly Communist countries from Bulgaria to Slovakia to
Russia making a difference with Service Above Self. As with Polio Plus,
Rotarians can achieve humanitarian assistance which creates worldwide
records for effectiveness.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.
____________________
CONGRATULATING BELLARMINE KNIGHTS
(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, in Louisville, we have a lot to be proud
of--the Kentucky Derby, the Louisville Slugger, Muhammad Ali--and now
the NCAA Division II Men's Basketball Champion Bellarmine Knights.
Led by Coach Scott Davenport, the Knights finished their regular
season with 24 wins, won their second consecutive conference title, and
stormed through the NCAA tournament to bring home the university's
first national championship. The Knights corralled Mustangs and tamed
Mavericks. And on Saturday, led by all-tourney players Jeremy Kendle
and Justin Benedetti, Chris Dowe's 16 points, Luke Sprague's double-
double, and clutch free throws from Hobbs and Holmes, the Knights
grounded a Jet and sent the Seasiders packing. The Knights are true
student athletes who overcame injuries and adversity bound together by
trust--trust in their abilities and trust in each other. And let's not
forget the trust and support of the fans who traveled by the busload
nearly 900 miles to cheer on their Knights.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me today in congratulating Coach
Davenport, the team, and the entire Bellarmine community on its 2011
NCAA national championship. This was a victory that made history--and
on behalf of everyone in Louisville, we're proud to call the Knights
our hometown heroes and national champions.
[[Page 4543]]
____________________
MR. PRESIDENT, AMERICA NEEDS ANSWERS
(Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, last night, the President took to the
airwaves and talked to the Nation about the international efforts that
America is leading in Libya. This comes almost 2 weeks after the
President gave his approval for the United States to be involved in the
action in Libya. The President discussed the United States' interest in
the conflict, the limited involvement of the United States military,
and the role of other countries. What the President failed to deliver
was a clear articulation on what is America's role in this conflict.
Putting our men and women in harm's way while not knowing the specifics
of how and why is not just unacceptable, it is dangerous.
Mr. President, you need to be more forthcoming. The American people
need more information. The American people certainly deserve answers.
The explanation last night was disappointing, and we find ourselves
even more frustrated as specific information was not provided. What is
the exit strategy? What is the endgame? What are our goals? How are we
going to ensure that the next government of Libya is not even more
hostile than the current regime?
The President does need to follow through with his actions. We need
to have the resolve to see this through. The President waited too long
to address the Nation. Certainly, the Congress needed to be involved.
And certainly the American people needed to be involved.
____________________
{time} 1410
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m.
today.
____________________
AIRPORT AND AIRWAY EXTENSION ACT OF 2011
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1079) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the
funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund,
to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport
improvement program, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1079
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 ``Airport and Airway Extension
Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TAXES FUNDING AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST
FUND.
(a) Fuel Taxes.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4081(d)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``March 31, 2011'' and inserting ``May 31, 2011''.
(b) Ticket Taxes.--
(1) Persons.--Clause (ii) of section 4261(j)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``March
31, 2011'' and inserting ``May 31, 2011''.
(2) Property.--Clause (ii) of section 4271(d)(1)(A) of such
Code is amended by striking ``March 31, 2011'' and inserting
``May 31, 2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on April 1, 2011.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND
EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``April 1, 2011'' and inserting ``June 1,
2011''; and
(2) by inserting ``or the Airport and Airway Extension Act
of 2011'' before the semicolon at the end of subparagraph
(A).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 9502(e)
of such Code is amended by striking ``April 1, 2011'' and
inserting ``June 1, 2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on April 1, 2011.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Section 48103 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by striking the 2 paragraphs designated as
paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
``(8) $2,466,666,667 for the 8-month period beginning on
October 1, 2010.''.
(2) Obligation of amounts.--Subject to limitations
specified in advance in appropriation Acts, sums made
available pursuant to the amendment made by paragraph (1) may
be obligated at any time through September 30, 2011, and
shall remain available until expended.
(3) Program implementation.--For purposes of calculating
funding apportionments and meeting other requirements under
sections 47114, 47115, 47116, and 47117 of title 49, United
States Code, for the 8-month period beginning on October 1,
2010, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall--
(A) first calculate funding apportionments on an annualized
basis as if the total amount available under section 48103 of
such title for fiscal year 2011 were $3,700,000,000; and
(B) then reduce by 20 percent--
(i) all funding apportionments calculated under
subparagraph (A); and
(ii) amounts available pursuant to sections 47117(b) and
47117(f)(2) of such title.
(b) Project Grant Authority.--Section 47104(c) of such
title is amended by striking ``March 31, 2011,'' and
inserting ``May 31, 2011,''.
SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES.
(a) Section 40117(l)(7) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``April 1, 2011.'' and inserting ``June
1, 2011.''.
(b) Section 44302(f)(1) of such title is amended--
(1) by striking ``March 31, 2011,'' and inserting ``May 31,
2011,''; and
(2) by striking ``June 30, 2011,'' and inserting ``August
31, 2011,''.
(c) Section 44303(b) of such title is amended by striking
``June 30, 2011,'' and inserting ``August 31, 2011,''.
(d) Section 47107(s)(3) of such title is amended by
striking ``April 1, 2011.'' and inserting ``June 1, 2011.''.
(e) Section 47115(j) of such title is amended by striking
``April 1, 2011,'' and inserting ``June 1, 2011,''.
(f) Section 47141(f) of such title is amended by striking
``March 31, 2011.'' and inserting ``May 31, 2011.''.
(g) Section 49108 of such title is amended by striking
``March 31, 2011,'' and inserting ``May 31, 2011,''.
(h) Section 161 of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 47109 note) is amended by
striking ``April 1, 2011,'' and inserting ``June 1, 2011,''.
(i) Section 186(d) of such Act (117 Stat. 2518) is amended
by striking ``April 1, 2011,'' and inserting ``June 1,
2011,''.
(j) The amendments made by this section shall take effect
on April 1, 2011.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Capuano) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 1079.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Congressional
Record the exchange of letters concerning H.R. 1079 between the
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 22, 2011.
Hon. John Mica,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 1079, the
``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011,'' which is
expected to be scheduled for floor consideration the week of
March 28, 2011.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Sections 2 and 3
of this bill amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by
extending the current Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)
expenditure authority and the associated Federal excise taxes
to May 31, 2011. In order to expedite H.R. 1079 for Floor
consideration, the Committee will forgo action on the bill.
This is being done with the understanding that it does not in
any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the
appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this or similar legislation. In that regard, I would note
that
[[Page 4544]]
the Committee on Ways and Means recently favorably reported
H.R. 1034, the ``Airport and Airway Trust Fund Financing
Reauthorization Act of 2011,'' which would provide a similar,
but longer-term reauthorization, through September 30, 2014,
of the AATF expenditure authority and associated excise
taxes.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 1079, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during Floor
consideration.
Sincerely,
Dave Camp,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 23, 2011.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 1102 Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1079, the ``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011.'' The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure recognizes the
Committee on Ways and Means has a jurisdictional interest in
H.R. 1079, and I appreciate your effort to facilitate
consideration of this bill.
I concur with you that forgoing action on H.R. 1079 does
not in any way prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means with
respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or
similar legislation in the future, and I would support your
effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of
conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this
legislation.
Finally, I appreciate your decision to forgo further
consideration on H.R. 1034, the ``Airport and Airway Trust
Fund Financing Reauthorization Act of 2011,'' which would
provide a longer-term reauthorization of the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund expenditure authority and associated excise
taxes. This bill was sequentially referred to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
I will include our letters on H.R. 1079 in the
Congressional Record during House Floor consideration of the
bill. Again, I appreciate your cooperation regarding this
legislation and I look forward to working with the Committee
on Ways and Means as the bill moves through the legislative
process.
Sincerely,
John L. Mica,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the principal
author of the bill and the chairman of the Transportation Committee,
our colleague from the State of Florida, John Mica.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is an extension of what
would be known as the ``aviation bill.'' I come before the House asking
for one extension under the leadership of the new majority in Congress.
I also come to the floor to explain the history of how we got here
today with 17 extensions.
In 2001, I had the honor and privilege of being named the chair of
the Aviation Subcommittee. Not knowing what the future would hold, of
course, all of our lives changed on September 11, 2001, and mine did,
too.
In 2003, we passed a 4-year authorization: The Federal Government
must provide authorization and set the policy for the operation of our
Nation's aviation system and for the FAA, which is the primary and lead
agency. The bill that we passed in 2003 sets forth the policy and the
funding for all the projects and everything eligible for Federal
participation. It authorizes all the programs. When we did that again
in 2003, we did a 4-year bill.
In 2007, the bill that I helped author and that we brought before the
Congress--again after the fateful days of 2001, after the tragedy, and
again after the difficulty the aviation industry saw from 2001 to
2003--the bill that expired in 2007, the 4-year bill, was extended some
17 times. That is shameful and irresponsible that we find ourselves in
a situation where we haven't passed policy.
Now, why is this important?
Most of the emphasis in this Congress should be on getting people
back to work. If we have people working, most of our problems are
solved. The States would have revenue, and the Federal Government would
have revenue. Yet it's absolutely amazing, when you have the aviation
industry, which accounts for 9.2 percent of our gross domestic product
and activity in the United States--9.2 percent--that the Federal
Government and Congress did not have in place a long-term policy and
blueprint, which is set forth in that authorization legislation. So 17
times we've come to the floor, and there have been these short-term
extensions of the bill that we passed originally in 2003 and that
expired in 2007. That's the situation we find ourselves in.
Now, several weeks ago, we did pass in the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee a long-term 4-year bill. The Senate has acted,
the other body, and they've passed a bill. If it had been just our
committee, we probably could have had the bill up a little bit quicker,
but we do rely on several other committees to add input into this
process. We have the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, which
just before we left last week completed their portion of the bill. We
have the Ways and Means Committee, which also has part of the financial
responsibility, the Ways and Means' responsibility, in the legislation
for the extension, and they finished their work.
We do need a little bit more time to come to conference, and I pledge
an open conference. In the past, legislation has been decided behind
closed doors. I hope this to be an open process. This extension will
run us through May 31, I believe, of this year, the end of May, and it
is my hope that the first bill that we can get done will be done with
this one extension for, again, authorizing all of our aviation programs
for the Nation.
So that's the situation we find ourselves in. We need to pass this
legislation because the current 17th extension expires at the end of
this week, and we must have this in place to make certain that we can
even function in any manner, even though we don't have all the details
of new legislation in place, which I pledge to do in the next 60 days.
With that explanation, I would like to thank the chairman of the
Aviation Subcommittee, the gentleman and our leader on aviation issues,
Mr. Petri.
Mr. CAPUANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1079, the Airport and Airway
Extension Act of 2011.
As you heard, this is the 18th short-term extension for FAA programs.
With the enactment of a long-term FAA reauthorization in sight, as the
chairman has just mentioned--and we all look forward to that--I want to
echo my colleague's hopes that this will be the last short-term
extension. I know, if we have to have one, we'll probably do one, but
we all hope that it's the last one we do.
Without the enactment of this bill, the FAA's funding, programs, and
expenditure authority would lapse on March 31. This clean and
straightforward extension will keep the FAA operating at current
funding levels for another 2 months, through May 31. It will give
Congress time to work out the long-term reauthorization. Yet I want to
be clear: While I support this short-term extension bill, I have
serious concerns about H.R. 658, the long-term FAA reauthorization
bill, which I expect the House may try to take up this week.
In fiscal year 2010, the FAA's major programs were funded at
approximately $16 billion. H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform
Act of 2011, is a 4-year reauthorization that would reduce the FAA's
annual funding to approximately 2008 appropriation levels, $14.9
billion, for the remainder of 2011 and then each year through fiscal
year 2014. H.R. 658 would effectively cut, roughly, $1 billion annually
and almost $4 billion total below current funding levels for FAA's
budget over the next 4 years. These proposed cuts will have dire
consequences on our Nation's infrastructure, jobs, and the economy.
Mr. Speaker, in February, the House Aviation Subcommittee held a
hearing for industry stakeholders to testify about FAA reauthorization.
In response to a question that I posed, witnesses representing the
aerospace industry, general aviation manufacturers, general aviation
pilots, airports, air traffic controllers, and FAA managers all
testified that Congress could
[[Page 4545]]
not cut $1 billion annually from the FAA's budget without harming
safety-sensitive programs or hampering the industry. At the same
hearing, Ms. Marion Blakey, the FAA administrator under President
George W. Bush, stated: ``The prospect is really devastating to jobs
and to our future.''
Every $1 billion of Federal investment in infrastructure creates or
sustains approximately 35,000 jobs. Yet H.R. 658 would cut the airport
improvement grants for runway construction and safety enhancements by
almost $2 billion. Cuts to airport improvement grants alone would cost
the Nation 70,000 jobs.
{time} 1420
So let's be clear about one thing: The FAA reauthorization bill that
we will consider later this week will not create jobs; it will destroy
them. Although much work is ahead of us, I'm optimistic that Congress
will be able to enact a long-term bill and we will not be considering a
19th short-term extension this summer. For the present, however, this
particular extension, this bill before us today, I support, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. I would just like to observe to my colleague, we will have
plenty of opportunity to defend and debate the overall reauthorization
later this week. The reauthorization bill is broadly supported by the
industry affected. We may differ on some portions of it, but one of the
major features of the reauthorization is to put in place a strengthened
framework and benchmarks for NextGen; and as that new technology is
deployed, almost every expert we've had testifying before the committee
has said it will markedly increase the efficiency and safety of the
aviation industry and reduce fuel use by some 25 percent, helping the
environment and our import situation as well.
In any event, I would like to mention that the current
reauthorization extension, the short-term extension before us, has
bipartisan support. I would urge my colleagues in both parties to
support it.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1079.
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.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 839 and to insert extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
____________________
THE HAMP TERMINATION ACT OF 2011
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 170 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. 839.
{time} 1425
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. 839) to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to
terminate the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to provide new
assistance under the Home Affordable Modification Program, while
preserving assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer
to participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent basis,
with Mr. Poe of Texas 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 gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 839, the Home Affordable
Modification Program, or HAMP, Termination Act and commend my colleague
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) for introducing this bill.
H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act, would put an end to the poster
child for failed Federal foreclosure programs. Announced by the
administration in February 2009 and launched in March 2009, the program
has languished for 2 years, hurt hundreds of thousands of homeowners,
and must come to an end.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would save
$1.4 billion over 10 years. To date, the HAMP program has already
consumed $840 million of the more than $30 billion of TARP funds that
were set aside for the program. For this extraordinary investment, the
administration predicted that 3 to 4 million homeowners would receive
help.
Sadly, for many American homeowners, the program has been an abysmal
failure. In fact, HAMP has hurt more homeowners than it has helped. The
program has completed about 540,000 mortgage modifications. Another
740,000 unlucky homeowners had the rug pulled out from under them:
their modifications were cancelled. Even the Government Accountability
Office, GAO, commented that ``more borrowers have had their trial
modifications cancelled than have received permanent modifications.''
Earlier this month, on March 2, the Financial Services Subcommittee
on Insurance, Housing, and Community Opportunity received testimony
from the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief
Program, SIGTARP, Neil Barofsky. He exposed the most hazardous failing
of the program, noting that ``there have been countless published
reports on HAMP participants who end up worse off for having engaged in
a futile attempt to obtain the sustainable relief that the program
promised. Failed trial modifications often leave borrowers with more
principal outstanding on their loans, less home equity, depleted
savings, and worse credit scores.'' He continued by saying that ``worst
of all, even in circumstances where they never missed a payment, they
may face back payments, penalties, and even late fees that suddenly
become due on their `modified' mortgages and that they are unable to
pay, thus resulting in the very loss of their homes that HAMP was meant
to prevent.''
Mr. Chairman, many of my own constituents, like homeowners around the
country, were lured into HAMP with the promise of relief. In the end,
these misled homeowners ended up with no permanent modification, tens
of thousands of dollars deeper in debt. One of my constituents reported
that after many, many months under a trial modification, he was
rejected from the program and immediately handed a bill for $42,000 in
back payments, penalties, and late fees. How is that an effective
foreclosure protection?
HAMP has been plagued by problems from the start and is beyond mere
reform. Numerous oversight bodies, including the GAO, have cited time
and time again that Treasury has failed to respond to recommendations
to ``increase the transparency, accountability and consistency of the
program.'' Last year, the Congressional Oversight Panel, or COP, noted
that ``because Treasury's authority to restructure HAMP ended on
October 3, 2010, the program's prospects are unlikely to improve
substantially in the future.''
{time} 1430
COP also stated that ``billions of taxpayer dollars will have been
spent to delay rather than prevent foreclosures.'' It is clear that the
administration has no intention of fixing the
[[Page 4546]]
numerous problems in its flagship foreclosure program, a fact which has
not gone unnoticed by the public.
Americans for Tax Reform submitted testimony for our March 2 hearing,
stating that ``HAMP has been the U.S. Treasury and Department of
Housing and Urban Development's primary spending program for combating
foreclosures, and the program has been a costly failure.''
Headlines around the country agree. A recent Washington Times article
said that ``Obama's helping hand hoodwinks homeowners; government
mortgage assistance can be worse than nothing.'' A recent Wall Street
Journal article was entitled ``Housing Market Masochism; the latest bad
idea to raid banks and delay a home-price recovery.''
We need to break down the barriers that have delayed the housing
market recovery, including expensive and ineffective programs that have
hurt so many homeowners. Unfortunately, programs like HAMP were set up
in haste and have done little to restore stability in the market.
We need to stop funding programs that don't work with money that we
don't have. Out-of-control Federal spending is hurting our economic
recovery. Our Nation faces a $14.2 trillion national debt, and
economists agree that reducing government spending will create a more
favorable environment for private sector job growth. That's exactly
what unemployed Americans and homeowners need: a job and a paycheck,
not a handout or other failed taxpayer-funded government programs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to a member of the
committee, the former mayor of Somerville, Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is a program that I'm the first to admit has not
lived up to what our hopes were. This program we had hoped would help
several million people. Thus far we've only helped about 550,000
people. I fully admit that this program, like all the other foreclosure
programs, could use a healthy dose of reconsideration and improvement,
and I'm happy to work with that.
But to simply repeal all of these programs is to walk away from
individual homeowners, walk away from neighborhoods.
In this particular case, last week before the break, we walked away
from neighborhoods. We walked away from cities and counties all across
the country. In this case, we're walking away from homeowners.
In this particular bill, as I said, this program, short of what we
had hoped, it has still helped 550,000 homeowners to keep their homes,
550,000 with approximately another 150,000 on trial as we speak. And
550,000 homes, just as a point of information, is more owner-occupied
homes than exist in at least 17 different States. Wyoming, Alaska,
Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, and on--all individually have fewer
homes in the entire State than this program has helped. Yet we're going
to walk away.
Every single State in this Nation has homeowners who have been
helped. In Illinois, 29,000 homes have been saved; in North Carolina,
10,000 homes; in my own State, 12,000 homes and counting.
Again, I'm not going to defend the specifics or every single aspect
of this program that has been put together, and I am happy to work with
anyone to make it better, to help more people to keep their homes, keep
their families together. But to simply walk away without offering an
alternative means we don't care; this Congress doesn't care if you lose
your home, period. Well, I understand that that's what some people want
to say. They're entitled to do that. They're duly elected and have the
power and authority to do that. But I just can't imagine they could
look at the individual constituents in their district and say to their
face, We don't care.
And if you feel that strongly about it, then you should not just
repeal the program prospectively; you should repeal it retroactively
and tell the 550,000 people whose homes have been saved, We didn't mean
it, it was a mistake, we didn't support it then, and as far as we're
concerned, you can leave your home tomorrow.
Now, I understand if that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal according
to some people, so be it. Call me any name you want. But if you have
the courage and the audacity to look at your own constituents and tell
them forget it, you don't care, I would encourage you to do so.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry), the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time.
The HAMP Termination Act, which is the legislation before us today,
ends what I believe to be a failure of a government program. Not just a
failure to help those 3 to 4 million homeowners that the Treasury
originally set out to assist, and they've fallen well short of it--just
over 500,000 mortgage modifications have taken place in the 2 years
it's been in existence. Not only has it been a failure in terms of the
metrics they set up to achieve the goal; it's been a failure for the
very people who enter into the program and yet are pushed out.
Now, I want my colleagues to understand what this government program
does. The HAMP program, the Home Affordable Mortgage Program, brings
folks in who are having trouble making their mortgage payments. They
bring folks in, and they will give them a verbal modification for their
mortgage. And what has happened--and this is what my constituents tell
me and this is what the hard facts and the data indicate as well--is
that a majority of those folks that enter into this program are
actively harmed by this Federal program. Actively harmed. They are left
materially worse off.
And let me quote from the Special Inspector General for TARP, Mr.
Neil Barofsky, who is a very independent-minded individual. He said
that people who apply for modifications via HAMP sometimes ``end up
unnecessarily depleting their dwindling savings in an ultimately futile
effort to obtain the sustainable relief promised by the program
guidelines. Others, who have somehow found ways to continue to make
their mortgage payments, have been drawn into failed trial
modifications that have left them with more principal outstanding on
their loans, less home equity, or a position further underwater, and
worse credit scores. Perhaps worst of all, even in circumstances where
they never missed a payment, they may face back payments, penalties,
and even late fees that suddenly become due on their modified mortgages
that they are unable to pay, thus resulting in the very loss of their
home that HAMP is meant to prevent.
``Treasury's claim that every single person who participates in HAMP
gets a `significant benefit' is either hopelessly out of touch or a
cynical attempt to define failure as success.''
Those are the words of the Special Inspector General designated to
oversee this program and to report to Congress and the public on the
success or failures of Federal programs and ways to fix them.
Now, sadly, in the 2 years of this program and over 1\1/2\ years of
criticism of this program, the Treasury has refused to fix it. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not offered legislation
to fix it when they were in the majority. So we're left with what is
required today, which is to root out this Federal program that spends
our taxpayer dollars, yet hurts more people than it helps.
One of my constituents from Hickory said, ``We've been in the HAMP
program since February of 2010 and still have no answer. We're being
charged late fees and we were reported to the credit bureau. We've been
underwater since April and on trial payments for 6 months, which was
only supposed to be 3 months. We have not yet received an answer.''
This is a Federal program. If the private sector were doing this,
there would be lawsuits. If the private sector were doing that, my
friends on the other side of Congress in particular would be filing
legislation to make sure they were unable to do that.
[[Page 4547]]
Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this
administration are defending a failed program. And they refused to
reform it. They refused to change. They refused to improve it. They
refused to do anything to it except defend it. And I believe, indeed,
as the Special Inspector General said, it may be a cynical attempt to
define failure as success.
So I ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation and remove this
costly, ineffective, and painful government program.
{time} 1440
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me say something first.
In the beginning of this program, we didn't have any service. That
means there were no people out there to help those that were trying to
apply. But we have seen encouraging signs in the economy; yet we are
still on a long path towards economical recovery. Many of my
constituents are still facing hardship, including trying to keep their
homes.
When the housing crisis hit, the private sector responded by turning
their backs on those that needed the help. As a result, Congress
stepped in and created housing programs to hold the industry
accountable and to help these families weather the worst housing crisis
that we have seen in generations.
Now, thanks to the leadership of the President and the Democratic-
controlled 111th Congress, we are seeing more and more servicers
adopting their own programs, largely based on the eligibility criteria
within the programs such as HAMP.
The past few weeks my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
brought bills to the floor to terminate these programs, claiming they
have done more harm than good to the homeowner and that struggling
homeowners are in better hands with the private companies that
contributed to the housing crisis in the first place. Most of the
homeowners got in trouble because the private sector is the one that
got them in the problems.
I disagree with that and point to constituents who have reached out
to my office for help because their servicers were not being
responsive.
The bill before us totally terminates the HAMP program; however, it
protects assistance to the homeowners in a trial or a permanent
modification.
My amendment, which was not made in order, would have expanded that
provision to include homeowners who, on or before March 1 of this year,
submitted required paperwork for HAMP or had made a verified request to
their servicers seeking that modification.
My district office has heard from dozens and dozens of my
constituents who have been waiting for up to 16 months, 16 months for a
response from their servicer regarding the eligibility for HAMP. They
reach out to my office at the point of total frustration due to the
lengthy response time when they have submitted the required paperwork.
I shudder to think what the response rate would have been without this
program in place.
It's very disheartening that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle would like to shut down these distressed homeowners before they
have even a chance to qualify for the assistance.
The HAMP program was by no means perfect. Everybody agrees on that.
Nor was it meant to be permanent. We all agree on that. Instead, it was
meant to hold the mortgage service industry accountable and responsive
to those that needed the assistance.
At a time when our housing market is still very fragile and
foreclosures continue to occur in record numbers, instead of
terminating these programs, we should be trying to improve them.
During the markup in committee, when we were trying to improve, we
asked our colleagues, all right, let's not terminate it; let's try and
fix some of the things that are not right.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentlewoman an additional
minute.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Supporting efforts to terminate these
housing assistance programs means turning your back on your own
constituents.
Mr. Chairman, we have our disagreements. There's no two ways about
it. But with that being said, to judge a program from the beginning
when we couldn't get servicers, now we are getting servicers, now we
are getting people to be responsive on getting people to stay in their
homes.
And think about it: All these homes that are being lost to families,
where are they supposed to go? In New York, you can't find an
apartment, so what are we doing, making more people homeless?
It was not the fault of the homeowners. I agree, there were many
people that shouldn't have probably bought a house for $700,000 or
$800,000. The majority of us here in Congress couldn't even afford
something like that. They should have never been given a mortgage. All
of us, when we bought our homes, had to go through the third degree.
How much money do you earn? Can you pay the insurance? Can you pay your
taxes?
That's why we also put legislation in there to have the servicers
help them.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 19\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 23 minutes remaining.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Carney).
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this ill-advised
effort to repeal the Home Affordable Modification Program. Instead, we
ought to be focusing on how we can move together, Democrats and
Republicans, to address the foreclosure crisis and keep families in
their homes.
Since the housing bubble burst, over 9 million Americans have gone
into foreclosure. In my little State of Delaware, annual foreclosure
filings nearly tripled over the past few years. And we aren't even one
of the worst, hardest hit States.
Now, one thing is clear. We can't help every one of these homeowners.
Every situation is different; and, frankly, not every homeowner can or
should be helped. And most of the help should come from the banks and
mortgage servicers, but they are not doing nearly enough in the State
of Delaware.
What is incredible to me is that, with the HAMP Termination Act, our
friends on the other side of the aisle have decided not to help at all;
and that will mean a more direct path to foreclosure for thousands of
families.
The claim is that HAMP has hurt more people than it has helped. That
is simply a ridiculous charge. Back in my home State of Delaware, the
HAMP program has helped 1,600 homeowners, by far the most effective
government program. That's 25 percent of the homeowners who filed for
foreclosure last year.
And I know a little bit about this. I served as the chair of the
foreclosure task force when I was lieutenant governor for over a year.
And the best course, the best result we know is for the private
banks, as I said, and the servicers to make the modifications
necessary, for the private sector to shoulder the bulk of the burden.
But they're just not doing it. And so public officials need tools to
help out, and HAMP is one of the best tools we have.
The real question here is whether you believe there is an appropriate
role for government at all to help homeowners facing foreclosure
through no fault of their own. It's okay to use taxpayers funds to bail
out the banks, but my friends on the other side don't want to use a
small amount to help homeowners.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentleman from Delaware talks about his State. Let me just say
that in Illinois, if we look back quarter by quarter, HAMP permanent
modifications, for example, in the second quarter of 2010 were 167,000;
but the proprietary were 331,883. The next quarter, 97
[[Page 4548]]
HAMP and 346,910. And it goes on. And I think that's something to keep
in mind, that the private sector can do it better.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield myself another 30 seconds.
The private sector, out of 4.1 million modifications, 3.5 million of
those were private sector, and the rest of the 550. And that doesn't
include the 750,000 modifications that were made by HAMP that were
canceled.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 90 seconds to say that
that is an extraordinary bit of illogic we have just heard. The private
sector, nothing in the existence of HAMP in any way retards people from
going to the private sector.
If you listen to the gentlewoman, you would get this fantasy picture
that people were being restrained by the Federal Government not to go
to the private sector, go to HAMP.
In fact, HAMP is also the private sector. That's part of the problem.
It is also a private sector decision with no coercion by the
government. Some people wish there was more.
But, yes, it is true the private sector has done the easy ones on its
own. And anybody who wants to go to the private sector and get it does
not have to go to HAMP. But there is no requirement that people go to
HAMP.
And this set-up that it's a choice, you have to go to one or the
other, people are free to go to the bank. If the bank won't do it, then
they may go to HAMP. So this is an absolutely illogical notion that one
blocks the other.
The other point is that HAMP is the Federal Government bringing
people into contact with the private sector. It is still ultimately a
private sector decision.
Part of the problem here is that it remains voluntary. I wish we had
passed in this House bankruptcy. You know, you can go bankrupt for
anything but your primary residence. And my Republican friends
overwhelmingly blocked that from happening. And absent that, we don't
have the leverage with the private sector we'd like to have. But it is
in every case the private sector that decides. And if it is a
relatively easy one to do, the private sector does it without any
hindrance.
{time} 1450
If there is a problem, then you go into the HAMP.
The other point is, and I have been waiting to hear, Members have
said more people are harmed than helped. That statistic appears nowhere
in the record, and I wait to see it explained.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 839,
the HAMP Termination Act.
I was sent to the Nation's capital like so many Members of the 112th
Congress, to do something about cutting back on wasteful Washington
spending, to do something about the $14 trillion national debt. And in
pursuing this goal, we have made many difficult decisions about funding
government programs. At a time when families and businesses across
Pennsylvania are being asked to do more with less, we cannot continue
ineffective Federal spending. Like so many programs hatched in
Washington, HAMP has been one of those programs that, while well
intentioned, has grossly missed its mark.
Established in 2009 to assist homeowners seeking to avoid
foreclosure, of the $30 billion allocated to the program, only a
fraction has been spent. And of the homeowners expected to be helped
through the program, only one-eighth have seen any permanent
modification.
Despite the fact that U.S. taxpayers have given lenders an average of
$20,000 for each participating homeowner, there is nothing that
prevents a lender from still foreclosing after the modification. That
means that the bottom line of the HAMP program is this: False hope for
homeowners who see the Federal Government send thousands to big lenders
only to lose their homes a few months later.
According to the Special Inspector General of TARP programs, ``there
have been countless published reports of HAMP participants who end up
worse off for having engaged in a futile attempt to obtain the
sustainable relief that the program promised. Failed trial
modifications often leave borrowers with more principal outstanding on
their loans, less home equity, depleted savings, and worse credit
scores.''
As we work to rein in government spending, to create certainty,
confidence and, ultimately, jobs, this program, well intentioned as it
is, has not been tax dollars well spent.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to another member of
the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Over the last few years, the United States has
faced a devastating economic crisis.
As a result of the economic downturn, many homeowners have lost their
homes or are at imminent risk of foreclosure. That is why the Obama
administration launched the Federal Home Affordable Modification
Program: to stem the escalating tide of home foreclosures and the
disastrous impact it has on families and their communities.
HAMP's purpose is to help eligible homeowners avoid foreclosure by
providing them with permanent loan modifications to terms they can
afford. Although this program is far from perfect, it has helped more
than 600,000 families lower their mortgage payments and stay in their
homes. H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act of 2011, will end this
program and is the latest effort by House Republicans to end
foreclosure avoidance and mitigation programs.
With forecasts showing that there will be 3 million foreclosures
nationwide this year and the housing turnaround not expected for at
least 3 years, Republicans have yet to offer any alternative to help
solving our housing crisis.
Republicans have also failed to address the impact this crisis is
having on minority communities. An estimated 17 percent of Latino
families and 11 percent of African American families have lost their
homes or are at imminent risk of losing their homes.
Eliminating support for distressed homeowners at this point in time
would be disastrous for neighborhoods trying to recover from the
foreclosure crisis. Instead, we should focus our efforts on ways to
make HAMP a useful, wide-reaching program with meaningful goals, goals
such as pushing lenders to reduce the principal on loans that are
underwater and give struggling homeowners real relief.
I urge opposition to this misguided bill.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of
the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentlewoman.
As Republicans and Democrats, let's talk about what this bill does.
This bill shuts down a Federal program which spends money. Every dime
of that money, of the over 1,000 million dollars, has already been
spent, and they have authorized $29 billion more to be spent. Now,
that's taxpayer money; and that is money that, in 2008, we promised the
American people, when the banks paid it back, that it would go into the
Treasury. That was a promise that we made. So this bill keeps that
promise, and that's that the money will be returned to the Treasury.
Now, why do we make that promise and why do we defend that promise
today on the floor of the House? Because, ladies and gentlemen, we are
spending our children and grandchildren into financial oblivion. We are
threatening the national security of this country.
Now, where do I get such a fact as that? Why do I say that it is a
threat to national security, which I said last week and I was
criticized?
Well, let me quote Defense Secretary Robert Gates when he said 2
months ago, ``this country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it
poses to American influence and credibility around
[[Page 4549]]
the world will only get worse unless the U.S. Government gets its
finances in order.''
And I was told, well, that didn't say that it was a threat to our
national security. But following that statement, Admiral Mike Mullen
made this statement, the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``The
most significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' In case
you weren't listening, let me say that again. ``The most significant
threat to our national security is our debt.'' Now, that wasn't a
Republican on the floor of the House. That was the Joint Chiefs of
Staff's Mike Mullen.
We are spending $1.42 for every $1 we get. We are borrowing 42 cents
of that. Twelve percent of our debt is owed to the Chinese. Every day
we write the Chinese a check for $120 million. They could buy the most
advanced strike jet fighter in the world and still have $20 million to
put in their pocket each day. In 1970, only 19 percent of our national
debt was owed to other countries; today, it approaches 50 percent.
Now, let's not talk about whether we can afford this program; let's
talk about whether our children and our grandchildren can, because--
let's not kid ourselves--we can't pay it back. Now, do we want to spend
$30 billion of our children's and our grandchildren's money?
{time} 1500
First of all, should we do that morally? But let's just assume that
you say yes, we should do this with our children and grandchildren's
money. Well, who should we pay that money to?
You talked about the banks. Where does this money go? It goes to the
banks. Every dime of it is paid to a bank. You have a borrower, you
have a lender. As many of you have correctly said, and I agree with
you, people loaned homeowners money they couldn't afford to pay back.
And is that the taxpayers' fault? Should they pick up the bill? No. It
is the bank's, or it may be the homeowner's. But the people that ought
to pay it back are not the taxpayers, and if it can't be paid back, the
banks ought to take the loss.
You talk about the homeowners, but it is the banks that will be paid.
And you talk about 500,000 Americans that have been helped. You didn't
mention almost 1 million that have been made worse off. Now, again, is
that some mean Republican saying they are worse off? No.
Today, March 29, a letter from the largest national Hispanic civil
rights and advocacy organization in the United States. Do you know who
that is? It is La Raza. What did they say? Let me quote what the
largest, and I think we would all agree, a very liberal organization,
what did they say?
I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, they said.
``Structural flaws, especially the voluntary nature of HAMP, have
resulted in an abysmal performance by mortgage servicers and hundreds
of thousands of families losing their homes to foreclosure
unnecessarily.'' They say this program has resulted in hundreds of
thousands of American homeowners losing their homes.
Now, are they the only people who have said this? No. Our own
Inspector General, our own Neil Barofsky, SIGTARP, who was put in
charge of monitoring this program, what did he say? Let me quote what
he said. ``HAMP benefits only a small portion of distressed homeowners,
offers others little more than false hope, and in certain cases causes
more harm than good.'' When did he say that? He said it this month
before our committee. This month.
How about the Congressional oversight panel, a majority of which are
Democrats. What did they say? They said billions of taxpayer dollars--
billions, billions--will have been spent to delay rather than prevent
foreclosures.
Now, that is not Republicans who are getting some crazy idea that
this program isn't working. No. It is Democrats.
And who has President Obama appointed to temporarily run the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau? Well, it is Elizabeth Warren, we all know
the answer to that. What does Elizabeth Warren say about this program?
Let me quote what she said. Just the facts. Not Spencer Bachus, not
Patrick McHenry, not Judy Biggert. No. Elizabeth Warren, who works out
of the White House and who is in charge of consumer protection. Here is
what she said, December 14th: ``Because Treasury's authority to
restructure HAMP ended on October 3, 2010, the program's prospects are
unlikely to improve substantially in the future.'' In other words, they
are not going to improve this program.
So let's end by saying this. We say shut it down. You say mend it.
Let's mend this program. Why? Let's not pretend. We are not talking
about mending. We are talking about pretending. The Treasury, according
to Elizabeth Warren, doesn't even have the ability to do that.
The administration itself, not someone here, but your administration,
Laurie Maggiano, a Treasury official, said at the Mortgage Banking
Conference February 24, just a month ago, ``You won't see any major new
programs coming out. We may tweak around the edges, but our primary
objective in 2011 is excellence in the program we have.'' Well, there
has been no excellence in the program. It has failed. The largest
Hispanic group in America has said, end this program.
But I tell you what, our grandchildren and children would say this,
and you continue to say, and I agree with you, we have got 13 million
American families underwater with their mortgages, and you want to pick
and choose 500,000 of those to help. What about the others? Should the
Federal Government pay everybody's mortgage that is behind?
Why, one out of four American families are underwater on their home.
You have got, it just came out yesterday: 13 million vacant houses in
America, and almost immediately you come up with a cash-for-keys
program where you are going to buy these abandoned properties from the
banks, from the speculators.
I don't think you have listened to the American people. I don't think
you heard what they said in November. This program has been criticized
ever since its inception. You haven't mended it. You are talking about
mending it today.
Where is your bill to mend it? Is there a bill to amend it? Have you
introduced it? Is there a bill?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, we are introducing legislation to
make sure that the taxpayers are off the hook.
Mr. BACHUS. You will be?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We have introduced a bill to restore a
provision that was knocked out by Republicans.
Mr. BACHUS. Is the gentleman saying you will be?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It has been filed.
Mr. BACHUS. What, today? Was it filed today, or Monday?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, last week. Last week.
Mr. BACHUS. Last week. Two years----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman doesn't want an answer,
apparently.
Mr. BACHUS. I reclaim my time. One thousand million dollars and $29
billion of authorization, 2 years of a failed program, and the week
before we come to the floor, you file a bill. You file a bill. I'm
sorry to say to the ranking member, you can file the bill, we will take
a look at it, but we are ending this failure.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes.
I regret the chairman's refusal to allow me to answer the question he
asked.
Yes, we just filed the bill because we are restoring a provision that
was in the financial reform bill. The gentleman, who has shown very
little regard for the taxpayer in his own vote sending money to
Brazilian cotton farmers--and, by the way, I wish he had listened to
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen and not voted to force
[[Page 4550]]
on them money for weapons systems they didn't want. They said those
things when they tried to get the Congress not to give them weapons
they didn't want, but many of my Republican friends, the majority,
disregarded that.
But in the TARP legislation we said that in 2013, when this program
ends, any penny that was spent and not returned to the taxpayers will
come from the banks, will come from the hedge funds. And we can
anticipate Republican opposition to that, because in the financial
reform bill last summer, already passed, not recently introduced, we
say that for many of these programs to recover the costs of the
foreclosure mitigation and dealing with the results of foreclosure, we
would get it from large financial institutions. The Republicans
objected to that, and the Republicans insisted in the Senate that it be
knocked out. So every time we have tried to get money from the large
financial institutions to pay for the costs of the damage their
irresponsibility inflicted, the Republicans have opposed it.
Again, when it came to Brazilian cotton farmers or weapons the
Pentagon didn't want or infrastructure in Afghanistan or Iraq Security
Forces, all of the things the gentleman from Alabama voted for that
comes out of the taxpayers' hide, and then he votes against and opposes
our legislation already passed and just reintroduced to have the large
financial institutions pay for this. So his concern for taxpayers comes
into play when we are trying to help people who are in need, but it is
not in play when we are talking about heavy defense contractors,
Brazilian and American cotton farmers, or the large financial
institutions, because he and his fellow partisans have consistently
fought every effort we have made to get the large financial
institutions to bear this cost. But we do have still, as people will
hear later, provisions to do that.
{time} 1510
Mrs. BIGGERT. May I request again the time remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 5 minutes. The gentleman
from Massachusetts has 15\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this
bill, but I do so with mixed feelings because I have been one of the
critics of the HAMP program.
The members of the majority have pointed out correctly that this
program has been widely criticized for more than 2 years. It has been
criticized by the congressional oversight panel, by the SIGTARP
(Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program), by
La Raza, by Elizabeth Warren, and, yes, by me. But I have not
criticized it for the reasons that the gentleman from Alabama gave. If
this bill is keeping a promise, it is not a promise made in open to the
American people, it is keeping a promise made in secret to the banks,
because the costs of this program are not going to come out of the
pockets of the American people. This comes out of the TARP program.
That legislation said that any money not recovered by 2013 has to be
recovered from the financial industry, and whoever's present in 2013
has to propose to Congress exactly how it is we're going to get that
money back.
They can afford it. Thirty percent of all corporate profits are in
the financial sector. They can more than afford it.
The gentleman from Alabama frequently says that he hates visiting
debt on his grandchildren, and I believe him when he says it, but I
have good news for him. Unless his grandchildren take a job on Wall
Street in the next 2 years, they are not going to have to pay this
debt. This debt, if Congress does keep its promise to the American
people, will not come from the American people. It will come from Wall
Street. It will come from the people who created the mess that we are
now trying to clean up.
But I have criticized this program because it is not as effective as
it should be. It has gone on for 2 years. It is not what we need. The
problem, however, has not been what government has made banks do. This
program has been run by the banks. It has not been run by the
government. It has been run by the banks. Every horror story about a
homeowner's being abused is being abused by a bank, the bank handling
the mortgage, not by the Department of the Treasury, not by the Federal
Government.
So, of course, when they come to see a Republican Member of Congress,
the Republican Member of Congress says, ``Oh, isn't it terrible what
the Federal Government made that poor bank do to you.'' No, the Federal
Government didn't make the banks do that.
My criticism of this program and my criticism of the Obama
administration in how they have run this program is not that they've
made banks do what they've done, but they have let banks do what
they've done. This program can work if there are some tough rules that
are really enforced, tough on the banks.
The gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned earlier the bankruptcy
proposal 3 years ago. I introduced that bill. I have been trying to put
rules, requirements, on the banks that they let people out, that they
try to begin to let people out in a very orderly, logical, fair way,
through judges, through a judicial process, to begin to get control of
the collapse of the housing market.
Something has got to happen to stop the continuing fall of housing
values. Something has got to happen to end the cycle of foreclosures
and diminished home values and more foreclosures. Republicans have
offered nothing to do that. We know something can work. We know that we
can design a program that will work, because it has been done before.
In the New Deal, one of the most successful programs in the New Deal
was the Home Owners' Loan Corporation which bought mortgages, modified
them, worked with homeowners, tailored the mortgages to something the
homeowner could buy for those homeowners who really could afford a
house, the house that they were in but not the mortgage that they had,
and most historians say that program saved the housing market in the
Great Depression and saved the middle class.
We have got to make something work. There are rules on the horizon.
There is now a pending settlement negotiation for the violations of law
by the banks in how they've managed mortgages. It is with States
attorneys general and it is with the Federal regulatory agencies. Some
on the Republican side have publicly pressured the Federal agencies to
lay off the banks. I really cannot tell much difference between what
they are doing in the pressure they are putting on banks and the
regulatory agents in an enforcement matter and what happened a
generation ago with the Keating Five. But they're doing it. They're
saying, ``Lay off our buddies the banks. Don't come down too hard on
them.'' But there is a real possibility the result of that settlement
will be some tough rules, and there is now rule-making authority. There
is now a cop on the block. The CFPB has the authority to develop rules
for banks in how they manage mortgages.
But something has to work. This has not been working. It can be
fixed. It has to be fixed. Something has to work.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague for yielding, and responding to my
colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we agree:
The HAMP program is a failure. I think there is bipartisan agreement on
that. Even the SIGTARP, Mr. Barofsky, says, ``The Treasury Department
is so content with the wretched, shameful status quo, they refuse to
even acknowledge the program is a failure.'' We agree. It's a failure.
Although it sounds like, at the end of the day, he is going to vote to
defend a failed program.
Secondly, I would remind my colleague that this program actually
[[Page 4551]]
writes checks to those evil banks that he talks about, with those evil
profits that he talks about, to the tune of about a billion dollars. So
this program is actually cutting checks to banks.
Third and finally, that TARP money is actually the taxpayer, the
American people's money, not the banks' money, and we owe it to the
American people to give them back that money.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time do I have remaining, Mr.
Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, this bill is just like saying, ``You know
what, you said you were going to give us a loaf of bread, but you only
gave us a slice. So because you didn't give us the whole loaf, we're
going to take all of the bread away, even the slice.''
Because the program isn't as successful as it could be, we ought to
be getting in here and doing something about all the foreclosures
across America as opposed to what the majority wants to do, which is
get rid of even the meager program that exists.
This is unresponsive government. This is government that is turning
its back and folding its arms on the American people. We've got 4
million foreclosures, and may end up with 7 million, and yet instead of
trying to make a program work, we just get rid of the whole thing. This
is a really sad day and a big mistake.
If you want to get up here and criticize the HAMP program, you can do
that. But you know what: The HAMP program has come up with more than
600,000 active modifications. That's not nearly enough of what we need,
but it has done something. Rather than get the program right, we
abandon all those people who are underwater, all those people who are
in foreclosure. That is a shame, and it's wrong.
Now let me say, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that this program, this
HAMP program that we're terminating today, this program, doesn't do
anything to put Americans back to work. It doesn't do anything at all.
The Republican majority has been here for 13 weeks and all they've done
is cut programs that could put people to work. They haven't tried to
fix anything that's not working. They've just tried to cut back on what
America needs.
So that we will be in a position when people aren't working, they
won't be paying taxes, we won't be even addressing this deficit because
of the Republican no jobs agenda. It's really too bad. We were sent
here to do something about jobs. We were sent here to do something
about foreclosures. We're not doing anything about either, because the
Republican majority refuses to address it.
One of the biggest problems with the HAMP program, now that we're on
that subject, is that we did just allow incentives. We didn't really
make the banks and the services do what they should do, which is to
readjust these mortgages. People bought at bubble prices based on
Republican majority decisions to not regulate, to abandon consumer
protection, and this bubble market created expansive and big prices.
The loans people got, we didn't see consumers get protected from no
doc, low doc, NINJA loans. We didn't see any protection for the
American taxpayer with any of these financial regulations involving
derivatives. And yet when the bubble burst, the people are there to try
to pick up the pieces.
But what does the Republican majority do? They just take away the one
slice that might help some people instead of trying to do something to
help the American people.
I hope the American people are watching this debate today, Mr.
Chairman. I just hope they take careful note of who is on the side of
the American neighborhood, who is on the side of the American people,
and who's trying to take away that American Dream.
{time} 1520
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 4 minutes remaining.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As best I can discern, the argument about the HAMP program is we
should terminate it because it's run inefficiently. That seems a fairly
strange argument for most of us around here because we know that there
are inefficiencies in every department of the government. If you use
that as the touchstone for terminating programs, we would close down
the entire Defense Department; we would close down the Department of
Commerce; we would close down the Department of Health and Human
Services. We would go right down the list and close them all because
every one of the departments and every program has some inefficiencies
in them. You don't solve the problem by closing a program. You solve
the problem by trying to correct the problems that exists.
This is a whole new philosophy for this group of people, because when
the Securities and Exchange Commission was not equipped to fine the
Bernie Madoff episode, their answer to it was let's cut out the SEC or
let's reduce this budget, not make it more efficient so that it can
stop the kind of fraud and abuse that was taking place, let's just
starve it to death. That's the same philosophy that's being applied in
this context, Mr. Chairman. Because the program is inefficient, which
all of us agree it has been, their answer is let's close it down. Ours
is to make the program more efficient and work for the purposes for
which it was intended; and that's what we ought to be devoting our
attention to today, not terminating the program.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I will respond to my colleague, Mr. Chairman, that, if
we can't eliminate this failed program, what program can we eliminate?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, let me begin with my friend from
North Carolina. $150 million a year to Brazilian cotton farmers, which
the gentleman voted for. Now, what we could have done was, instead of
giving them $150 million--
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I didn't vote for the farm bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, the question was not the farm bill.
It was the amendment from the gentleman from Wisconsin to cut out $150
million that is being voted subsequent to the farm bill to the cotton
farmers of Brazil.
We had an amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) not to pay $150 million a
year to Brazilian cotton farmers. We were told that we had to do that
because otherwise we would be in trouble. But we had an alternative. We
could have knocked $150 million out of the subsidy to American cotton
farmers. That's $300 million a year that we are losing.
We have the second engine on the F-35. My friend on the other side,
the gentleman from Alabama, quoted the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying national security is at
risk, but then they vote against him and force on him money he doesn't
want. The gentleman from Alabama voted for a second engine. The
administration, at the request of Secretary Gates, said he'd veto the
bill if that happened. So it does seem to me a little odd to quote the
Secretary of Defense and the Admiral, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, about the problems of debt and then vote for money over their
objection.
So those are things I would do. Brazilian cotton farmers, I would
have limited the amount that we pay others.
There's a couple of other major flaws here. We've heard several times
from
[[Page 4552]]
people on the majority side that more people are hurt than helped by
HAMP. That appears nowhere in anybody's testimony. Neil Barofsky didn't
say it. La Raza didn't say it. They said some people are hurt.
I will yield if the gentleman wants to point to any document that
says more people were hurt than helped.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
There are 800,000 people that are given temporary modifications,
verbal modifications, that are kicked out of the program. Those are the
people that have their credit dinged and----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman quoted
Barofsky, quoted La Raza. Those figures are nowhere in there. And their
credit is not worse off because they're in the program. That's the
fundamental flaw. What they are saying is--and people have said, the
gentlewoman from Illinois--go to the private sector.
The problem, by the way, that La Raza has is this is too much private
sector. La Raza's problem here is that the problem is that it leaves
too much to the private sector. The private sector does the easy stuff.
The notion that more people are hurt than helped is simply nonexistent.
By the way, we've always heard from my Republican friends that we
shouldn't be the nanny state, to let people make choices. No one is
forced to go into this program. If they can go into another program,
they can make it better.
The final point I want to make is this. Yes, there is a question
about who pays for it. Under the TARP bill that we passed, it is
mandated that in 2013 we get money from the financial institutions for
this. In the financial reform bill that passed the House, we had a
provision that required that that assessment be made right away. In the
conference report on financial reform, we had an assessment on the
financial institutions, those above $50 billion in assets, except hedge
funds above $10 billion. We have had three legislative efforts to
assess these costs on the financial institutions. The Republicans have
opposed every one, unfortunately, with some success; although, we still
have one left.
The final point I would make is this. Yes, the HAMP program has a lot
of problems. Solutions cannot be more elegant than the problems they
seek to resolve. The absence of any program leaves people worse off.
The Republicans successfully defeated efforts to give bankruptcy
powers. They have successfully opposed efforts to make the banks pay
for this. So they set up a program which, thanks to them, at least for
now, looks like it comes from the taxpayers--although we'll be able to
recover that money--which has no leverage over the private sector, and
then they object to it.
So I would say again, Mr. Chairman, look at the votes on subsidizing
Brazilian cotton farmers or a second engine or money for infrastructure
in Afghanistan or security in Iraq. Billions of dollars collectively in
all those programs, which my Republican friends, including the
advocates on the other side of killing this program, voted for. We have
a program here that will be paid for by assessments on the large
financial institutions if the Republicans aren't successful and once
again go to their rescue. It is a program that people go to
voluntarily. They have a right to go purely to a private sector
program. If that doesn't work, they can go in here.
It has not helped everybody. The fact that some people didn't get a
modification here I regret, and I wish we'd give them more power, but
it doesn't mean they are worse off. A few are worse off. Nobody quoted
and said a majority were worse off. I hope the program is continued.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I appreciate my colleague yielding, and I certainly
appreciate the rhetoric used on the floor. I respect my colleagues. I
respect their opinion.
I think people of good will created this program; I really do. The
intent was to help homeowners. But 2 years after the fact, we're left
with the cold, hard facts that this program has hurt more people than
it's helped: a Federal Government program that brings people in,
destroys their credit, takes their savings, and at the end of the day
takes their home. It offers hope, but it isn't able to deliver it. It's
false hope that this program delivers.
I would point to the Special Inspector General's report from January
26, 2011. On page 11: A combined total of more than 792,000 trial and
permanent modifications have been canceled.
I would also point my colleague to the Treasury Department's monthly
report on their housing programs.
{time} 1530
Of the trial modifications that are canceled, those are the
individuals who are brought in, given verbal modifications, and strung
out for a period of months, some for 3, 6 months. I've had constituents
tell me they've been in this trial modification period for up to a
year. At the end of the day, these people are kicked out after their
savings have been taken, and they're left with nothing, not even their
homes, not their credit ratings, not their savings.
It's a Federal Government program that's doing this. This is so
objectionable at its core, and I have my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle saying that they're bleeding heart liberals--right?--and
they're making their arguments. Well, let me see if this actually burns
your bleeding hearts.
A constituent of mine from Kings Mountain says, ``They keep
requesting the same information over and over again. They have
supposedly been working with me to get approved under the Make Home
Affordable Modification for over 14 months now. The person handling my
case returned my call to tell me that they've declined my request for a
modification because I was unemployed. I've never been unemployed. I've
been with the same employer for over 5 years now, and that has not
changed through this whole process. After sending her the proof of my
income, she now says that I do not qualify because I am so behind on my
payments. I would not be behind on my payments if they would have let
me continue to pay them.''
Can you believe this is a Federal program? If that doesn't tear at
your heart, if you don't see the tears of your constituents who have
been put through the wringer of this Federal program--this Federal
program--then I would say that every program must be acceptable then no
matter how much harm it's doing.
I know that we're better than that. I think the folks on the left and
the right who have analyzed this program, who have done a bipartisan,
nonpartisan analysis of this and research, have shown that it has been
a failure. It is this Congress' responsibility to end a failure of a
program and to make sure that the Federal taxpayers, the American
people, don't continue to write the check for a program that destroys
people's lives and that has hurt more people than it has helped.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no
on H.R. 839 ``The HAMP Termination Act of 2011''. This bill would
prohibit new mortgage loan modifications under the Home Affordable
Modification Program (HAMP) which has assisted over 600,000 people. The
program works with loan servicers and borrowers to allow hard working
people to stay in their homes.
Mr. Chair, my home state of New York has over 140,000 households with
at least one member of that household out of work. We must invest in
programs that give relief to families that have lost income in this
great recession through no fault of their own. HAMP entitles qualified
homeowners to reduced mortgage payments at a sustainable debt to income
ratio of 31 percent. This program also provides incentives to loan
investors and servicers for every permanent loan modification. These
incentives allow homeowners in distress the ability to stay in their
homes and to continue making payments on time.
I realize that this program is not perfect and that there are still
some outstanding issues that must be addressed in order to make HAMP
more efficient and effective. However
[[Page 4553]]
H.R. 839 would simply prevent any future attempt by this congress to
address those concerns. Mr. Chair, we were sent to Congress to solve
problems. We must deal with the current foreclosure crisis by using
every tool in our arsenal to make sure people can afford to stay in
their homes.
It is my hope that Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle
will work together to make sure the American dream of homeownership is
viable in 2011. We must work together to solve the major challenges of
our day and we must do so in a bipartisan manner.
H.R. 839 is not the answer to our nation's foreclosure crisis. I urge
my colleagues to vote no on this measure.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 839, the
Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Termination Act.
The House majority supports H.R. 839 and other bills that would end
new and existing foreclosure mitigation programs, turning their backs
on the middle class families in our country.
Instead of coming up with practical ways to improve these programs,
or establishing new initiatives that assist homeowners and stabilize
the housing market, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
support immediate termination of these programs without working to
address the housing crisis and its effect on the nation's economy.
Most of us would agree that HAMP has not been nearly as successful as
initially hoped. Since this program started, about 5 million
foreclosures have been completed. HAMP is far from reaching the
targeted goal of assisting 3 to 4 million homeowners: nearly 1.5
million homeowners have received a trial HAMP modification, but only
about 600,000 have had their mortgages permanently modified under HAMP.
On March 28th, fifty of my colleagues and I sent a letter to Treasury
Secretary Geithner to share our concerns about HAMP, including (1)
establishing a single point of contact requirement for mortgage
servicers; (2) suspending the foreclosure process when the borrower
makes a request for a loan modification; (3) providing for an
independent review of loan modification denials; and (4) urging the
Treasury Department to begin levying fines and penalties against
servicers who fail to follow program rules. These reforms are essential
to ensure that HAMP becomes a more successful and effective program.
While HAMP has been far from perfect, the program has had its share
of successes. About 30,000 additional homeowners are receiving a
permanent HAMP modification every month.
Moreover, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reports that
the re-default rate for the program's permanent modifications at six
months was about half that of other modifications, and nearly 85
percent of homeowners who received a permanent HAMP modification remain
in their modification a year later. This program has also set important
mortgage industry standards to address the magnitude of this housing
crisis and ensure that struggling homeowners get the help that they
need to stay in their homes.
If it were not for HAMP, there is no question that even more homes in
my congressional district would have been subject to foreclosure. A
constituent from Hilo on the island of Hawaii contacted me desperate
for assistance. At 72 years old, he has a medical condition and lives
on a fixed income. This constituent has no substantial debt and put in
over $300,000 of his savings into his home. His bank ignored his pleas
for help, and he was on track to getting a foreclosure notice until he
received assistance from HAMP.
Another constituent, a disabled veteran living in Volcano on the
island of Hawaii, tried for over two years to get help from her lender,
to no avail. It was only as a result of the Making Home Affordable
foreclosure prevention services that she was able to get a permanent
loan modification, which saved her $500 a month and lowered her
interest rate by over two percentage points.
These are only two of the personal and heart-wrenching stories that
I've heard from people in my congressional district who are struggling
to stay in their homes. The bottom line is that HAMP provides yet
another lifeline for these families. Terminating HAMP would effectively
end a lifeline to tens of thousands of homeowners.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 839, the HAMP
Termination Act.
As you know, this bill would terminate the failed Home Affordable
Modification Program (HAMP), while still protecting assistance for
homeowners who were already extended an offer to participate in the
program. If passed, it would save taxpayers $1.4 billion.
HAMP was established under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)
and was aimed at helping homeowners modify their loans. The
Administration rolled out HAMP with the goal of assisting three to four
million homeowners, yet the program has fallen far short of that goal,
assisting only 500,000 borrowers and at a cost much higher than
anticipated. In fact, this program is hurting more homeowners than it
is helping. Many trial modifications ultimately end up being
cancelled--putting borrowers in a worse financial position than they
were before they applied for HAMP assistance. Too many found HAMP to be
less than helpful, and ended up owing back payments, interest, and fees
in one lump sum once their modification request is rejected.
Numerous government watchdogs--including the Government
Accountability Office, the Special Inspector General for TARP, and the
Congressional Oversight Panel--are all on record labeling HAMP as
ineffective. Unfortunately, as I've witnessed in Financial Services
Committee hearings and on the House floor, the Administration has been
unwilling to accept these objective analyses and terminate the program,
instead choosing to throw good money after bad.
I believe when we see valuable tax dollars being spent on a flawed
program we must terminate those programs. A dollar saved here is one
less dollar borrowed and put on the tab of future generations.
Washington is on an unsustainable path. Out-of-control government
spending has caused a massive increase in borrowing and the national
debt is now a record $14 trillion. Facing a $1.5 trillion deficit for
the third year in a row, the time is past due for Washington to make
tough decisions so that our nation's financial future will be secure.
All across America, families are doing more with less, and it is time
for Washington to do likewise. Fiscally responsible Americans know the
budgetary challenges we face and are supportive of the steps we are
taking to stop the waste.
Mr. Chair and my colleagues, I ask that you join me in support of
H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act. Together, let's stand with the
American people and get Washington's spending spree under control.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today's bill represents the fourth piece
of legislation we have considered in as many weeks to withdraw
assistance from struggling homeowners, worsen the foreclosure crisis
and further weaken the middle class.
Specifically, H.R. 839 proposes to terminate the Home Affordable
Modification Program, or HAMP. HAMP is a voluntary program with strict
and sensible guidelines that has already provided permanent loan
modifications to 600,000 American households, including over 17,000 in
my home state of Maryland--and is expected to help another 30,000
Americans stay in their homes every month through the end of next year.
Furthermore, HAMP's standards have now been largely adopted and
standardized across the mortgage industry, thereby benefiting millions
of additional homeowners outside the program itself.
HAMP is not a silver bullet, and it will not help everyone. For
example, it is not available for mortgages over $729,750, for second
homes, for investment properties or for vacant houses. Additionally,
HAMP is not for homeowners who can afford to pay their mortgages
without government assistance--or for homeowners who could not afford
to pay their mortgages even with government assistance. But for the
estimated 1.4 million Americans who are eligible for the program, HAMP
is a lifeline that can make all the difference.
Mr. Chair, as we struggle to pull ourselves out of the worst economic
downturn since the Great Depression, it makes little sense to terminate
a targeted and effective foreclosure prevention program like HAMP when
so many of our fellow Americans still face completely avoidable
foreclosure.
I urge a no vote.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 839--the HAMP
Termination Act.
HAMP is far from perfect--and we all are aware of some of the
problems it has experienced since it began.
But it has helped over 500 thousand homeowners gain mortgage
modifications.
And--it is expected to help another 500 thousand homeowners gain
modifications over the next two years.
These modifications have resulted in real savings for American
families.
In fact--the median savings for homeowners who have received a
modification is $537 a month.
I know much has been made by my friends on the other side, about how
some advocacy organizations--like NCLR--support the termination of
HAMP.
[[Page 4554]]
I understand the frustration of these groups. HAMP is a voluntary
program. Treasury could have pushed our financial regulators harder to
comply with standards. And--we have yet to see a comprehensive plan to
punish the bad actors.
But terminating HAMP--without any alternative plans to assist
struggling homeowners--is wrong.
Unfortunately, Republicans are eager to turn control of loan
modifications over to the same banks who got us in this mess to begin
with.
Before HAMP, homeowners who were lucky enough to get a modification
would often pay more per month.
Now--we have standardized the modification market, and are expanding
HAMP's reach.
Make no mistake--HAMP is not perfect.
But it does give us a framework to build from.
And doing nothing is not a viable alternative.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to deny mortgage
assistance to over a half a million Americans.
Vote no on H.R. 839.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 839, the HAMP
Termination Act. The foreclosure crisis facing our nation is far from
over. Families across the nation who face the threat of losing their
homes need help they can count on and hope for a better future.
Unfortunately, the Home Affordable Modification Program, better known
as HAMP, has failed to deliver on both counts.
According to The New York Times, in 2010 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
took over a foreclosed home approximately every 90 seconds. By the end
of December, they owned 234,582 homes. They spend 10 million dollars in
just one month to have the lawn of each home mowed twice!
To try and help those who are suffering most, both the Bush and Obama
Administrations created programs to help families who are at risk of
losing their homes. One of these programs was the Home Affordable
Modification Program which we will end with the enactment of the bill
before us today.
In the face of such a large crisis it is our responsibility to
terminate programs that falsely raised the hopes of so many, but were
poorly designed and help only a very few. While the administration has
allocated $75 billion for HAMP, it failed to perform under any honest
observation.
When the Administration announced the program they estimated it would
help between three and four million homeowners. As of December 2010,
only 521,630 HAMP modifications have been made permanent. I am
concerned that for every one of these success stories there are so many
more that have been kicked out of the program, since nearly 800,000
modifications have been canceled since the start of the program.
Temporary modifications offer little help to homeowners who do not
receive permanent ones, and they end up losing their homes anyway. In
addition, the Treasury Department reports that about 20 percent of the
borrowers who had their modifications made permanent are now 60 days or
more behind on their mortgages.
Why would a program that was designed to help so many homeowners fall
so short? Perhaps it's because the program was not designed to help
homeowners facing foreclosure. On June 22, 2010, Secretary Geithner
testified before the TARP Oversight Panel regarding HAMP and stated
``This program was not designed to prevent foreclosures.''
Programs that were not designed to help families keep their homes
deserve termination. Programs that kick many more qualifying families
out of the program than are assisted by the program deserve
termination. Programs that have such a high redefault rate among the
families that are helped by the program are fundamentally flawed and
deserve termination.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to terminate a
program that has fallen so short of its laudable goals.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose this spurious
legislation to eliminate a program that has just begun to help our
constituents recover from the horrible housing crisis that has taken
hold of our communities.
This program has helped more than 600,000 families stay in their
homes while helping neighborhoods avoid the associated blight that
comes with vacant and foreclosed homes.
The legislation allowed hard-working American families in danger of
losing their homes to refinance into lower-cost government-insured
mortgages they can afford to repay.
Florida has had over 82,000 permanent and trial modifications under
this program. This is over 82,000 families who do not have to worry
about where they are going to sleep tomorrow. 82,000 families who know
where their kids are going to go to school tomorrow.
I was able to hold foreclosure workshops in cities and towns
throughout my district to help these families at risk of losing their
homes. With this program's help, these families were able to stay in
their homes, keeping neighborhoods intact.
I believe that more money should be used to keep people in their
homes. To the administration's credit, they attempted to create other
programs that would do that. The Republican majority has spent the last
weeks attempting to eliminate those programs also.
Eliminating this program without a replacement program for the people
on the front lines of this recession is heartless and should be
criminal.
Defeat this legislation and vote to keep people in their homes and
our communities living and vibrant.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the
HAMP Termination Act, or H.R. 839, a bill to eliminate the Home
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). This is just another attempt by
my Republican colleagues to do away with important and necessary
programs that help our struggling families and communities cope with
the devastation of the housing crisis. Our families are dealing with
real emergencies and they want real solutions, yet the Republicans
offer no meaningful replacement to help families during this housing
and foreclosure epidemic.
The Home Affordable Modification Program was put in place by the
Obama Administration to provide critical assistance to American
homeowners who are working tirelessly to save their homes. While it
wasn't meant to save every home on the brink of foreclosure, this
program has helped over 600,000 homeowners since it was first launched.
This means that because of HAMP, over 600,000 families were given an
opportunity they otherwise wouldn't have had to save their home.
Approximately 30,000 homeowners are assisted through HAMP each month.
If we eliminate this program now, we would be doing a great disservice
to these homeowners and to the recovery of our fragile housing market.
The ineptitude and noncompliance of banks and mortgage servicers have
created a laundry list of mistakes and missteps in handling homeowner
mortgages that led us into this devastating housing situation. HAMP has
been criticized by all parties because it did not meet its initial
projected goals. This is partly because HAMP sets strict requirements
for homeowners to qualify for a modification to ensure that American
taxpayer dollars are not wasted or misused. Modifications that continue
to be made outside of HAMP are done by servicers who avoid meeting the
strict requirements and rules under this program which are put in place
to protect homeowners. We have a responsibility to our constituents and
we can't simply leave the fate of homeowners and struggling families to
the banks and mortgage servicers when their bad mortgage lending
practices contributed to our nation's housing crisis in the first
place.
HAMP is not perfect, but there is no question that HAMP has provided
critical assistance to homeowners facing avoidable foreclosures. The
HAMP program has set affordability standards and, more importantly,
this program has created a framework for the private sector to provide
assistance. The political theater put together by my Republican
colleagues to eliminate HAMP and other valuable housing programs and
replace them with nothing, doesn't do anything to alleviate the dire
circumstances hundreds of thousands of American families are facing
today.
Mr. Chair, ending HAMP now would undoubtedly hamper our nation's
economic recovery efforts. Many of my colleagues have mentioned
throughout this debate something we all know to be true: not a single
witness--including the Government Accountability Office and the Special
Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program--who was
invited by Republicans at the hearing we held earlier this month in the
Housing Subcommittee, over which I serve as Ranking Member, supported
shutting down any of the housing programs Republicans propose to
terminate, including HAMP.
Eliminating HAMP would leave American homeowners with fewer options
for coping with the worst housing crisis of our generation and would
leave our fragile housing market in worse condition than when we
started. I urge my colleagues to support American homeowners and vote
no on this bill.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chair, last November, voters sent an unambiguous
message in opposition to the surge in government spending.
Today, House Republicans are fighting to provide a surge protector.
In three short months, we have changed the conversation in Washington
from increasing spending to cutting spending and by how
[[Page 4555]]
much. We have made significant strides toward returning spending to
more reasonable 2008 levels, and we are taking the scalpel to excessive
regulation that is smothering the economy.
By lifting the ominous fiscal cloud that hangs over our businesses
and job creators, we are laying the foundation for lasting growth.
Today, through our YouCut program, the American public has put
another wasteful spending initiative on the chopping block.
In February 2009, the administration earmarked $30 billion in TARP
money to implement the Home Affordable Modification Program. This
effort was intended to fight foreclosure and strengthen the housing
market, but to quote the non-partisan Inspector General, it ``continues
to fall dramatically short of any meaningful standard of success.''
HAMP was meant to help 4 million homeowners; yet only 521,630 loans
have been modified under the program. To add insult to injury, HAMP
suffers from high re-default rates and has left many borrowers worse
off.
This legislation would save taxpayers up to $29 billion by preventing
the government from providing any new assistance under HAMP. It is a
common sense way to put an end to the culture of waste we have been
working to eradicate in Washington. I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chair, in the last few years, the United
States has faced a devastating economic crisis. As a result of the
economic downturn, many homeowners have lost their homes or are at
imminent risk of foreclosure. The Obama Administration launched the
federal Home Affordable Modification Program (``HAMP'') to stem the
escalating tide of home foreclosures with its ruinous effects on
families and their communities. HAMP's purpose is to provide eligible
homeowners with permanent loan modifications on terms they can afford
in order to avoid foreclosure of their homes.
Although this program is far from perfect, it has helped more than
600,000 families lower their mortgage payments and stay in their homes.
H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act of 2011, will end this program. I
have yet to see any Republican alternative to our housing crisis! There
are 3 million foreclosures forecasted this year nationwide and a
housing turnaround is not expected for at least three years.
Missing in the Republicans limited discussion on housing is the
impact of the housing crisis on communities of color in the United
States. An estimated 17 percent of Latino families and 11 percent of
African American families have lost their homes or are at an imminent
risk of losing their homes. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to
eliminate all government involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
While these institutions need to be reformed, they do serve important
functions such as making the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage available to
the general public and providing mortgage credit and affordable rental
housing for communities of color. If we do not focus seriously on our
minority communities, which are disproportionately affected by the
economic crisis, the home buying environment for these communities will
worsen as the economy recovers. The American dream will cease to exist
for many. Fewer mortgages would be available to working-class families
in the long run without some government- backed financing.
Eliminating support to distressed homeowners at this point in time
would be disastrous for neighborhoods trying to recover from the
foreclosure crisis. Instead, we should focus our efforts on ways to
make HAMP a useful, wide-reaching program with meaningful goals, such
as pushing lenders and loan servicers to reduce the principal on
underwater loans and giving struggling homeowners real relief.
The latest foreclosure rates in the 7th congressional district of
Indiana are higher than the national average. Terminating HAMP and
denying critical assistance to struggling Americans is not the answer.
HAMP has allowed thousands of Hoosiers to survive unemployment. The
program has lowered monthly mortgage payments, and given families the
breathing room they needed to keep their home. There is no easy way to
repair the deep damage caused by the housing crisis. It will take time
and a sustained, comprehensive effort. I will continue to fight on
behalf of Hoosiers to keep them in their homes.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 839
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 ``The HAMP Termination Act of
2011''.
SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008 (12 U.S.C. 5230) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Termination of Authority To Provide New Assistance
Under the Home Affordable Modification Program.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
after the date of the enactment of this subsection the
Secretary may not provide any assistance under the Home
Affordable Modification Program under the Making Home
Affordable initiative of the Secretary, authorized under this
Act, on behalf of any homeowner.
``(2) Protection of existing obligations on behalf of
homeowners already extended an offer to participate in the
program.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to
assistance provided on behalf of a homeowner who, before the
date of the enactment of this subsection, was extended an
offer to participate in the Home Affordable Modification
Program on a trial or permanent basis.
``(3) Study of use of program by members of the armed
forces, veterans, and gold star recipients.--
``(A) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the extent of usage of the Home Affordable
Modification Program by, and the impact of such Program on,
covered homeowners.
``(B) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 90-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a
report setting forth the results of the study under paragraph
(1) and identifying best practices, derived from studying the
Home Affordable Modification Program, that could be applied
to existing mortgage assistance programs available to covered
homeowners.
``(C) Covered homeowner.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `covered homeowner' means a homeowner who is--
``(i) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on
active duty or the spouse or parent of such a member;
``(ii) a veteran, as such term is defined in section 101 of
title 38, United States Code; or
``(iii) eligible to receive a Gold Star lapel pin under
section 1126 of title 10, United States Code, as a widow,
parent, or next of kin of a member of the Armed Forces person
who died in a manner described in subsection (a) of such
section.
``(4) Publication of member availability for assistance.--
Not later than 5 days after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall publish to
its Website on the World Wide Web in a prominent location,
large point font, and boldface type the following statement:
`The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been
terminated. If you are having trouble paying your mortgage
and need help contacting your lender or servicer for purposes
of negotiating or acquiring a loan modification, please
contact your Member of Congress to assist you in contacting
your lender or servicer for the purpose of negotiating or
acquiring a loan modification.'.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except
those printed in part A of House Report 112-34. 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. Hanna
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part A of House Report 112-34.
Mr. HANNA. 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 4, after line 6, insert the following new section (and
redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly):
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) According to the Department of the Treasury--
(A) the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) is
designed to ``help as many as 3 to 4 million financially
struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to
a level that is affordable for borrowers now and sustainable
over the long term''; and
(B) as of February 2011, only 607,600 active permanent
mortgage modifications were made under HAMP.
[[Page 4556]]
(2) Many homeowners whose HAMP modifications were canceled
suffered because they made futile payments and some of those
homeowners were even forced into foreclosure.
(3) The Special Inspector General for TARP reported that
HAMP ``benefits only a small portion of distressed
homeowners, offers others little more than false hope, and in
certain cases causes more harm than good''.
(4) Approximately $30 billion was obligated by the
Department of the Treasury to HAMP, however, approximately
only $840 million has been disbursed.
(5) Terminating HAMP would save American taxpayers
approximately $1.4 billion, according to the Congressional
Budget Office.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hanna) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add a findings section
detailing the flaws of the Home Affordable Modification Program, or
HAMP. It would also state that terminating HAMP would result in
significant savings for the American taxpayers.
I filed this amendment during Sunshine Week, which highlights the
importance of open government. In keeping with the spirit of
transparency, this amendment would include within the bill the specific
reasons why we should end the failed HAMP program.
The HAMP program was designed to assist between 3 and 4 million
homeowners. However, as of February, only 607,000 active permanent
mortgage modifications were made under HAMP. While $30 billion was
obligated by the Treasury to HAMP, only $1.04 billion has been
disbursed. Furthermore, the Special Inspector General for TARP reported
that HAMP offers many homeowners ``little more than false hope and in
certain cases causes more harm than good.'' The program does not
fulfill its intended purpose of helping American homeowners. It delays
rather than prevents foreclosure.
This program was flawed from the beginning. According to The Wall
Street Journal, the number of applications canceled far exceeds those
that were approved, and the number of applications continues to slow. I
agree with the Journal's assessment, which also pointed out that
keeping people in homes they cannot afford is bad policy. Incentivizing
mortgage servicers to do just that only exacerbates our housing crisis.
Moreover, the private sector is better equipped to deal with the
problem, and they have modified nearly double the number of loans
themselves without government involvement.
My amendment concludes that ending this ineffective program would
save taxpayers $1.4 billion, which is according to the Congressional
Budget Office. This is one step toward restoring fiscal discipline to
our Federal Government.
Too often, our constituents receive biased or incomplete information
on the issues we are discussing in Congress, thus making it difficult
for them to make informed assessments of our work. Including additional
facts on the intended consequences of legislation is beneficial to the
public. That is why I urge support for the Hanna amendment and the
underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. I rise in opposition to the gentleman from New York's
amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill today.
Mr. Chairman, the middle class is shrinking, and deficits are rising
because Republicans are giving a pass to special interests who cheated
American homeowners and wrecked our economy. This is the 13th week of
the Republican-controlled Congress. Republicans continue to ignore the
people's top priority, which is jobs. Instead of working to keep middle
class families in their homes, the Republican plan is to foreclose on
the American middle class. The American people sent us here to protect
the dream, not to destroy it, not to perpetuate a Wall Street
nightmare. Democrats are standing with the American people to create
good-paying American jobs and to keep Americans in their homes.
This legislation is just the latest attempt by the Republican
majority to end foreclosure programs to help middle class Americans.
The majority's housing plan is very simple: foreclose on the middle
class. Now that millions of families have already lost their homes,
their plan is to hand out foreclosure notices to everybody else.
What's the Republican answer if you lose your home to foreclosure? So
be it. What's the Republican answer if your neighbors lose their homes?
So be it. What's the Republican answer if you lose your job? So be it.
Mr. Chair, I would like to yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from New
York for a question. I am offering the gentleman 20 seconds because I
want to ask him a question.
Does the gentleman want to answer the question?
Mrs. BIGGERT. The gentleman is not here.
Mr. ELLISON. How many jobs does this amendment create?
Mrs. BIGGERT. This legislation is to reiterate what the Congressional
Budget Office says about----
Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, the gentlelady hasn't told me the
jobs that this amendment, this bill, is going to create.
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
How many jobs is this amendment going to create or is this bill going
to create?
Mr. McHENRY. Certainly, a multibillion-dollar Federal program doesn't
create any real private sector jobs.
Mr. ELLISON. I reclaim my time.
``No jobs'' is the answer from the gentleman from North Carolina. I
appreciate his candor.
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ELLISON. Let me just finish here.
Mr. McHENRY. If the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to
explain.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota controls the time.
Mr. ELLISON. We are here for the specific purpose of trying to create
some jobs and to help the American people create their own dreams.
That's about jobs. We've been here 13 weeks, and the majority caucus,
Mr. Chair, hasn't created one single job.
I asked the gentleman from North Carolina how many jobs this bill is
creating, and he just went off on a tangent somewhere. Now, I'm looking
for some kind of a number. I'll even take an estimate.
How many jobs does this bill create?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. McHENRY. When you cut Federal spending, you create private sector
jobs. When you tax people more, you get less private sector growth.
Mr. ELLISON. I reclaim my time.
Look, we are supposed to be creating jobs around here, Mr. Chair, and
we're not creating anything.
{time} 1540
The fact is we get spin and we get imaginary arguments and we get
failed and flawed economic theory but no answer to the fundamental
question, which is, when are the jobs going to start arriving around
here?
Mr. Chair, it is a pretty simple question: How many jobs does this
bill create? How many families will this bill help keep in their homes?
In fact, Mr. Chair, I have three major studies here with me today which
I would like to enter into the Record which state very clearly that the
Republican spending bill eliminates nearly 1 million jobs. The Economic
Policy Institute study shows that the Republican spending bill, H.R. 1,
will cut nearly 1 million American jobs. Mark Zandi of Moody's
Analytics said that the Republican spending bill will cut 1 million
jobs. A report from Goldman Sachs says that the Republican spending
bill will cut nearly 1 million jobs.
Why is the Republican majority against jobs? Why won't they take a
moment to do something about jobs?
[[Page 4557]]
[From the Economic Policy Institute, Feb. 9, 2011]
Republican Proposal to `Right Our Fiscal Ship' Throws More Workers
Overboard
(By Rebecca Thiess)
Update: Since this piece was posted last week, the
magnitude of discretionary funding cuts for the duration of
this fiscal year proposed by House Republican leadership has
grown substantially, especially considering the short time
frame for implementation. After the House Appropriations
Committee detailed $74 billion in cuts last Wednesday, a
number of conservative members demanded $26 billion in
additional cuts to make good on the ``Pledge to America,''
bringing the total level of cuts relative to President
Obama's FY 2011 budget request to $100 billion. A full $100
billion cut to discretionary spending would likely result in
job losses on the order of 994,000, using OMB's GDP
projections (CBO's projections are based on current law) and
assuming a fiscal multiplier of 1.5.
The new GOP budget proposes cutting non-security
discretionary spending by $81 billion relative to the
president's $478 billion request for 2011. Non-security
discretionary cuts of this magnitude would likely result in
job losses of just over 800,000. (2/15/2011)
____
Today the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee
released a list of 70 proposed funding cuts to government
operations for the rest of fiscal year 2011. The cuts
included in the committee's proposal are extensive in both
their depth and reach. In total, House Republicans propose
funding the government at a level $74 billion below President
Obama's FY 2011 budget request. Of that cut, $58 billion
(over three-quarters) would apply to non-security
discretionary spending.
Included on the chopping block are a $224 million cut to
Amtrak, a $256 million cut in assistance to state and local
law enforcement, an $889 million cut for energy efficiency
and renewable energy programs, a $1 billion cut to the
National Institute for Health, a $1.3 billion cut to
community health centers, and a $1.6 billion cut to the
Environmental Protection Agency. All cuts can be seen
proportionally, below:
Cuts of this magnitude will undermine gross domestic
product performance at a time when the economy is seeing
anemic post-recession growth. Cuts in the range of $74
billion will lead to the loss of roughly 700,000 jobs. The
domestic discretionary reduction of $58 billion will result
in the loss of around 590,000 jobs, as we demonstrate in this
briefing paper.
Like Paul Ryan's budget outline, as we stress in this
related piece, the proposal suggests Americans take on
unnecessary pain with no long-term gain. While $58 billion
represents a 12% reduction to the nonsecurity discretionary
budget, it only represents 4% of the total 2011 deficit, and
less than 2% of total spending as projected by the
Congressional Budget Office. In other words, changes to the
short-term budget picture would be inconsequential at best,
and there would be practically no benefit at all regarding
the longer-term budget trajectory. Meanwhile, associated job
losses would certainly magnify the ongoing labor market
crisis, which has now experienced 21 straight months of
unemployment over 9%.
Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers has stated
that he has a unique opportunity to ``right our fiscal
ship.'' In reality, the nonsecurity discretionary budget is
not adding to our long-term debt instability. If anything,
the GOP efforts to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of
Americans and water down the estate tax have made our fiscal
ship a leakier vessel (according to the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, these tax policies will have a two-year
deficit impact of $139 billion). The proposed program cuts
not only fail to offset that lost tax revenue, but they also
target programs that exist to promote innovation, global
competitiveness, and community and safety-net services. This
is an effort to cut helpful and innovative programs and
services traditionally opposed by conservatives, disguised as
an effort to promote fiscal responsibility. It would reduce
jobs, it would hurt millions of people, and it would barely
dent our long-term budget picture.
____
[From Moody's Analytics, Feb. 28, 2011]
A Federal Shutdown Could Derail the Recovery
(By Mark Zandi)
Odds are uncomfortably high that the federal budget impasse
will prompt a government shutdown.
The Obama administration has shown significant spending
restraint in its recent budget, but House Republicans want
deeper cuts.
While cuts and tax increases are necessary to address the
nation's long-term fiscal problems, cutting too deeply before
the economy is in full expansion would add unnecessary risk.
The House Republicans' proposal would reduce 2011 real GDP
growth by 0.5% and 2012 growth by 0.2 percentage points. This
would mean some 400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of 2011
and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012.
A government shutdown lasting longer than a couple of
weeks would do much more damage to the economy.
Lawmakers are likely to split the difference between the
administration and House Republican proposals. This isn't
ideal fiscal policy, but the economy will be able to manage
through it.
A compromise could send an encouraging signal about the
more serious budget battles to come.
The political war is intensifying over the federal budget.
Lawmakers are at loggerheads over how to cut government
spending, raising prospects that government services will
halt temporarily while the debate is resolved. Significant
government spending restraint is vital, but given the
economy's halting recovery, it would be counterproductive for
that restraint to begin until the U.S. is creating enough
jobs to lower the unemployment rate. Shutting the government
for long would put the recovery at risk, not only because of
the disruption to public services but also because of the
potential damage to consumer, business and investor
confidence.
The near-term fight over funding
Washington's most immediate battle is over near-term
government spending. The catalyst is the chance of a federal
shutdown March 4, when current funding will run out. The
Obama administration's recently unveiled budget plan calls
for significant spending restraint through the remainder of
this fiscal year, but House Republicans want even greater
cuts. Their proposal would cut spending by about $100 billion
more than in the administration's plan and would put spending
$60 billion below fiscal 2010 levels.
It is laudable that policymakers are focused on reining in
government spending. Much greater cuts will be needed, along
with tax increases, to address the nation's daunting long-
term fiscal challenges. Even under the most optimistic
assumptions, the current fiscal year's deficit will exceed
$1.3 trillion, equal to 9% of GDP. If the economy continues
to improve as anticipated, and there are no significant
policy changes, the deficit will shrink over the next few
years, settling around a level equal to 5% of GDP. This is
the so-called structural budget deficit. Left alone, it will
cause interest payments on the nation's debt to balloon,
producing a fiscal crisis. Policymakers will eventually need
to cut annual spending and/or raise taxes to shrink the
deficit by $400 billion, bringing it down to a sustainable
level at no more than 2.5% of GDP.
Too much cutting too soon
While long-term government spending restraint is vital, and
laying out a credible path toward that restraint very
desirable, too much cutting too soon would be
counterproductive. The economy is much improved and should
continue to gain traction, but the coast is not clear; it
won't be until businesses begin hiring aggressively enough to
meaningfully lower the still-high unemployment rate. The
economy is adding between 100,000 and 150,000 per month--but
it must add closer to 200,000 jobs per month before we can
say the economy is truly expanding again. Imposing additional
government spending cuts before this has happened, as House
Republicans want, would be taking an unnecessary chance with
the recovery.
This is particularly true given the added threat presented
by rising oil prices. Unrest in the Middle East has pushed up
the price of crude oil by about $10 per barrel; West Texas
Intermediate is selling for almost $100 per barrel, and a
gallon of regular unleaded gasoline has risen to about $3.25
nationwide. If sustained, these prices will shave about 0.2%
from real GDP growth in 2011, a disappointing but manageable
outcome. If oil prices approach $125 barrel, and gasoline
reaches $4 per gallon, growth will slow sharply and
unemployment will begin rising again. Should fuel prices
return to their all-time high near $150 per barrel for oil
and $4.50 per gallon for gasoline, the economy would sink
back into recession. Such a price spike seems unlikely, but
handicapping events in the Middle East with any precision is
practically impossible.
Policy at odds with itself
Additional spending cuts would also be at cross-purposes
with the government's other economic policies. The Federal
Reserve is holding short-term interest rates close to zero
and purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars in long-term
Treasury bonds, in an effort to hold down long-term interest
rates. The Fed's credit-easing efforts are scheduled to
continue through June, and the central bank is likely keep
interest rates near zero through 2011. Monetary authorities
clearly remain nervous about the economy's near-term
prospects.
The tax cuts and benefit extensions lawmakers agreed to
late in 2010 are also providing substantial temporary support
to the economy. In addition to extending marginal personal
tax rates for two years, the deal provided for a 2% payroll
tax holiday in 2011, an extension of emergency unemployment
insurance benefits through the end of the year, and--perhaps
least appreciated in terms of its economic impact--the
expensing of all business investment this year. The deal
ensured that fiscal policy, which would have significantly
weighed on the economy in 2011, will be largely neutral
instead. Fiscal
[[Page 4558]]
restraint was appropriately put off until 2012, when the
expansion is likely to be in full swing.
While the government spending cuts proposed by House
Republicans for this fiscal year mean only modest fiscal
restraint, this restraint is meaningful. If fully adopted,
the cuts would shave almost half a percentage point from real
GDP growth in 2011 and another 0.2 percentage point in 2012.
There would be almost 400,000 fewer U.S. jobs by the end of
2011 than without the cuts and some 700,000 fewer jobs by the
end of 2012. The fallout will extend into next year because
it takes time for budget cuts to filter through the economy.
In all likelihood, the proposed House cuts would not
undermine the current recovery; still, it is not necessary to
take the chance.
No crowding out yet
This wouldn't be true if the current budget deficits were
crowding out private investment, but they aren't. Business
demand for credit has recovered modestly, and households
continue to lower their debt obligations. Interest rates also
remain extraordinarily low. Some of this is due to the Fed's
credit easing, but global investors also remain willing
buyers of U.S. debt even at low interest rates. Ten-year
Treasury bonds are yielding 3.5%, fixed mortgage rates are
near 5%, and borrowing costs for below-investment grade, or
``junk'', corporate bonds are 8%--about as low as they have
ever been. Global investors won't remain avid buyers of U.S.
debt for long if policymakers don't tackle the nation's long-
term fiscal problems; yet markets today appear unconcerned
about the near-term deficits.
This could change if policymakers remain deadlocked and the
government suffers a prolonged shutdown. The 1995-1996
experience suggests that a brief shutdown need not be
disruptive; in those years, nonessential functions of the
government were stopped briefly twice after the Clinton
administration and the Newt Gingrich-led House reached an
impasse. By that measure, a week-long shutdown in mid-March
of 2011 would cost the economy about 0.2% in annualized real
growth in the first quarter. Growth would rebound in the
second quarter, and there would be no discernible impact by
year's end.
A shutdown that lasted into April would be a problem,
however. Not only would this disrupt a wide range of
government operations and significantly cut the output of
government workers, but the hit to confidence could be
serious. Consumer, business and investor sentiment is much
improved from the depths of the recession, but it remains
extraordinarily fragile. A government shutdown lasting more
than a week or two could easily undermine confidence as
questions grow about policymakers' ability to govern. This
would be fodder for a new recession.
Hitting the debt ceiling
Even more disconcerting would be a shutdown emerging from
an impasse about the federal debt ceiling. Judging from the
Treasury's near-term financing needs, the current debt
ceiling will become a binding constraint on government
operations no later than June. The longer it takes Congress
to raise the ceiling, the greater the fallout on financial
markets and the economy. Global investors who own Treasury
debt will receive their interest and principal payments, but,
the spectacle of legislative gridlock on this issue may
convince markets that U.S. policymakers will have even more
trouble making hard future policy choices. Interest rates
could spike, stock prices and the value of the U.S. dollar
could fall, and the economy would suffer severe harm.
While these dark scenarios highlight the threat of a
serious policy misstep in the next several weeks, the very
seriousness of the threat improves chances that policymakers
will come to terms. The most likely scenario is thus a
political compromise that roughly splits the difference
between the administration and House Republican proposals,
with spending cuts in fiscal 2011 of closer to $30 billion.
This isn't ideal fiscal policy, but the economy will be
able to manage through it. And if the compromise is reached
relatively gracefully, it could send an encouraging signal
that policymakers can navigate the much more difficult budget
battles still to come.
____
Goldman Sachs
(By Alec Phillips)
Proposals to cut federal spending, the possibility of a
government shutdown, and the escalated debate over state
employee compensation has increased interest in the effect of
fiscal policy on growth, after last year's fiscal package
briefly neutralized the expected drag from federal fiscal
policy.
Federal spending cuts deserve the most attention. They are
the most likely of these issues to occur, and could have the
largest magnitude. The assumption we incorporated into our
recently revised budget estimates--discretionary spending
cuts of $25bn and $50bn below the CBO baseline for FY2011 and
FY2012 respectively--would shave nearly one percentage point
off of the annualized rate of real GDP growth in Q2, but
would fade quickly with a negligible effect on growth by
year-end.
The related risk of a temporary federal government shutdown
could also lead to a fiscal drag on growth, but this appears
to be a lower probability scenario. We estimate that each
week that the federal government is shut down would reduce
federal spending by around $8bn, and could reduce real GDP
growth by as much as 0.8 pp at an annualized rate in the
quarter it occurred, but would provide a lift to growth in
the following quarter as federal activity returned to the
previous level.
The policies that several state governments are debating
related to state employee compensation and organization
appear to have--at least in the short term--little potential
macroeconomic effect. We assume that state governments will
cut spending or raise taxes no more than necessary to balance
their budgets. This amount will be determined by the level of
tax receipts available to pay for spending, not political
negotiations.
Fiscal drag is quickly reemerging as a focus, only a couple
of months after an agreement to extend tax cuts and
unemployment benefits appeared to have neutralized most of
the drag from federal fiscal policy for most of 2011. We see
federal spending cuts as the most important near-term risk
The possibility of a government shutdown is a significant but
less likely factor, while the debate over state employee
compensation seems unlikely to have a meaningful near-term
macroeconomic effect:
Federal spending cuts would result in additional fiscal
drag: In our recently updated budget deficit estimates, we
have assumed that Congress will reduce discretionary spending
by $25bn below the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO)
baseline for FY2011, and another $25bn (for a total of $50bn
below the baseline) for FY2012 (for more on these assumptions
and our budget estimates, see ``The US Budget Outlook:
Better, but Not Good Enough,'' US Economics Analyst 11/05,
February 4, 2011). By contrast, the House of Representatives
passed legislation over the weekend to cut spending for
FY2011 by $60bn from current levels (the House hasn't yet
addressed FY2012). Both scenarios would add to the drag from
federal fiscal policy on growth:
1. The modest spending cuts we assume in our own budget
forecast would lead to renewed fiscal drag. Since spending
cuts could be enacted no earlier than next month, when the
current fiscal year will be nearly half over, $25bn in cuts
would require spending in the second half of FY2011 to be
reduced by $50bn at an annual rate. Since the cut would be
phased in abruptly, it could result in a drag on growth in Q2
by as much as one percentage point (pp), but would quickly
fade over the next two quarters as spending stabilizes at a
lower level, with little effect versus current policy on the
rate of real GDP growth by year end.
2. The spending cut package that passed the House of
Representatives would have a deeper effect. Under the House
passed spending bill, the drag on GDP growth from federal
fiscal policy would increase by 1.5pp to 2pp in Q2 and Q3
compared with current law. However, we don't see this
scenario as likely; while we expect discretionary spending to
be cut, the current House proposal doesn't appear viable in
the Senate, and the president has already threatened a veto.
A federal shutdown poses less risk, as long as it is brief.
A federal shutdown can potentially occur when one or more of
the 12 annual appropriations bills have not been enacted for
the current fiscal year. Usually, Congress provides temporary
funding through a ``continuing resolution'' (CR) until
appropriations have been enacted, but from time to time,
particularly when control of government is divided, this does
not happen and funding lapses. When this occurs, any agency
or cabinet department without funding in place for the
current fiscal year must cease non-essential operations. So
far, Congress has not enacted any of the annual
appropriations bills for the fiscal year that began October
1, so a shutdown would affect virtually all non-essential
programs. That said, the potential for a federal shutdown
probably does not present a major risk:
1. While the possibility of a shutdown is real, it isn't
that likely. We wrote more extensively on the key fiscal
developments over the next few months last week (see ``The
Federal Budget Process Gets Underway,'' US Daily, February
17, 2011). The bottom line is that while rhetoric has
escalated regarding spending cuts and the threat of a
shutdown, we expect both sides to try to avoid one if
possible, with the most likely solution appearing to be a
short-term extension of funding at slightly reduced levels.
2. The effect of a shutdown is narrower than the term
implies. Even in the most protracted government shutdown to
date, from November 13 to 19, 1995 and again from December
15, 1995 to January 6, 1996, the majority of federal
employees kept working. In the first episode in November
1995, about 40% of federal employees excluding the postal
service were furloughed; in the December lapse the share of
furloughed employees dropped to less than 15%, since Congress
had managed to enact some appropriations legislation between
the two shutdowns. If a shutdown occurred next month, it
would probably affect nearly all agencies and departments,
since no appropriations legislation has been enacted so far
this year. But even so, this
[[Page 4559]]
would imply that only around 40% of federal employees would
be affected.
3. A shutdown lasting more than a week could be meaningful.
If Congress fails to renew the continuing resolution that is
set to expire on March 4, the lapse seems likely to be fairly
short. After all, there have been several short government
shutdowns over the last few decades, but only two lasting
more than three days. But a lapse of more than a few days,
particularly toward the end of the quarter, could be more
important. If funding lapsed, non-essential services would
shut down immediately, representing around $8bn per week in
missed federal spending, assuming that 40% of federal
employees (not including the postal service) and their
activities are deemed non-essential. This would equate to
$32bn in annualized terms, or around 0.2% of GDP for each
week of shutdown. Pulling this spending out of Q2 would
reduce the contribution to quarterly GDP growth from federal
activity by a little over 0.8pp at an annualized rate for
each week the shutdown lasted, though if the shutdown ended
long enough before the end of the quarter it is quite
possible that some of the missed activity could be made up,
reducing the overall hit to growth. Otherwise, the return to
previous spending levels following a one-week shutdown would
actually increase growth in the following quarter by 0.5pp
and by smaller amounts in subsequent quarters until most of
the effect is reversed.
State budget negotiations seem likely to have the least
effect: Debate over state employee compensation and the
related issue of collective bargaining and other
organizational issues among state employee unions have begun
to make headlines in a number of states--Wisconsin, Ohio, and
Indiana are the latest. While these issues are important for
the longer-run fiscal health of state and local governments,
in the short-term their balanced budget requirements make
revenue shortfalls the most important factor driving their
fiscal stance over the coming fiscal year (for most states,
this begins in July). Political decisions will determine how
spending cuts are distributed, and will also determine the
mix of tax hikes and spending cuts, but are much less likely
to change the overall amount of tightening that will occur.
So while we continue to expect around 0.5pp in drag this year
from state and local fiscal retrenchment, recent developments
don't seem likely to change this in either direction.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ELLISON. Does the author of the amendment need to be on the floor
for his amendment?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York had yielded back all of his
time.
Mr. ELLISON. So what is the answer to the question? Is that ``no''?
The CHAIR. The gentleman had no time remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has the only time remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me close, then.
We've seen 13 weeks of the Republican majority. The American people
made changes and expected jobs. They've gotten zero jobs bills at all.
What they've seen is a Republican agenda that cuts 1 million jobs, cuts
1 million jobs, and on this critical issue of Americans keeping their
homes, the Republican majority has nothing but to take away the small
programs that exist. This is a shame, and I hope the American people
are watching this debate today, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hanna).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BIGGERT. 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 New York will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part A of House Report 112-34.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Quigley has an amendment at
the desk, and I rise to offer his amendment on his behalf.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, after line 6, insert the following new section (and
redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly):
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was
first announced in February 2009 and became active in March
2009;
(2) HAMP provides financial incentives to mortgage
servicers, borrowers, and investors to facilitate mortgage
modifications that lower borrowers' monthly mortgage payments
to no more than 31 percent of their monthly income;
(3) as of February 25, 2011, $1.04 billion of HAMP funding
has been disbursed;
(4) as of January 31, 2011, there were 539,493 active
permanent modifications and 145,260 active trial
modifications, for a total of 684,753 currently active
modifications; and
(5) each currently active modification has cost the
Department of Treasury approximately $1,518.80.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it's important that the American people are well aware
that the Republican majority has had 13 weeks to introduce some kind of
jobs bill, and they have introduced exactly none. Instead, what they've
done is, we read the Constitution, and that's good except for we should
probably do it on our own time. And then we have pursued an effort to
cut American jobs, and now that we're dealing with housing programs, in
the midst of the worst foreclosure crisis since the Great Depression,
the Republican majority has nothing to offer except to take away the
little program that does work.
The Republican majority's quick to say, oh, those 600,000 people who
did get a modification, that's nothing, but to those people that's a
lot. To those people, that's home. A responsible majority would say,
well, how can we double the numbers, how can we triple them, how can we
help Americans stay in their homes? But that's not what we have.
What we have today in America's Congress is a Republican plan to
foreclose on the American dream. And so Congressman Quigley offers some
very commonsense findings that should be contained within this
legislation that point out the fact that as of February 25, $1.04
billion of HAMP funding has been disbursed; that as of January 31,
there have been about 500,000-plus active and permanent modifications,
about another 145,000 active trial modifications, for a total of well
over 600,000 currently active modifications. The record should reflect
that, Mr. Chairman, because the record should tell the truth. The
record should tell the truth, yes, about problems that need fixing but
also about the success that has happened.
It's a shame if we can't pass this very simple commonsense amendment,
and we need to pass it today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Well, let's talk about the substance of the amendment.
If the sponsor will not, I intend to. The sponsor of the amendment and
the amendment here says that it costs about $1,500 per mortgage
modification. That is, in fact, not the case. The substance of this
amendment is extremely deceptive and flawed. In fact, the statistics
used within it are not even the dissenting views of the Democrats on
the Financial Services Committee. They're not even the views of the
Treasury Department. The Treasury Department testified in front of the
Congressional Oversight Panel and said that the permanent modifications
under HAMP would cost about $20,000. This amendment says $1,500. On its
face it's false. I would encourage my colleagues to vote against it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. To clearly correct the record, paragraph 5 says each
current active modification has cost the Department of the Treasury
approximately $1,518. That's an accurate statement, and I think the
gentleman ought to read the documentation much more clearly because, to
date, that has been
[[Page 4560]]
the cost, and it's an accurate statement.
But my question is even deeper than that. What is the Republican
majority going to do about the massive foreclosure crisis in America
today? My question is, do you all stand by the proposition that it's
just laissez faire economics, and that while we have socialism for the
banks, we have hardcore capitalism for the American people? That's the
question I'd like to hear the majority answer today. But this is an
accurate statement. This has been, up till now, the existing cost of
Mr. Quigley's amendment for each modification.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. I would say that his dissenting views are dissenting
from the ranking member of Financial Services, Mr. Frank and his staff.
$7,500 is what they claim. The Treasury Department claims $20,000.
My colleague also said that this is a little program. That's
absolutely absurd, Mr. Chairman. That's absurd. It's a $29.5 billion
program of our taxpayer dollars. But you know, I think he needs to
understand something, and my colleague needs to understand what this
program is actually doing to people.
You ask my constituent from Hickory who is in the HAMP program: We've
been in the HAMP program since February of 2010 and still have no
answer. We're being charged late fees, and we've been reported to the
credit bureau. We've been in underwater since April and on trial
payments for 6 months, which is only supposed to have been 3 months.
We've not received an answer.
Another constituent from Stanley said, We've paid payments every
month, but now we're being told we're behind in payments because it was
not the original monthly amount on our original loan, but it's the
amount we were told to pay in 2010. How can we be behind?
I've heard from constituents that tell the same story. It is reduced
monthly trial payments. They've been rejected due to eligibility issues
or lost documentation. By payments being reduced in the trial payment
period, they've ended up defaulting on their mortgage. This is a
Federal program that's actively harmed them.
{time} 1550
I would ask my colleague to look at the substance of the facts of
this program and admit it's been a failure and vote to repeal and end
this program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that, in fact,
the number $1,518 is accurate for the cost up until to date. That's how
much the program has cost. Projected costs are a different matter. And
I think if the gentleman digs into the facts, he'll learn that.
But, again, let's talk about the bigger issue at work here. We're
talking about a system in which, under Republican control, we have not
regulated markets, have not pursued consumer protection, consumers
getting into no-doc, low-doc loans, being taken advantage of by
unscrupulous individuals whom the Republican majority refused to
regulate. Under Republican majorities in Congress and in the White
House, this chicken has come home to roost and has wreaked havoc on the
American economy. And instead of trying to do something about it, the
Republican majority is not doing anything about it.
It's one thing to get up here and say: You know what? That program
isn't working very well, and here's somebody who thinks it doesn't work
well. I'm quite sure that that story you read is probably true; but,
you know what? There are a lot of people whom it did help. And more
than that, why don't we fix it? What is the majority's program to deal
with foreclosure? Do they have one, or do they just have criticism for
what other people propose?
It's easy to be a critic. I'd rather write a critique to a movie than
make one. I think making one is tougher, even a bad one. But being a
critic is always easy, and the worst movie is better than the best
review.
So let me just say, the Republican majority has a responsibility to
respond to the American people. They have a responsibility to do
something about foreclosures. And I'm hoping to hear somewhere,
sometime, today, that they're ready to do something in favor of the
American people.
The Republican no-jobs agenda has been exposed, Mr. Chair. The
American people know they haven't done anything to create jobs or to
protect homes. All they want to do is criticize programs that could use
some improvement. They'd rather just get rid of them altogether.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. I would say, Mr. Chairman, my colleague is right. It is
easy to be a critic of this program because it is an epic failure.
I yield such time as she may consume to my colleague from Illinois
(Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We keep talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. We've talked about that for
several years now--jobs, jobs, jobs. What we are trying to do is to
create an environment that we will be able to have the private sector
create the jobs.
We need to stop funding programs that don't work with money that we
don't have. And out-of-control Federal spending is hurting our economic
recovery so that we can have those jobs. We've got a $14.2 trillion
national debt. And economists agree that reducing government spending
will create a more favorable environment for private sector growth and
the ability to create jobs. We've got so much uncertainty there right
now that we have got to stop the spending and stop the taxing and all
the things that could happen.
So exactly what unemployed Americans want and what homeowners want
and need is a job and a paycheck, not a handout or another failed
taxpayer-paid government program.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and stop talking
about the jobs. Let's focus on the substance of these amendments.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. McHENRY. In closing, Mr. Chair, I would encourage my colleagues
to understand that when government taxes more and spends more, it
crowds out private sector job creation and growth. We're about growing
jobs in this Congress, and I urge my colleagues to get on board.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Canseco
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part A of House Report 112-34.
Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under
the rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph:
``(3) Deficit reduction.--
``(A) Use of unobligated funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, the amounts described in
subparagraph (B) shall not be available after the date of the
enactment of this subsection for obligation or expenditure
under the Home Affordable Modification Program of the
Secretary, but should be covered into the General Fund of the
Treasury and should be used only for reducing the budget
deficit of the Federal Government.
``(B) Identification of unobligated funds.--The amounts
described in this subparagraph are any amounts made available
under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008 that--
``(i) have been allocated for use, but not yet obligated as
of the date of the enactment of this subsection, under the
Home Affordable Modification Program of the Secretary; and
``(ii) are not necessary for providing assistance under
such Program on behalf of homeowners who, pursuant to
paragraph (2), may be provided assistance after the date of
the enactment of this subsection.''.
Page 5, line 4, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 6, line 13, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Canseco) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
[[Page 4561]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CANSECO. I thank my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry)
for offering this bill that eliminates a wasteful and ineffective
program.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to this bill that will
ensure that every dime of savings that comes from terminating the
program will go back to the Treasury to reduce the debt of our country.
Our country finds itself in the middle of a spending-driven fiscal
crisis. And back in November, the American people sent a message that
was loud and clear: Stop the out-of-control spending in Washington.
For 2 years, the motto in Washington was ``spend now, worry later.''
This is unfair to future generations who will inherit a bankrupt
country if we don't act.
It's only appropriate that we in this Congress begin our work by
cutting programs that simply don't work. The Home Affordable
Modification Program, or HAMP, has hurt the very people it was intended
to help by giving them false hope.
In his most recent quarterly report to Congress, the Inspector
General of TARP stated that the HAMP program ``continues to fall
dramatically short of any meaningful standard of success.'' That, Mr.
Chairman, is Washington-speak for ``failure.''
The program has done nothing to halt foreclosures. In fact, home
foreclosures in the United States have risen from 2.3 million in 2008
to 2.9 million in 2010. HAMP is not only a bad deal for homeowners,
it's a bad deal for taxpayers as well. Every child born in America
today is responsible for over $45,000 of our national debt. It is
simply unacceptable for Washington to continue spending money on a
program that doesn't work.
For 2 years, Washington acted as if it didn't have a spending
problem. And as we look around the world at countries who now find
themselves in fiscal nightmares because of out-of-control government,
we have to take a look in the mirror.
The most dangerous words in America right now are ``it can't happen
here,'' but just take a look at the facts:
Moody's has recently downgraded the debt of Spain, a country that is
expected to run a budget deficit equal to 6 percent of GDP in 2011;
Today, Portugal and Greece were downgraded by the S&P because of
overspending and budget deficits;
And now the United States is expected to run a much greater deficit
of 9.8 percent of GDP in 2011;
Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated
that the most significant threat to our Nation and our national
security is our debt.
So make no mistake about it: It can happen here, and it will happen
here unless something is done.
I just returned from a constituent workweek in my district, the 23d
District of Texas. I had many town hall meetings and conversations with
constituents, and all the while I heard over and over again their
concerns of our exploding national debt.
{time} 1600
Speaking with one constituent, who is an example of every constituent
that I spoke to, Will and Debbie Brenson, are most concerned about
their grandchildren, Katlin and Taylor, what kind of a country are they
going to inherit, certainly, not with the opportunities that they had
to build their small business in Fair Oaks, Texas.
If we don't change course, we will be guilty of committing an
intergenerational theft, the likes of which no country has ever seen.
We'll be the first generation of Americans to ever leave the next
generation with a diminished future.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often feel that only
government can steer our economy on the right course, but we now know
just how wrong that argument is. Unemployment is at an unacceptable 8.9
percent, and over 13 million Americans remain unemployed.
We are on track for our third straight $1 trillion deficit, and we
don't have much to show for it. We have to put an end to wasteful
spending, and we must reduce the debt for future generations.
Mr. McHenry's bill, and my amendment, with them we will stop wasting
taxpayer dollars on failing programs and ensure that any savings from
termination are not recycled into yet another program. The savings will
go towards paying down our country's exploding debt.
I urge passage of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close,
and I am my only speaker.
The CHAIR. Does the gentleman wish to claim time in opposition?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I claim the time in opposition, and
I'm the only speaker, so I will reserve my time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has the only time
remaining.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Has the gentleman used up all the time?
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize. I heard him say reserve, and
I misunderstood that.
I will say about this amendment that it is harmless and perfectly
okay for people to claim credit for what's already been done, kind of
like going to a taxidermist and shooting the bear.
If this amendment didn't happen, the same result would be there. But
here's the result: temporarily this comes out of tax funds. But because
it's TARP money, it's subject to a--and by the way, we passed an
amendment that says it goes back to the Treasury temporarily.
I say ``temporarily'' because over Republican objections, and I hope
they're going to relent in these, we put into the TARP legislation
language that says that in 2013 whatever hasn't been paid back from the
TARP to the general Treasury will be assessed to financial
institutions.
What that means is that if this does have a net cost to the Treasury,
in 2013 the President in power at that time will be directed to send us
legislation to require that this come out of the large financial
institutions, that is, nothing from the Treasury.
Now, I say I'm worried about it because we've had two further
instances of this which the Republicans have opposed. We've just had a
package of four bills. Two of them came out of the financial reform
bill, their financing did: help for the unemployed homeowners and the
neighborhood stabilization program.
In the version of the bill that we put first in the conference, that
money was to be recovered by an assessment on banks with $50 billion or
more and hedge funds with $10 billion or more; and Republican
opposition to it killed it.
So, yes, it is true that temporarily, now, the unemployed homeowners
and the neighborhood stabilization come out of the Treasury. We have
filed legislation, and I just refiled it last week, but it goes back to
where we were in July that would take it from the large financial
institutions.
Similarly, by the way, in the financial reform bill we had a
provision that said, over Republican objections, that the FDIC would
immediately assess the amount that we thought we would need for the
TARP on the large financial institutions.
So let's be very clear. If we carry out our promises and commitments,
this money will not come out of the taxpayer; it will come out of the
TARP. It will come out of the large financial institutions.
I can't say the same for certain other wasteful spending. Members on
the other side insisted, for example, in overriding the objection of
Secretary Gates to the second engine. Now, the gentleman from Texas
voted with Secretary Gates and me, and I appreciate that.
But a majority of Republicans voted to give him the second engine,
even though he said he'd tell the President to veto the bill. People
disregarded, a majority in the House, on both sides, the request that
the Osprey be killed.
In other words, people cite Secretary Gates and cite Admiral Mullen,
but we still hear on the Republican side criticism of them for trying
to live up to
[[Page 4562]]
their own words when they say, well, we're going to limit military
spending.
I don't think it is a reasonable policy to cite their worries about
the deficit and then override them in specific cases. And we also have,
of course--and here the Pentagon wanted it, I think they were wrong--
$1.2 billion my colleagues voted for--I voted against it--to spend
money to build up the security forces of Iraq. You talk about money not
being well spent. At its worst, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that
any foreclosure program here would be spent worse than it is being
spent in Iraq.
By the way, the Inspector General did say he was critical of the
program. When asked by the gentleman's Texas colleague, Mr. Green of
Houston, he said, no, he would not abolish it. He specifically said he
wouldn't abolish it. He was asked that in the hearing and said no.
And we have consistently heard from the other side a statistic they
have never yet validated, that more people were harmed than helped.
None of the people they quote say that.
Yes, it's a program that's difficult because we wouldn't do
bankruptcy and we have left the voluntary decision in the hands of the
private sector. That's why this argument that the private sector can do
it better is so nonsensical. It is the refusal of the private sector to
fully participate in this program in its full spirit that's been the
problem.
Mr. CANSECO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CANSECO. Are you in favor of the amendment or opposed to the
amendment?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am indifferent. Well, I'm against the
amendment. I take it back. I am against the amendment because I had to
be against the amendment to get the time to speak. So I am against the
amendment.
But I'm not against the amendment on substantive grounds. I'm against
it on aesthetic grounds. I hate to clutter things up with an amendment
that doesn't do anything.
Well, let me go back to the substance. The substance is that we have
a false claim that this is because of the taxpayers, when the TARP will
make sure that it doesn't come out of the taxpayers, the TARP
legislation.
And Members who vote to send money, $1.2 billion, to build up the
security forces of Iraq, please don't have them tell me, Mr. Chairman,
that they're for efficient spending. The security forces in Iraq.
How about Afghan infrastructure? The majority voted to send money to
Afghanistan for infrastructure. There is a great mark of efficiency.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Miller of North Carolina
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part A of House Report 112-34.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I seek to offer the
amendment as the designee of Mr. Inslee of Washington.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 6, before the period insert ``, Effectiveness
of Program, and Replacement Program''.
Page 5, line 8, before ``determine'' insert ``(i)''.
Page 5, line 9, after ``by'' insert ``homeowners meeting
the criteria under the terms of such Program for eligibility
for assistance under such Program, the effectiveness of such
Program, and the impact of such Program on such eligible
homeowners, including the extent of usage by''.
Page 5, line 11, before the period insert the following:
``, (ii) identify improvements to the Program and best
practices under the Program, and (iii) determine the need,
and appropriate guidelines and standards, for a mortgage
modification program of the Secretary to replace the Home
Affordable Modification Program that is (I) based on the
guidelines and standards for such Program, with appropriate
improvements as identified by the study, and (II) available
to homeowners who meet the criteria under the terms of such
Program for eligibility for assistance under such Program''.
Page 5, lines 16 and 17, strike ``paragraph (1)'' and
insert the following: ``subparagraph (A), identifying the
improvements to and best practices under the Home Affordable
Modification Program identified pursuant to the study,
setting forth the Secretary's determination of the need for,
the appropriate guidelines and standards for, the mortgage
insurance program determined pursuant to the study,''.
Page 5, line 21, before the period insert the following:
``and to the mortgage insurance program identified and
described pursuant to subparagraph (A)(iii)''.
Page 6, after line 12, insert the following:
``(D) Implementation.--Upon the expiration of the 90-day
period beginning upon the submission to the Congress of the
report required under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall,
only to the extent that amounts for such purpose are provided
in advance in appropriations Acts, implement the mortgage
insurance program described in such report pursuant to
subparagraph (A)(iii) through issuance of appropriate
guidelines and standards set forth in the report.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, first I want to assure
the gentleman from Texas that if he's worried about the debt burden
that children being born today face, with respect to this program,
unless one of those children takes a job on Wall Street within the next
two years, like the talking baby in the ETrade ads, they really are not
going to have to pay for this program. This program is going to come
from the financial sector. That was a promise made in the TARP
legislation; and unless they plan to break that promise, and I'm
beginning to get the feeling that they are, this is not going to be a
cost borne by innocent taxpayers, but by the industry that created the
mess.
Now, many people have criticized the TARP program, including me. The
Congressional Oversight Panel has; the Special Investigator, Inspector
General for the TARP program; yes, a lot of people have criticized the
program.
Unlike Republicans, a lot of us have been trying to figure out a way
to make it work. I have offered several suggestions.
{time} 1610
I have criticized it continuously for 2 years and said what we should
be doing instead, and on what we should be doing instead there has been
a deafening silence from Republicans.
We know we can do something. We know we have to do something. The
foreclosures and the drop in home values are grinding down the middle
class. The value they have in their home, the equity they have in their
home is the bulk of their life savings. So when their home goes down in
value, their life savings go away. We have got to get control of this.
We know we can make something work because we have the tool. One of the
most successful programs in the New Deal got control of the foreclosure
crisis then, and the Federal Government made a profit from the program.
And there is reason to think that there will be real rules, real
enforceable rules soon. There are settlement talks pending on
enforcement action by States Attorney Generals and by the Federal
agencies for the violations of law by the biggest banks that handled
most of these mortgages, which Republicans have opposed; and there are
rules in the offing from the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, which they have also proposed, something that really will make
this work.
Mr. Inslee's amendment is much the same. It requires a pullback, a
hard look at the program and what will make it work, what are the
guidelines that need to make it work, what are the standards that need
to make it work, and requires that those suggested changes be
implemented in the program.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. I think this is a fundamentally flawed amendment.
[[Page 4563]]
What this amendment essentially does is say that the last agency in
government that we had asked to conduct a review of this program would
be in charge of the review of the program and would be in charge of
designing a new program, even though the previous program they designed
is flawed and harmful and a failure, and immediately report back to
Congress a program that is basically the same.
Look, Ronald Reagan once said: The closest thing to eternal life is a
Federal program. That quote is this amendment. I ask my colleagues to
oppose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. I would say that you read a quote from the Special
Inspector General from TARP, Mr. Barofsky: ``The basic idea of a well-
run government program is to have clear goals, have a plan to meet
these goals, measure progress along the way against these goals, change
your program when necessary so you can still achieve those goals.
``But this is how the TARP has been implemented and, in particular,
this program within TARP: set goals. Ignore goals entirely. Hope for
the best. When the best is different, change your goals and say you
never really meant it when you had those goals. Pretend that the
program is a success, even though it is not meeting these goals.''
That is Mr. Barofsky's analysis of Treasury's implementation. I would
ask my colleague, if that is in keeping with his expectations for a new
government program, then, I would submit, that is what they will come
up with.
This Treasury has defended TARP and defended HAMP, and in particular
HAMP, which has been roundly criticized even by La Raza, which has been
a tried and true liberal activist for a long time. But Treasury has
been defending it. Why? I'm not sure. But instead of reforming the
program, instead of fixing the program, they refuse to do it; and so we
must end it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Waters
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part A of House Report 112-34.
Ms. WATERS. 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 7, line 2, strike the last closing quotation marks and
the last period.
Page 7, after line 2, add the following:
``(5) Notification to hamp applicants required.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall inform each individual who applied for the
Home Affordable Modification Program and will not be
considered for a modification under such Program due to
termination of such Program under this subsection--
``(i) that such Program has been terminated;
``(ii) that loan modifications under such Program are no
longer available;
``(iii) of the name and contact information of such
individual's Member of Congress; and
``(iv) that the individual should contact his or her Member
of Congress to assist the individual in contacting the
individual's lender or servicer for the purpose of
negotiating or acquiring a loan modification.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my amendment,
which is a commonsense provision that provides transparency and clarity
for distressed homeowners.
My amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury to send a
letter to HAMP applicants that they will not be considered for a
modification due to termination of the program, and that they can
contact their Member of Congress for assistance in negotiating with or
acquiring a loan modification from their servicer.
I raise this amendment because my friends on the opposite side of the
aisle have the majority in the House, and they will probably prevail on
this amendment; but I think that we have a responsibility to say to our
constituents what we are doing and what we are not doing.
Many of them have just begun to learn about the loan modification
program, the HAMP program, and all of a sudden it is going to be pulled
out from under them if this amendment prevails and if it passes on the
opposite side of the aisle and in the Senate, et cetera; and the
constituents need to know exactly what we have done.
Now, I worked with Mr. McHenry on this amendment and we worked out
some language that he thought was fair, and I believe we do have his
support. That is not to say that I support the bill because I don't
support this amendment. I don't support this bill that would literally
dismantle the HAMP program.
Yes, there are criticisms about this program. I and others would have
liked for it to have been broader, for it to have helped more people.
But don't forget, over 600,000 people have been helped. I know the
target was 3 million to 4 million people, and we certainly haven't come
close to that.
But to do away with this program would leave the American taxpayers
who have gotten into loans, oftentimes tricked into these loans, misled
into these loans by the loan initiators, the banks and the mortgage
companies that told them that they could help them get a mortgage even
though these were exotic products, these were teaser loans, these were
no doc loans, these were loans that were going to reset and cause the
taxpayer to be in a loan that they could not afford.
Many innocent people trying to live the American Dream signed on the
dotted line. And also there was a lot of fraud involved where some of
these loan initiators signed on the dotted line for the homeowner or
the would-be homeowner. And so we have this crisis, this subprime
crisis that we have been going through, and there is a lot of misery
out there, people who were just trying to own a home who now find
themselves in foreclosure.
The banks were not helping with loan modification, so we had to come
up with something. The administration came up with the HAMP program. It
is a voluntary program. But they signed on to these agreements with the
banks to say that they would do loan modifications under certain
conditions. And the administration had to do this because the banks
were not helping out the homeowners. As a matter of fact, the banks
said: Well, we don't have anything to do with this anymore. It is up to
the servicers.
What a lot of people don't know is who is the servicer. The servicer
is simply in most cases a company that is owned by the bank. They own
their own servicing company, which means that once the mortgage is
signed on by the homeowner, they now give it to this other company that
they own, these servicers; and the servicers have the responsibility
for collecting on the mortgage, for collecting on late fees, for
collecting on attorney fees, and for doing loan modifications. But the
homeowners couldn't get to them. HAMP is supposed to help them get to
them.
These servicers have gotten away with being unregulated for all of
these years. As a matter of fact, there are no standards for servicers.
If you call one bank, they will send you to their loss mitigation
department. What they don't tell you, banks such as Bank of America,
their loss mitigation is an offshore operation. You may be talking to
somebody in India who has got this little cookie-cutter sheet which
says: How much money do you make? How many times have you been late on
your payment? Let's figure out how not to give you a loan modification,
but maybe to give you a few months to catch up. But loss mitigation
means a lot of different things in all of these different banks, if you
are lucky enough to get to the servicer.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. WATERS. I would just simply ask for support for transparency and
support to keep this program going.
[[Page 4564]]
{time} 1620
Mrs. BIGGERT. I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I just have a question for the sponsor of this
amendment. You have had several amendments in several of these bills,
and I wanted to make sure this is the same as what you and Mr. McHenry
agreed to.
Ms. WATERS. Yes, this is absolutely the same thing we agreed to.
Mrs. BIGGERT. You are just asking for this amendment, not to change
the bill or anything?
Ms. WATERS. I beg your pardon?
Mrs. BIGGERT. You are just asking for support of this amendment and
not for anything concerning the bill?
Ms. WATERS. This amendment is a transparency amendment that I worked
on with Mr. McHenry, where our constituents would be notified and have
an opportunity.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, we accept the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The amendment was agreed to.
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 A of House Report 112-34.
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:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 3. STUDY.
(a) In General.--Not later than the end of the 60-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall begin a study to identify
what aspects of the Home Affordable Modification Program were
successful and most effectively carried out the original
purpose of the Program.
(b) Report.--Not later than the end of the 6-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall issue a report to the Congress containing--
(1) all findings and determinations made in carrying out
the study required under subsection (a); and
(2) legislative recommendations for a new mortgage
modification program that could more successfully and
effectively achieve the original purpose of the Home
Affordable Modification Program.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, 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. I thank the chairman very much, and I thank
my colleagues very much as well.
As we come to the floor of the House, I know that Members on both
sides of the aisle are committed to knowing the facts. We want to know
the facts when we go to town hall meetings when our constituents pose
very deliberative questions. We want to give them numbers. We want to
be able to reason with them. And one of the deliberative aspects of
legislation is that you fix it; you don't end it.
So I rise today to ask my colleagues to support my amendment, an
amendment that I think makes common sense. It is an amendment that
thoughtful Members can support. It is an amendment that, whether you
are Republican or Democrat, you want to know what works.
My amendment would call on the Secretary of the Treasury to
commission a study that would identify what aspects of the HAMP program
were successful and effectively carried out the original intent of the
program. It would then require the Secretary to issue a report to
Congress containing all findings and determinations of the study and
legislative recommendations for a new mortgage modification program
that could more successfully and effectively achieve the original
purpose of the Home Affordable Modification Program.
We have to thank the administration for recognizing that people were
literally on their knees. There is no doubt that we have different
philosophies. My friends on the other side of the aisle, they keep
talking about the deficit and the depressing aspect of the $1 trillion
debt. We keep talking about invest and grow the economy. When you grow
the economy, you have the ability to pay down on your debt; you have
the ability to address the question of the debt ceiling. So my question
is: Why wouldn't you want to know the best practices?
Let me give you some of the myths that have been presented. One
suggestion is that this legislation that we have before us to end the
HAMP program will prevent another $30 billion from going to one of
these programs. That is inaccurate. The repeal of this program will, in
essence, save only $1.437 billion. That is all that it will save. But,
more importantly, what you will have is you will throw homeowners into
the streets when the major asset for Americans, middle class,
hardworking Americans, is their home. Let's find out the best practices
and make this work.
The monthly rate of new loan approvals would have to triple in order
to approximate the amount cited by the chairman of this committee,
suggesting $30 billion. Actually, we expect the rates are, instead,
likely to modestly decline. So you are not going to have that much
savings and it is not going to, in essence, blow up with so many people
using it that you are going to use this amount of money.
One Republican has suggested that the program goes to private
lenders. Well, for every dollar that the HAMP program has paid out,
homeowners have received from lenders $5 in reduced mortgage payments.
Most of the program funds do not go to lenders but go directly to
homeowners as incentives on the on-time mortgage payments. It is giving
individuals a leg up.
It is interesting that we would not want to focus on the best
practices when, if you look at this map, you will see that every single
State has received a HAMP impact, someone has a mortgage problem that
the HAMP program has helped.
Now, can we fix it? Yes, we can make it better. But let me tell you
about a person by the name of Laurel. She indicated how this program
has helped her. ``Well, my income has not fully come back.'' She was
unemployed. ``I am making much less than I was making before, so it has
been a difficult time. With the modification, my mortgage payment has
gone down $800 and I am able to make my payment on time. I have been
able to remain in the home that I love, and that has provided me with
great stability. I am extremely grateful that I received the
modification.''
She has saved an asset that contributes to the economy. What would be
the result of ending the modification program? I can tell you what the
result would be. The result would be that Laurel would dump another
home onto the market that no one could buy, that would bring down the
quality of the neighborhood and the house appraisal prices of the
neighborhood and, therefore, add another dent to the economy.
Invest and grow. And the question is, all of my friends who are there
on the other side of the aisle, here is a document that is 15 pages
long that shows that your district, your cities, have been impacted
positively by the HAMP program. Job growth is picking up. Invest and
grow jobs should be the mindset of the American Congress, for that is
what we were sent back to Washington to do.
There is no doubt that we have a collective commitment to bringing
down the debt. There is a collective commitment to doing that, and we
can look reasonably at what and how to do it. But when you don't even
have the best practices or know why you are repealing something, and
right now people are in the middle of addressing this question of
modifying their mortgage.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment because it does in fact
provide a lifeline, and it invests in the economy, creates jobs and
stabilizes the middle class.
With regard to the HAMP program, I would like say, ``Mend it, don't
end it!''
[[Page 4565]]
The HAMP program has not been perfect, but it has helped a
considerable number of Americans modify their mortgages in order to
prevent foreclosure and keep their homes and livelihoods that they work
so hard for day in and day out.
The White House agrees--The White House has indicated that the
President will veto the HAMP termination bill if it passes.
As written, this bill would prohibit new mortgage loan modifications
under the Home Affordable Modification Program, (HAMP), which is funded
under authority generally referred to as TARP, pursuant to the
``Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008'' (also known as EESA).
Despite termination of the program, this bill would grandfather in
assistance to homeowners who, prior to the date of enactment, had
already been extended an offer to participate in HAMP, either on a
permanent or trial basis.
I am here before you today to offer an amendment that I believe will
greatly enhance this bill by making it a vehicle that providing us, the
Members of Congress, with very useful information. If H.R. 839 were to
pass, terminating the HAMP program, my amendment would call on the
Secretary of the Treasury to commission a study that would identify
what aspects of the HAMP program were successful and effectively
carried out the original intent of the program.
It would then require the Secretary to issue a report to Congress
containing all findings and determinations of the study, and
legislative recommendations for a new mortgage modification program
that could more successfully and effectively achieve the original
purpose of the Home Affordable Modification Program.
Parliamentarian ruled that the amendment is germane.
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, found that there is no cost
associated with my amendment.
If the HAMP program is terminated, we will still be left to deal with
the problem of foreclosed homes in a recovering, yet very fragile,
housing market. With the unemployment rate still hovering at an
uncomfortably high rate, Americans are still dealing with the
difficulties of making ends meet. Although our economy is slowly but
surely on the path to recovery, Americans struggling to find work will
still be faced with the painful reality of losing their home, although
now, without an avenue for assistance with refinancing.
To avoid another slump in the housing market, and to avoid dealing
yet another blow to our fragile economy, if H.R. 839 becomes law, it
will be necessary for us to consider a new mortgage refinance and
modification program in the future to prevent stalling the recovery of
the housing market, or even worse, allowing it to crumble once again.
If that day were to come, it would be most useful to have firm facts
and strong statistics about what methods are proven to be most
effective in solving the problems associated with high foreclosure
rates and ensuring that home loan modifications are both permanent and
successful.
The HAMP program was put in place by the Obama Administration in
early 2009 with the intent to modify mortgage loans in order that
distressed borrowers might have a better chance at making payments and
holding onto their homes. The program has successfully modified over
500,000 million mortgages to prevent foreclosure and keep homeowners in
their homes. While well intentioned HAMP program has encountered some
difficulties--not yet reaching the goal set by the Obama Administration
of helping 3 to 4 million homeowners.
Nonetheless, the program has effectively helped a number of
homeowners with successful loan modifications that allowed them to keep
their homes. To date, there are 539,493 homeowners with permanent HAMP
loan modifications.
New permanent HAMP modifications have averaged around 29,000 per
month over the last six months of 2010. Therefore, assuming a modestly
declining rate from this, a reasonable estimate is that program
participation will double by the end of next year, for a cumulative
total of 1.1 million homeowners. Based on this estimate, the bill would
deny modifications to more than a half million homeowners at risk of
foreclosure.
This is a sign, that despite its problems, there are some positive
and effective aspects of the HAMP program that should be considered
when we look to replace the HAMP program if H.R. 839 is passed
terminating this program. My amendment would call for a detailed study
that would highlight these best practices, while also ensuring that
those aspects of the program which may have hampered its initial
success are not repeated.
There are a number of reasons the program has not met the original
Obama Administration goal of helping 3 to 4 million homeowners, some of
which are actually sound and appropriate aspects of the program. HAMP
appropriately excludes different categories of borrowers--including
investors, owners of second homes, homeowners whose mortgages are
unsustainable even with HAMP assistance, and homeowners that can pay
their mortgage without government assistance. These particular
categories of borrowers are either unlikely to refinance successfully,
or are not those who the HAMP program originally intended to help--
those bar rowers who are in dire need of assistance to keep from losing
their home.
Another reason the HAMP program has not reached its desired goal is
because banks and other mortgage servicers were understaffed and
unprepared to carry out loan modifications--resulting in widespread
complaints about lost files, non-responsiveness, etc. Furthermore,
legally, mortgage holders can not be forced to reduce mortgage
payments. Programs have had to be voluntary, incentivizing lenders to
reduce mortgage payments in lieu of foreclosing on the loan.
One of the more fundamental flaws in the HAMP Program was that it
does not take certain circumstances into consideration. For instance,
the program does not account for second mortgages than many homeowners
may have on their property. As a result, some homeowners have ended up
paying more than they originally owed, an outrageous thought
considering the intended goal of the program. The study and report that
would result from my amendment would bring these types of issues to
light to ensure that a new program would better achieve the goals set
by the Obama Administration
Temporary Modifications--There were many temporary modifications that
did not result in permanent modifications but . . . the Obama
Administration says 50 percent of those who got temp modifications
received permanent modifications in the private market (so this means
HAMP temporary modifications did in fact help homeowners)
These types of strengths and weaknesses are invaluable pieces of
information. My amendment would simply ensure that Congress would be
privy to an official report containing this information and
determinations from those experts who have worked most closely with the
HAMP program since its inception.
With that, Mr. Chair, I ask that this committee strongly consider
accepting my amendment. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what my colleague from Texas
has heard at her town hall meetings, but what I have heard from my
constituents, I have one resident of Stanley, North Carolina, who said,
``We have paid payments every month.'' Now, I say to my colleague, I
have read this before, but I wasn't sure if you were on the floor for
this. But one constituent of mine said, ``We have paid payments every
month. But now we are being told we are behind in our payments because
it is not the original monthly payment on our original loan, but it was
an amount we were told to pay in 2010. How can we be behind?''
I would ask my colleagues to read the Special Inspector General's
report, ``The Details of Failures of HAMP.'' I ask my colleagues to
listen to their constituents. More people in America, I would remind my
colleagues, more people in America, close to 800,000 Americans, have
been actively harmed and left worse off under this Federal program than
have actually been helped.
My colleague points to a laudable survey of the positives. The survey
doesn't detail the destroyed lives that this HAMP program has pushed on
people, has created.
So, this amendment, the reason why I rise in opposition is because
this amendment is similar to ones we have had in committee that we
rejected in committee. This directs the Treasury to conduct a study of
HAMP and would be completely counterproductive. The reason why it would
be completely counterproductive is over the last 6 months we have seen
the Treasury Department engage in a frantic 6-month media campaign for
this program. They won't admit it is a failure; although, the rest of
the world is largely saying it is a failure. They even have offered a
veto threat on this legislation.
[[Page 4566]]
The Special Inspector General, Mr. Barofsky, said just earlier this
week, ``This Treasury Department is so content with the wretched,
shameful status quo, they refuse to even acknowledge that the program
is a failure.'' And that is why simply to offer the Treasury to study
this really is beneath the House.
{time} 1630
I yield back the balance of my time.
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 of Texas. 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. Matsui
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in
part A of House Report 112-34.
Ms. MATSUI. 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:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 3. CONTINUED REPORTING ON MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS.
Section 110 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008 (12 U.S.C. 5220) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Continued Reporting on Mortgage Modifications.--
``(1) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
``(A) the data on mortgage modifications collected from
mortgage servicers and lenders and made available to the
public pursuant to the guidelines of the Home Affordable
Modification Program has been a valuable tool for increasing
transparency; and
``(B) that the public would be served by having such
servicers and lenders continue to report information on
mortgage modifications.
``(2) In general.--Each mortgage servicer and mortgage
lender who participated in the Home Affordable Modification
Program shall, monthly, disclose on a World Wide Web site
owned by such servicer or lender, the following information:
``(A) The number of requests for mortgage modifications
that the servicer or lender has received.
``(B) The number of requests for mortgage modifications
that the servicer or lender has processed.
``(C) The number of requests for mortgage modifications
that the servicer or lender has approved.
``(D) The number of requests for mortgage modifications
that the servicer or lender has denied.
``(3) Report to the congress.--At the time a mortgage
servicer or mortgage lender discloses information pursuant to
paragraph (1), such servicer or lender shall also issue a
report to the Congress containing such information.
``(4) Rulemaking.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this
subsection, including regulations for the protection of the
privacy interest of those individuals seeking mortgage
modifications with the servicer or lender, including the
deletion or alteration of the applicant's name and
identification number.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 839, the
HAMP Termination Act, that calls on mortgage lenders to continue to
publicly report basic home loan modification information.
Because of an amendment I offered to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act which passed the House unanimously
last Congress, mortgage lenders and services participating in the Home
Affordable Modification Program are required to report basic loan
modification information to the Department of the Treasury. Due to the
enactment of my amendment, we now know that 2.5 million Americans have
applied to participate in the Home Affordable Modification Program, and
well over 600,000 of those applicants began permanent modifications.
In the Sacramento region, over 9,000 of the nearly 12,000 homeowners
who have applied for permanent modifications have been approved,
providing assistance to thousands of homeowners in my district. This
information is crucial to accountability and transparency and for this
Congress to measure the performance of the mortgage industry.
The amendment I offer today requires the same basic home loan
modification reporting to continue, such as the number of applications
they receive, the number of applications processed, or the number of
modifications they approve or deny.
In its current form, H.R. 839 would eliminate HAMP, and, as a result,
financial institutions who received HAMP taxpayer funds would no longer
be obligated to continue reporting such basic information to the
public.
Mr. Chairman, the foreclosure crisis was the root cause of the dire
economic situation. It led to the near collapse of our financial
system, increased unemployment, and caused the housing and credit
crisis. Sadly, there are still millions of American homeowners facing
foreclosure, and my home district of Sacramento, California, has been
hit especially hard by this crisis.
During the last few years, I have been to foreclosure workshops in my
district where I have met with constituents who are facing losing their
home. I was recently contacted by Joan, a constituent of mine who would
have lost her house without assistance from HAMP. Joan paid her bills
on time and was current on her mortgage when her son was diagnosed with
a psychiatric disorder that rendered him unable to work. When her adult
son moved in with her shortly after, Joan was no longer able to provide
for him and make her mortgage payments at the same time and sought
assistance. With proper assistance, Joan received a low interest rate
HAMP loan and now is able once again to make her mortgage payments on
time.
Joan shared with me that her home was saved due to the HAMP program
and that her son would have been homeless without it. She said, ``I
have no words to express my feelings of gratitude for my loan
modification.''
Mr. Chairman, I've heard a significant number of similar stories in
Sacramento. It is essential that we require lenders to continue to
report their loan modification activities. We need to know how many
Joans are out there struggling but seeking assistance. We need to know
whether lenders are doing all they can.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will ensure a level of transparency and
accountability continue. I urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense transparency amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. I appreciate the gentlelady offering this amendment.
Unfortunately, I must rise in opposition to it.
The requirements in this amendment are both cumbersome and
unnecessary. It requires servicers and lenders to provide information
regarding proprietary information on their entire portfolio of loans,
not just HAMP. The reporting requirement for, quote, requests for
modifications is undefined in the amendment and is, therefore,
unworkable based on the research that we have done.
It's unclear why this new role is necessary in the contractual
negotiations between private citizens and private companies.
Furthermore, servicers already provide results of their modification
efforts to the HOPE NOW Alliance as well as in their annual reports
without disclosing proprietary information. In fact, the HOPE NOW
Alliance reports servicers having completed 961,355 proprietary
modifications in 2008; 1,172,490 proprietary modifications in 2009; and
1.2 million in 2010.
Now I might add, this is many multiples in the private sector in
terms of mortgage modifications than have been provided under the HAMP
government funded program that we're discussing here today and trying
to eliminate here today, the program that has hurt
[[Page 4567]]
just shy of 800,000 Americans, destroyed their credit, taken their
savings and, at the end of the day, taken their homes. I would
encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that these basic reporting
requirements are not new. It's about HAMP. Every financial institution
receiving HAMP funds from the TARP program is currently required to
report this information today.
The current industry reporting requirements have played a significant
role in providing a sense of transparency and accountability, and
that's what we're talking about, transparency and accountability in our
efforts to help homeowners and stabilize our housing market. Requiring
basic information to be reported will provide this Congress with the
information to make future decisions on loan modification programs as
well as monitor the performance of the mortgage industry.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important amendment to bring clarity and transparency to the mortgage
industry.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would encourage my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The reporting requirements
my colleague references are required by the servicers that are
participating in HAMP, and they are required to disclose the
information related to the Federal program, HAMP.
This amendment goes much further and requires these servicers to
disclose hundreds of thousands of other modifications that are in the
private sector. We know the aggregate number. What is being requested
here is detailed information that is not correct for personal privacy
and is not proper in keeping with the hundreds of thousands of private
transactions going on across this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Maloney
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in
part A of House Report 112-34.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order under the rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) As of January 2011, active trials and permanent Home
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) modifications had been
initiated in all 50 States and the District of Columbia,
including--
(A) 4036 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Alabama;
(B) 291 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Alaska;
(C) 32159 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Arizona;
(D) 1527 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Arkansas;
(E) 161181 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in California;
(F) 9349 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Colorado;
(G) 8604 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Connecticut;
(H) 1166 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
the District of Columbia;
(I) 2130 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Delaware;
(J) 82230 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Florida;
(K) 25120 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Georgia;
(L) 2656 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Hawaii;
(M) 2640 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Idaho;
(N) 36907 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Illinois;
(O) 6785 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Indiana;
(P) 1761 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Iowa;
(Q) 1639 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Kansas;
(R) 2622 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Kentucky;
(S) 3774 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Louisiana;
(T) 1925 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Maine;
(U) 22028 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Maryland;
(V) 17039 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Massachusetts;
(W) 22716 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Michigan;
(X) 12108 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Minnesota;
(Y) 2641 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Mississippi;
(Z) 7284 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Missouri;
(AA) 764 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Montana;
(BB) 917 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Nebraska;
(CC) 17860 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in Nevada;
(DD) 3175 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
New Hampshire;
(EE) 22105 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in New Jersey;
(FF) 2190 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
New Mexico;
(GG) 30955 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in New York;
(HH) 12663 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in North Carolina;
(II) 116 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
North Dakota;
(JJ) 15379 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in Ohio;
(KK) 1624 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Oklahoma;
(LL) 7452 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Oregon;
(MM) 14302 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in Pennsylvania;
(NN) 3539 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Rhode Island;
(OO) 6526 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
South Carolina;
(PP) 273 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
South Dakota;
(QQ) 7124 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Tennessee;
(RR) 17961 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in Texas;
(SS) 6405 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Utah;
(TT) 565 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Vermont;
(UU) 16738 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in Virginia;
(VV) 13387 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications
in Washington;
(WW) 1040 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
West Virginia;
(XX) 6793 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Wisconsin; and
(YY) 349 active trials and permanent HAMP modifications in
Wyoming.
(2) As of January 2011, 1,493,107 additional trial
modifications were started under the HAMP Program.
(3) As of January 2011, 607,607 additional permanent
modifications were started under the HAMP Program.
(4) By voting to terminate the Home Affordable Modification
Program without a suggested replacement, the Congress is
voting to terminate a program that may have helped to modify
an additional 2,867,420 delinquent mortgages in the United
States.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
{time} 1640
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, for everyone that cares about the issues of
poverty, housing, economic growth, and community life, the last couple
of weeks have brought some troubling news. Wednesday came the news that
purchases of new U.S. homes declined last month to the slowest pace on
record, and new home prices dropped to the lowest level since December,
2003. And yet over the past 2 weeks, House Republicans have said with
their votes again and again that their policy to help homeowners is to
just give up; to throw in the towel and to say that there's just
nothing that Congress can do or will do to address the problem to help
struggling American families. They have already voted to terminate
three Federal programs that help Americans who are struggling to stay
in their homes. And now we are considering yet another one that has
helped more than 32,000 New Yorkers stay in their homes--over 600,000
across our great country.
What bothers me is that they are leading the effort to eliminate
these programs, voting against them, and yet they have no plans of
their own to address the foreclosure crisis that is hurting
neighborhoods and disrupting lives throughout their country, like the
jobs bills they said they would have. We have yet to see them. The only
initiative to help housing is to eliminate the programs that are
already there.
[[Page 4568]]
The HAMP program has been successful in helping, as I said, over
600,000. And with over 30,000 mortgages modified each month nationally,
HAMP is continuing to provide relief to struggling families across this
country. My amendment will add findings to the bill with the number of
trial and permanent modifications stated under the HAMP program. The
findings will also state the number of seriously delinquent mortgages
in the U.S. that may be eligible for HAMP modifications but won't be
because the program is being terminated. I believe it is important for
the public to understand State by State the number of mortgages--the
number of families--who are still in their homes because of the HAMP
program. Families are saving an average of over $500 per month on their
mortgage payments. This amounts to nearly $5 billion in savings since
the program started. These are real families and real savings. If our
friends who have proposed to terminate this program want to talk about
savings, they should think about the number of people in these States
who have benefited from HAMP and are now saving money every single
month. They should also think about the number of seriously delinquent
mortgages out there that are on the verge of foreclosure. Currently,
over 2 million families in our country are in this situation. Many of
these could be eligible to participate in the HAMP program. But by
terminating it now, our friends are saying that these families are on
their own. The numbers speak for themselves, and I think it is
important that we highlight how we have helped families across this
country and how many more are not going to be helped or are not being
helped by terminating and closing this program.
So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to oppose the
underlying bill, and I will place in the Record a statement of
administration policy from the Executive Office of President Barack
Obama in support of the HAMP program, urging a ``no'' vote on the
efforts by the Republican majority.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2011.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 839--HAMP Termination Act
(Rep. McHenry, R-NC, and 8 cosponsor)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
839 which would eliminate the Department of the Treasury's
Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). This program
offers eligible homeowners an opportunity to lower their
mortgage payments, helping individuals avoid foreclosure and
leading to the protection of home values and the preservation
of homeownership. The Administration is committed to helping
struggling American homeowners stay in their homes, and has
taken many steps over the last two years to stabilize what
was a rapidly-declining housing market. As tens of thousands
of responsible American homeowners struggling with their
mortgages receive permanent assistance each month from HAMP,
the Administration believes that continuation of HAMP is
important to the Nation's sustained economic recovery.
If the President is presented with H.R. 839, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
____
Making Home Affordable Program
Servicer Performance Report Through January 2011
HAMP ACTIVITY BY STATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Permanent % of
State Trials Modifications Total Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK............................................................... 63 228 291 0.0
AL............................................................... 927 3,109 4,036 0.6
AR............................................................... 337 1,190 1,527 0.2
AZ............................................................... 5,837 26,322 32,159 4.7
CA............................................................... 32,617 128,564 161,181 23.5
CO............................................................... 1,762 7,587 9,349 1.4
CT............................................................... 1,759 6,845 8,604 1.3
DC............................................................... 247 919 1,166 0.2
DE............................................................... 454 1,676 2,130 0.3
FL............................................................... 18,570 63,660 82,230 12.0
GA............................................................... 5,553 19,567 25,120 3.7
HI............................................................... 607 2,049 2,656 0.4
IA............................................................... 388 1,373 1,761 0.3
ID............................................................... 602 2,038 2,640 0.4
IL............................................................... 7,803 29,104 36,907 5.4
IN............................................................... 1,505 5,280 6,785 1.0
KS............................................................... 379 1,260 1,639 0.2
KY............................................................... 556 2,066 2,622 0.4
LA............................................................... 977 2,797 3,774 0.6
MA............................................................... 3,542 13,497 17,039 2.5
MD............................................................... 4,545 17,483 22,028 3.2
ME............................................................... 452 1,473 1,925 0.3
MI............................................................... 4,651 18,065 22,716 3.3
MN............................................................... 2,201 9,907 12,108 1.8
MO............................................................... 1,536 5,748 7,284 1.1
MS............................................................... 571 2,070 2,641 0.4
MT............................................................... 176 588 764 0.1
NC............................................................... 2,649 10,014 12,663 1.8
ND............................................................... 26 90 116 0.0
NE............................................................... 198 719 917 0.1
NH............................................................... 670 2,505 3,175 0.5
NJ............................................................... 4,738 17,367 22,105 3.2
NM............................................................... 476 1,714 2,190 0.3
NV............................................................... 3,697 14,163 17,860 2.6
NY............................................................... 7,022 23,933 30,955 4.5
OH............................................................... 3,325 12,054 15,379 2.2
OK............................................................... 401 1,223 1,624 0.2
OR............................................................... 1,547 5,905 7,452 1.1
PA............................................................... 3,124 11,178 14,302 2.1
RI............................................................... 719 2,820 3,539 0.5
SC............................................................... 1,377 5,149 6,526 1.0
SD............................................................... 66 207 273 0.0
TN............................................................... 1,601 5,523 7,124 1.0
TX............................................................... 4,381 13,580 17,961 2.6
UT............................................................... 1,330 5,075 6,405 0.9
VA............................................................... 3,364 13,374 16,738 2.4
VT............................................................... 125 440 565 0.1
WA............................................................... 2,927 10,460 13,387 2.0
WI............................................................... 1,474 5,319 6,793 1.0
WV............................................................... 209 831 1,040 0.2
WY............................................................... 61 288 349 0.1
Other*........................................................... 1,136 1,097 2,233 0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment fails to highlight that there are more failed
modifications than successful permanent modifications. In fact, in the
dissenting views from the Financial Services Committee Democrats, of
which my colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney) signed, along with 14
of her Democrat colleagues, it states that, in their view, 570,000
homeowners would be assisted under HAMP if the program were allowed to
continue. This amendment, however, states that that number is 2.8
million. This differs from the facts of her own party. And I think both
numbers are much higher than what have been agreed upon by the
Congressional Oversight Panel of TARP. Their numbers are much, much
lower.
I think if you use my colleague's words and figures, it's fair to say
that those are grossly inflated and go well beyond what is reasonable,
what is serious, and what is agreed upon in the private sector, or by
even most of her Democrat colleagues. So I would urge my colleagues to
vote against that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MALONEY. The number of over 2 million delinquent mortgages in
the United States is the range of people that could be eligible, who
could apply for the program, but not all of them would qualify. You
have to reach certain standards to qualify to enter the program. So
this is the range of the people who could be helped.
The difficulty with my Republican colleagues is that they have no
alternative. They're abolishing a program without coming forward with
any idea to help themselves. As Mark Zandi said in his recent report,
housing remains fragile in America. And housing is roughly 25 percent
of our economy. So to the extent that we can help people stay in their
homes, thereby not only helping that family but helping their community
and helping their country, helping to stabilize the housing prices
around that house so it doesn't become delinquent and abandoned,
pulling down the values in the communities, this is an important
program. And it should be continued. It's no taxpayer dollars used.
It's from the TARP program, funded by the banks. This is an effort to
help the overall economy.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). The time of the gentlewoman from New
York has expired.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would quote from page 17 of
the dissenting views of the Financial Services Committee Democrats, of
which my colleague, Mrs. Maloney, signed on. Page 17, ``A reasonable
estimate is that the program participation will double by the end of
next year,'' which, I might add, is a bit ambitious. I'll just continue
with the quote. ``A reasonable estimate is that the program
participation will double by the end of next year, for a cumulative
total of 1.1 million homeowners. Based on this estimate, the bill would
deny modification for more than a half million homeowners at risk of
foreclosure.'' I might add, the statistics also bear out that for every
half a million that are helped in this program, you're actively hurting
about 800,000 Americans.
So what the opposition on the other side of the aisle is doing is
saying we should continue failure, we should endorse failure. In fact,
we should continue to hurt people by keeping this
[[Page 4569]]
program open. And that, under their view, it means that you'll have
800,000 Americans that will be left worse off because this program
exists--worse off. Their credit depleted, their home taken, their
credit rating destroyed. I think that is highly inappropriate, Mr.
Chairman. That's why I oppose this amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
My colleague from New York and many of the colleagues from that side
of the aisle have been saying that if we end this program, there will
be nothing. That simply isn't true. Of the 4.1 million mortgage
modifications that were completed, 3.5 million were done by the private
sector with no government program and not a dime from the taxpayers.
There's also the Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, for
homeowners with government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. And
don't forget about the Hardest Hit Fund. According to the Treasury Web
site, the President established this in February, 2010, to provide
targeted aid to families in States hard hit by the economic and housing
market downturn. That includes $1.5 million that went to the hardest
hit States--California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and Michigan. Another
$600 million went to another set--North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island,
and South Carolina. And finally, $2 billion was distributed to 17
States and the District of Columbia.
{time} 1650
In 2008, $300 million in guarantees was committed for HOPE for
Homeowners, a voluntary FHA program. Only 200 loans have been modified
in this program, but it does exist; $475 million has been appropriated
to Neighborhood Works for foreclosure counseling for homeowners.
Finally, there are countless local, State, and private sector
initiatives.
We have to stop funding programs with money that we don't have. Let's
make that clear. With that, I would urge opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MALONEY. 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 New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part A of House Report 112-34.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
The Congress encourages banks to work with homeowners to
provide loan modifications to those that are eligible. The
Congress also encourages banks to work and assist homeowners
and prospective homeowners with foreclosure prevention
programs and information on loan modifications.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret but with clear intent that I
rise in opposition to continuing the Federal Home Affordable
Modification Program, known as HAMP, without significant changes.
HAMP was designed to help millions of homeowners who had fallen
victim to the financial crisis of 2008 and to the collapse of the
housing market; but regrettably, at this time, it is not working under
its current structure.
On behalf of struggling homeowners in my congressional district
trying to avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes, I have gone to
great lengths to encourage the Obama administration to recognize the
serious shortcomings of the HAMP program, shortcomings that have been
well documented by numerous independent and authoritative sources.
But the administration has been unable to successfully respond to the
legitimate criticisms of HAMP and as a result the administration faces
opposition to its program today on the floor of the House not only from
those who oppose everything this administration does for purely
partisan reasons but also from representatives like me who have
genuinely sought to work with the administration to improve this
program.
I hope that my vote today is understood clearly by the administration
as one more effort on my part, on behalf of my desperate constituents,
to get the administration to recognize the urgency of the housing
crisis and respond to it accordingly. I appreciate that much hard work
has already been done. I know that many people are involved in this
effort and many hours have been dedicated to the problem. But in the
case of ongoing foreclosures nationwide and the abuses homeowners face
from banks and mortgage servicers, all the hard work and effort has not
been sufficient and more must be done.
Homeowners in my community and across the country are being lied to,
chewed up, and abused by banks and servicers in an arbitrary and
capricious system that has stripped them of their homes and their
livelihoods. In my district, people who are in need of substantial help
in their fights against the big banks are simply not getting it. Hard
as I try with my staff, and hard as my colleagues try with their staff,
we cannot do enough on our own.
Make no mistake--Republicans in Washington are not on the side of
homeowners in this fight. They're using the problems with HAMP as an
excuse to once again oppose the Obama administration, just as they have
opposed the Obama administration on every step it has taken to rescue
the economy, for purely partisan reasons. Regrettably, the Republican
approach to the housing crisis is to cut and run, to starve the economy
of the investments it needs to create jobs and get the economy--and the
housing market--back on its feet. Their bill today does nothing to help
the housing crisis and it would deprive the administration of funds
that could be used to help homeowners. But their bill does one thing
that I do support--it sends a message that homeowners are not getting
the help they need from HAMP and that HAMP must be significantly
improved or replaced in order to offer the kind of help distressed
homeowners need.
So far, such improvements have not taken place. And I see no sign
that they will. And left with no choice but to register one more
complaint by voting to end HAMP.
I hope today's vote is understood clearly as a wake-up call to the
administration that HAMP is not good enough today to earn my support
and that it must be strengthened immediately or replaced by a program
that does work. I hope my vote sends the message that banks and
servicers are responsible for the abuse that is taking place in today's
housing market and that we intend to hold them accountable for their
behavior, and that we are committed to helping struggling homeowners
survive and recover from this crisis.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, since my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle are ending the Home Affordable
Modification Program, my amendment simply states that the Congress
should encourage the banks to provide our qualifying neighbors with
loan modifications. It also encourages the banks to provide our friends
and families with information on foreclosure prevention and loan
modification.
My Republican colleagues say that the Home Affordable Modification
Program is not helping enough people. Well, it didn't help all the
people. That's true. I know people who went and tried to get their
loans modified, and it didn't work for them; but there have been quite
a few who have been helped. I want to give you some examples just in my
own area.
For example, there is this couple in Garden Grove, California. The
husband became unemployed. He was a construction worker; and as we all
know, construction was the first industry to fold. Well, the family
fell behind on their mortgage payments despite the fact that they are
extremely frugal and
[[Page 4570]]
had been saving money for emergencies.
After some time, the husband found a job. Of course it paid less, and
they are still unable to pay their full mortgage. They owed $8,825 in
missed payments with late fees; plus, they had a balance of $482,000 on
their mortgage. Thanks to the modification program, the debts were
forgiven, and the balance was dropped by $87,000 so that they have a
new balance.
Even with the loss of income, they are very thankful that they can
keep their home and that they have a mortgage payment that they can
make. The Home Affordable Modification Program allowed this family to
keep their home.
A family from Santa Ana was close to losing their home due to
financial hardship as the husband's hours and income were reduced. So
to make ends meet, he supplemented his primary job with a part-time
job. These are not people who are asking for handouts. These are people
who are trying to figure out a way to hold onto their homes and to keep
stability with their children. The gentleman really wanted to keep his
home, so he worked with a counseling agency to formulate a budget that
was affordable to him. Thanks to the loan modification program, his
payment was reduced, and the family can stay in their home. That's one
more family in Santa Ana that is in their home today.
Then there was this couple who worked for a school district. The
budget restraints in the State forced them to have furloughs, which
took a significant toll on their income. There was a couple from
Anaheim who was using their unused sick and vacation days just so they
could get that check in order to make the mortgage. Thanks to the loan
modification program, the couple was able to permanently modify their
loan and keep their home. Their monthly mortgage payment was reduced,
and it made it more affordable. Even with an income reduction, this is
another couple, another family, who is still in their home.
Those are only three of the success stories we've had. I know I have
worked very hard with my housing agencies and with people in putting on
forums and talking to people and giving information and calling them in
and getting the banks to try to modify these loans. This is a 5-year
process at home that we have been working on. I don't know, maybe the
rest of my colleagues didn't do this or didn't know how to do it or
they weren't as successful, but we have had success. So we have
families who are in their homes.
It is my hope that my Republican colleagues will reconsider this
bill. Let's work together to find solutions for people because when you
keep families in their homes, the stability of the family stays intact;
and when you have that in particular, if you have children, they need
that stability.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
even though I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. BIGGERT. We will accept the amendment.
I have had similar occurrences in my district where actually one
gentleman had to pay back $42,000 worth of late fees as well as the
penalties and the difference between the loan modification. That's
where I think this program has failed.
Yet I think your amendment is a sense for Congress to encourage the
banks to work with our constituents and to provide loan modifications
to those who are eligible. It also encourages banks to work with our
constituents and to provide them with the best services. It encourages
the banks to assist prospective homeowners with foreclosure prevention
and counseling.
I think this is a help in the private sector and encourages the
private sector to do this, so we would accept this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McHenry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, 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. 839) to
amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to terminate the
authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to provide new assistance
under the Home Affordable Modification Program, while preserving
assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer to
participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent basis, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today.
Accordingly (at 5 p.m.), the House stood in recess until
approximately 6:30 p.m.
____________________
{time} 1830
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Woodall) at 6 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 471,
SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY AND RESULTS ACT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 112-45) on the resolution (H. Res. 186)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 471) to reauthorize the
DC opportunity scholarship program, and for other purposes, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
THE HAMP TERMINATION ACT OF 2011
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 170 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 839.
{time} 1835
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 839) to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008 to terminate the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to
provide new assistance under the Home Affordable Modification Program,
while preserving assistance to homeowners who were already extended an
offer to participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent
basis, with Mr. Poe of Texas in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 9 printed in part A of House Report 112-34, offered by
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), had been
disposed of.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments printed in part A of House Report 112-34 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Hanna of New York.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 8 by Mrs. Maloney of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hanna
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page 4571]]
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 170, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 194]
AYES--247
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
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
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
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
Heller
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)
Lewis (GA)
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)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
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
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--170
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Rahall
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
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Campbell
Conyers
Engel
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gohmert
Langevin
McIntyre
Moran
Rangel
Reyes
Slaughter
Speier
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1858
Messrs. WALZ of Minnesota, CRITZ, SHERMAN, Ms. BASS of California,
and Messrs. NEAL, HINOJOSA, and BACA changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. GRAVES of Missouri and SMITH of New Jersey changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 239, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 195]
AYES--182
Ackerman
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)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
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
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
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
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
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
Sires
Slaughter
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--239
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
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)
[[Page 4572]]
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
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
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
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)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
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
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Campbell
Cleaver
Conyers
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gohmert
Moran
Rangel
Reyes
Speier
Waxman
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1903
Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Maloney
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 249, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 196]
AYES--173
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
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
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
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
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
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
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--249
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
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
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
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
Lofgren, Zoe
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)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
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 (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Campbell
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gohmert
Graves (MO)
Moran
Payne
Rangel
Speier
Webster
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.
{time} 1909
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 196, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
[[Page 4573]]
The CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Poe of Texas, 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. 839) to
amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to terminate the
authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to provide new assistance
under the Home Affordable Modification Program, while preserving
assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer to
participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent basis, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 170, reported the bill back to the House
with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
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
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. In its current form, I am opposed to the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Larsen of Washington moves to recommit the bill H.R.
839 to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
In subsection (c)(1) of the matter proposed to be inserted
by the amendment made by section 2 of the bill, strike
``paragraph (2)'' and insert ``paragraphs (2) and (5)''.
At the end of section 2 of the bill, strike the closing
quotation marks and the last period and add the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Continuation of program for members of the armed
forces and gold star recipients.--
``(A) In general.--After the date of the enactment of this
Act and only to the extent that amounts are made available
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under
subparagraph (C), the Secretary may provide assistance under
the Home Affordable Modification Program on behalf of any
homeowner who otherwise qualifies for assistance under such
Program who is--
``(i) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on
active duty, including those members on active duty in Iraq
or Afghanistan, or the spouse or parent of such a member; or
``(ii) eligible to receive a Gold Star lapel pin under
section 1126 of title 10, United States Code, as a widow,
parent, or next of kin of a member of the Armed Forces person
who died in a manner described in subsection (a) of such
section.
``(B) Identification of amounts.--Not later than the
expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall--
``(i) determine, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the amount
necessary to provide assistance under the Home Affordable
Modification Program to the persons described under clauses
(i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) submit notice of such determination to the Congress
that specifies such amount.
``(C) Authorization of appropriations.--Effective upon the
submission to the Congress by the Secretary of the notice
required under subparagraph (B), there is authorized to be
appropriated, for assistance under the Home Affordable
Modification Program only for persons described under clauses
(i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A), the amount identified in
such notice.''.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this amendment does one simple
thing:
It continues the Home Affordable Modification Program for members of
the Armed Forces and Gold Star recipients.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the Home Affordable Modification Program has
not performed to the original projections, but this is an effort that
has provided 600,000 permanent loan modifications. Six hundred thousand
American families are still in their homes because of this effort. I
doubt these families would tell you it is not working.
Mr. Speaker, some will say that terminating this program won't affect
those who have already received modifications or are working through a
modification currently. Yet many more families still need help,
especially military and gold star families.
Even though the economy is beginning to recover, the housing market
is still struggling. HAMP is currently helping 30,000 additional
families every month.
I would prefer that we keep this effort going for everyone. But if we
are not about to, at a minimum we need to preserve this program for
active military and gold star families.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the underlying legislation and
regardless of how anybody feels about the funding for the original
legislation, we can all agree that we owe our men and women in uniform
a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice. While
defending our country, servicemembers should not be afraid that their
families will lose the roof over their heads, but that's the very
situation in which a Navy sailor found himself last year as part of
Operation Enduring Freedom.
Seven thousand miles from home, there was little he could do to help
his spouse balance the stress of raising two children, of her work, and
of household expenses. To top it off, their mortgage was about to jump
to almost $2,300 a month. But this family was able to find relief in
the Home Affordable Modification Program. They applied for a trial
modification under HAMP and began making reduced payments. After a few
months, their modification became permanent and reduced their monthly
payment by almost $400.
This program helps keep servicemembers and their families in their
homes. Some will say that this bill includes a study on the best
practices that could be applied to mortgage assistance programs to help
members of our military. But, Mr. Speaker, you can't live in a study. A
study does not put a roof over your head. A study doesn't provide
shelter for your children. And a study won't help you pay your bills
when your mortgage rate skyrockets.
Mr. Speaker, our servicemembers and gold star families don't need a
stack of paper telling them the ways that we might help. They need
actual help. As it currently stands, this bill takes something from our
men and women in uniform, a mortgage assistance program, and gives them
nothing in return.
My district includes two Navy bases, each home to thousands of
servicemembers and their families. Additionally, the district has the
Washington State National Guard and Reserve located there. I am proud
to represent these men and women and am honored by the work they do
each day. These men and women and their families sacrifice for our
country. While they're protecting our families, the least we can do is
protect their homes.
Let's be clear. The passage of this amendment will not prevent the
passage of the underlying bill. If the amendment is adopted, it will be
incorporated into the bill, and the bill will be immediately voted
upon. We need to do all in our power to ensure the men and women who
fight and die in our wars are able to keep their homes. It's very
simple.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this final amendment.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page 4574]]
Mr. McHENRY. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, Veterans' Administration
loans are not permissible under the HAMP program. They cannot go
through the HAMP program in order to get relief of their mortgage.
Furthermore, veterans are already covered under an effective program
which is assistance to veterans with VA guaranteed home loans. That
program is actually working.
The program that my colleague has offered this cynical motion to
recommit for is merely a roadblock for us eliminating a failed
government program.
I want to tell you, the Special Inspector General for TARP has said
that HAMP recipients sometimes end up unnecessarily depleting their
dwindling savings in an ultimately futile effort to obtain the
sustainable relief promised by the program guidelines. Others, who may
have somehow found ways to continue to make their mortgage payments,
have been drawn into failed trial modifications that have left them
with more principal outstanding in their loans, less home equity, or a
position further underwater and worse credit scores. Perhaps worst of
all, even in circumstances where they never missed a payment, they may
face back payments, penalties and even late fees that suddenly became
due on their modified mortgages that they have been unable to pay. This
Federal program that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
standing up and defending leaves people with late fees, penalties under
their modified mortgages, and oftentimes results in the loss of their
very home.
Furthermore, I would tell my colleagues that some have been helped in
this program. But for every one person that's been helped, there's more
than one other person that has actively been harmed. They deplete their
savings, they ruin their credit, and their house is taken from them.
{time} 1920
And this is a government program. I ask my colleagues, do not subject
our veterans, with this motion to recommit, to a failed program. We
don't want our veterans to come home to a Federal program that is
actively harming them. And that's what this recommit does.
Furthermore, I would say to my colleagues, if we can't vote to
eliminate this Federal program, I ask you, what programs can we
eliminate?
Vote against this recommit. Vote for final passage. Let's move on.
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.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were 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--yeas 185,
nays 238, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 197]
YEAS--185
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
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
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
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
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
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
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)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
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
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
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
Heller
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)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
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)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Lofgren, Zoe
NOT VOTING--8
Campbell
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gohmert
Moran
Rangel
Smith (TX)
Speier
{time} 1938
Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page 4575]]
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
Mrs. BIGGERT. 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 252,
noes 170, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 198]
AYES--252
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
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
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
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
Heller
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
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
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 (AR)
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 (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--170
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
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)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Kaptur
NOT VOTING--9
Butterfield
Campbell
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gohmert
McMorris Rodgers
Moran
Rangel
Speier
{time} 1945
Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 839,
THE HAMP TERMINATION ACT OF 2011
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the
engrossment of H.R. 839, the Clerk be authorized to correct section
numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other
technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the
actions of the House in amending the bill, to include striking
``paragraph (1)'' on page 5, line 16, and inserting in lieu thereof
``subparagraph (A)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
____________________
RE-REFERRAL OF H.R. 1148, STOP TRADING ON CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACT
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1148 be
re-referred primarily to the Committee on Financial Services and
additionally to the Committees on Agriculture, House Administration,
Judiciary, Ethics, and Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
____________________
HONORING THE ELLIS ISLAND TARTAN
(Mr. LANCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 10th annual
celebration of Tartan Day on Ellis Island.
The tartan is the definitive symbol of Scotland. No other fabric or
pattern is so steeped in tradition, and for the past 10 years, Tartan
Day on Ellis Island has promoted Scottish history, heritage, and
culture under the leadership and guidance of the Clan Currie Society,
one of the largest Scottish heritage organizations in the United
States. This year, the Clan Currie Society will be unveiling a new
American tartan, the Ellis Island tartan, in honor of National Tartan
Day on April 6.
The American tartan's fabric is steeped in colors that represent the
experiences of all of those who have traveled to the United States over
the last century in search of the American Dream. The tartan's blue
illustrates the great Atlantic Ocean, the copper-green in honor of the
Statue of Liberty, red signifying the bricks of the historic buildings
on Ellis Island, and the gold representing America's golden door,
walked through by millions as they looked to this new land as the land
of opportunity.
I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring and congratulating
Mr.
[[Page 4576]]
Bob Currie and the entire Clan Currie Society in the unveiling of this
American tartan, the Ellis Island tartan, and for their years of hard
work honoring and recognizing the contributions that Scots and Scottish
Americans have made to our great Nation.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE MOUNT VERNON HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the entire city of
Mount Vernon, New York, and today I rise to congratulate the Mount
Vernon Knights high school basketball team for winning the New York
State Federation Tournament of Champions, Class AA. They beat Christ
the King from New York City, the winner of last year's championship,
84-78 in overtime on Sunday in Albany, New York.
Jabarie Hinds led his team with 14 of his 31 points in the fourth
quarter and overtime to earn MVP honors as Mount Vernon won its fifth
State Federation title in program history.
Congratulations also to Coach Bob Cimmino on his fourth championship.
His team won their last 10 games and snapped the 12-game winning streak
of Christ the King.
Mount Vernon showed its grit and determination by coming back after
being down 20-11 after one quarter and 33-28 at the half. The Knights
took the lead with less than 1 minute in regulation and never trailed
after that.
Other high scorers for Mount Vernon were Khalid Samuels with 21
points and Isaiah Cousins with 12.
Mount Vernon, representing the Public High School Athletic
Association in Westchester, got to the title game with a 70-63 win over
Boys and Girls High School of New York City in Saturday's semifinal
round.
Congratulations to these players and their coach. While March Madness
has gripped the rest of the Nation, in Mount Vernon we are very proud
of our Knights. I am sure these champions have a bright future and will
look back proudly at their accomplishment in the years to come.
____________________
{time} 1950
WAR IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Middle East is in turmoil.
Citizens are in revolt and are ousting their dictators. One of the
worst rulers is Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. Qadhafi is so bad, the
President has involved the United States military in support of the
rebels there.
However, Secretary of Defense Gates has stated our national security
interest is not at risk in Libya. So why are we there?
It seems to me this war is being waged under a new ``Doctrine of
Humanity.'' In other words, the United States will now decide when to
drop bombs on another country in the name of humanity when a ruler we
don't like acts against humanity. This fuzzy emotional doctrine
ultimately gives a President the unilateral ability to intervene
militarily anywhere the President doesn't like the way a foreign ruler
treats his people.
The President needs to clarify this doctrine of ``War in the Name of
Humanity.'' What constitutional authority gives the President the right
to enter another country's civil war when our national security is not
at risk? America needs some answers.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
OBAMA'S LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON LIBYA
(Mr. FLEMING asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the ``kinetic military
action'' in Libya, it appears the tail is wagging the dog. The
President first says we won't go but Qadhafi must. Then he says we must
go but not Qadhafi. He consults the Arab league before his own Congress
and then telegraphs to the enemy our mission limitations, yet does not
clearly define the mission or goals to the American people. Then he
bombs people and calls it a humanitarian act.
I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I don't understand this new value system the
President is asking us to accept. Let me suggest instead that our
President in future conflicts consult the American people and Congress
first, then build a coalition, then lead that coalition with a clearly
defined mission, taking nothing off the table rather than being
pressured into action by other world leaders.
____________________
CONGRATULATING PENN STATE UNIVERSITY ON 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF
UNDERGRADUATE EXHIBITION
(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
congratulate Penn State University on the 20th anniversary of the
Undergraduate Exhibition.
Last year the House passed House Resolution 1654, a measure
expressing support for designation of the week of April 11, 2011, as
Undergraduate Research Week. This week recognizes the importance of
undergraduate research and encourages colleges and universities,
businesses, and other organizations to recognize the occasion.
It is fitting that this week coincides with Penn State's 20th annual
Undergraduate Exhibition, scheduled April 12 and 13. Penn State's
annual Undergraduate Exhibition communicates and celebrates these same
priorities: that research and development of critical thinking are
fundamental to American competitiveness and our success as a Nation.
Penn State continues to thrive as one of the top research universities
in the country through programs such as the Undergraduate Exhibition
which encourage participation of undergraduate students in research and
creative endeavors.
I congratulate the students, teachers, and staff at Penn State for
their tireless pursuit of knowledge and creativity.
____________________
THE NORFORK AND GREERS FERRY NATIONAL FISH HATCHERIES
(Mr. CRAWFORD asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the
Congressional Record Arkansas House Resolution 1014 that was recently
passed on February 24 of this year by the Arkansas House of
Representatives.
Fish hatcheries at the Norfork and Greers Ferry Dams are vital
components of the economy in north central Arkansas. They provide vital
fish stock not only to Arkansas' waterways but to Arkansas' neighbors
as well, and they help draw sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts from all
over the world.
State of Arkansas
88th General Assembly
Regular Session, 2011
By: Representatives Linck, Hopper, Benedict
House resolution--Requesting that the President of the
United States and the Arkansas congressional delegation
support and continue the immediate and future funding of the
Norfork and Greers Ferry National Fish Hatcheries.
Subtitle--Requesting that the President of the United
States and the Arkansas congressional delegation support and
continue the immediate and future funding of the Norfork and
Greers Ferry National Fish Hatcheries.
Whereas, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service plans to
cut the budgets for the trout hatcheries below Norfork and
Greers Ferry dams; and
Whereas, these fish hatcheries provide the foundation for
Arkansas's world-renowned trout fishery waters that produce a
total economic impact of well over one hundred fifty million
dollars ($150,000,000) annually but only cost taxpayers
approximately one million five hundred thousand dollars
($1,500,000) annually to operate. The hatcheries at Norfork
and Greers Ferry dams alone generate five million five
hundred
[[Page 4577]]
thousand dollars ($5,500,000) in federal tax revenues,
roughly three dollars and sixty-five cents ($3.65) for every
one dollar ($1.00) invested; and
Whereas, seventy-five (75) years ago, north Arkansas's
White River was arguably the best smallmouth bass stream in
America. Fisherman came from all over the country to
experience once-in-a-lifetime float trips down the beautiful
bluff-lined river; and
Whereas, upon a series of dams being built in the White
River basin in the 1940s, the federal government assured the
state's citizens that mitigation efforts would be included to
offset the loss of the river's incredibly productive native
fishery. The key component of this commitment was the
construction of Norfork National Fish Hatchery in 1955 near
Norfork Dam and the establishment of world-class trout waters
below both Norfork and Bull Shoals lakes; and
Whereas, a decade later, the trout hatchery at the base of
Greers Ferry Dam provided the means for a similarly
successful fishery to be established at the Little Red River
in Greers Ferry; and
Whereas, these modest projects rank among the all-time
success stories of our federal government because of the
overall economic impact and return on investment they
produce; and
Whereas, fish production at the Norfork hatchery employs
nine hundred ninety-four (994) individuals, and the Greers
Ferry hatchery employs an additional seven hundred fifty-two
(752) people; and
Whereas, dozens of resorts employing hundreds of
individuals have been established in these world-class
fishing areas because of the increase in tourism. The town of
Cotter, Arkansas, for example, bills itself as ``Trout
Capital USA''; and
Whereas, trout fishing in the. White River basin is worth
about three times the annual flood losses prevented by
Beaver, Table Rock, Bull Shoals, Norfork, Greers Ferry, and
Clearwater reservoirs, and these structures averted fifty-one
million four hundred thousand dollars ($51,400,000) in
damages in the last fiscal year; and
Whereas, the electricity generated from Bull Shoals Lake
and Norfork Lake averages approximately one hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000) of electricity each year, but the
trout fishery is worth an additional fifty percent (50%) more
than that on an annual basis; and
Whereas, investment in the Norfork and Greers Ferry fish
hatcheries has consistently demonstrated positive returns for
more than half a century. The federal government's goal to
reduce the federal deficit and increase economic growth would
be damaged, not enhanced, if funding for trout programs is
reduced or eliminated to the detriment of its promise to
Arkansas and to these small towns whose livelihood depends on
the fish hatcheries; Now therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-
Eighth General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, That the
President and Congress of the United States work together to
continue the immediate and future funding of the national
fish hatcheries at Norfork and Greers Ferry dams and allow
the investment in these hatcheries to continue to contribute
to the economic vitality of these towns, the State of
Arkansas, and the entire country. Be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of
Representatives forward official copies of this resolution to
the President of the United States, to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of
the United States Congress, and to all the members of the
Arkansas Congressional Delegation with the request that this
resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record.
____________________
THE EPA
(Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen, I
rise today to speak about H.R. 872.
I was pleased to see this resolution pass the Agriculture Committee
with a bipartisan vote. Not one single objection. I want you to think
about that. Not one objection from a Democrat or a Republican in the
Agriculture Committee.
It somewhat baffles me that we have to waste floor time in the U.S.
House of Representatives to help the EPA understand that they're
creating regulations that they themselves do not understand.
Mr. Speaker, the EPA already requires pesticide permits from every
farmer, rancher, forest manager, State agency, city, county
municipality, mosquito control districts, water districts, and golf
courses, just to name a few of those that they require permits from. If
we do not enact H.R. 872, the EPA would then require an additional
Clean Water Act permit for pesticides. I will add again, Mr. Speaker,
that many of these permits are already redundant as pesticide
applications are already highly regulated under the FIFRA Act.
We all care about the environment, but these EPA regulations fail the
common sense test, Mr. Speaker. That agency is on a regulatory path of
the destruction of our economy. They are destroying our jobs, and they
must be reined in.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we need a permit for the EPA that says the EPA
must understand a rule before they pass one.
____________________
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Carter) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, once again we are going to talk about the
fact that the regulators are kind of like the fox watching the
henhouse. They just overreach everywhere. And we just heard an example
of that actually. Mr. Austin Scott was just up here talking about what
is going on with this pesticide. We will talk a little bit about that
today.
I have been trying for the last 6 or 8, I guess, months now to talk
about some of the regulations that are being imposed upon people. You
see these regulations and you see how onerous they are on both large
and small businesses, and then we sit around and wonder why we're
teetering around 9 percent unemployment in this country. It's because
not only do folks have to wonder about are we going to raise taxes.
Folks have to wonder about are we going to spend ourselves into the
poor house. Folks have to wonder about a $1.65 trillion deficit this
year. They worry about all those things. They worry about how their
children and grandchildren are going to pay off this massive
accumulation of debt in this country that is coming down as a result of
the policies of the last Congress, the Democrat-led Congress, and the
Obama administration, and then you take that and you take on top of
that the executive branch's regulations that they are putting on
people, many of which are so onerous and make so little sense that,
quite honestly, you wonder what's going on.
We've got a lot of things that have been going on, and we've got some
tools that we're using to get rid of those things. And a tool that I
have been talking about is using the Congressional Review Act to
challenge some of these things, and we will talk a little bit about
that. But first let's just go back and talk a little bit about what
others are doing right now.
First off, tomorrow morning I am going to drop a bill, and this is
kind of a nuclear weapon, if you will, of fighting regulations. Because
of the continuous onslaught of regulations that seem to be designed to
cause unemployment rather than to help with unemployment, I think it's
time we just put a big old hold on the regulatory agencies and tell
them that unless this is of major national importance, we don't think
there ought to be any regulations for the balance of this Congress. So
I am proposing a bill for the outright ban of all new Federal
regulations through the remainder of the Obama administration until
January 31, 2013.
{time} 2000
This would remove, in this period of time when we're trying to bring
our job numbers up and bring our unemployment numbers down, this would
give the country an opportunity to take, at least in one area, a deep
breath and relax, that the regulators are not going to change the
playing field on them halfway through a year or through a month.
There are so many regulations that we've talked about in the past few
months and for the balance of this year that are surprises to
everybody, and they're throwing big, big monkey wrenches in the
machinery that drives our economy.
Now, if you read the newspapers or you hear people commenting on why
[[Page 4578]]
aren't people creating jobs, why is capital investment on the
sidelines, why are people holding on to their money instead of
investing their money in their businesses or investing their money in
some other people's businesses so we can grow this economy, they're
sitting on the sideline and they're not participating.
And you will hear both sides of the aisle in this House talk about
the trillions of dollars that are being held back from investment.
You'll hear arguments made by the other side, by the Democrats in this
House, that it's the greed of the big corporations that's doing this.
But then when you study the problem, it's not just the big giant
corporations that are kind of sitting back and waiting. It's the small
businessman. It's the guy that's got one shop, and he's thinking about
adding on to that shop, and he may be thinking about adding one more
machinist or one more salesman. But you know what? There are too many
questions about what's over the horizon for them to take the chance of
investing their money when they don't know what's going to happen. And
as I explained as I started out, part of it is they wonder about the
possibility of new taxes.
Secondly, because there's been a lot of talk from this administration
about taxes, they're backing off of it now, but many of the things they
do seem to change depending on which way the wind's blowing, and so
they're worried about the possibility of new taxes.
They're worried about the fact that they can look at numbers, they
read balance sheets, even the small businessmen can read balance sheets
and profit and loss statements. And they look at this Federal
Government and they say, my Lord. Just this year alone, based on
President Obama's proposed budget for 2011, they're projecting about a
$1.6 trillion deficit this year.
And most businesspeople know what deficit means. And most of all of
us do, but sometimes we think it's some big word coming out of
Washington, not realizing what it really is. It means you're spending
money you don't have. In fact, arguably, every time you buy something
with your credit card, you're deficit spending. You don't have the cash
in your pocket to buy the new television set so you put it on your
credit card. You borrow the money. You spend money that you don't have.
Now, if we were like the great State of Texas where we have a
balanced budget requirement in the constitution in Texas, then the
Texas legislature, they can't deficit spend. They can't spend money
they don't have. They have a no-deficit spending provision in that
constitution that says you get to spend what the projected revenues
are, and that's it. And it's sometimes--and you ask the good members of
our legislature, sometimes it's real tough to make things work. But you
know what? They always somehow figure out a way to get it done. And
this year is no exception.
It's tough in Texas. And they're doing the things we're trying to do
here in this House. They are reducing their spending, as are States
across the country. All you have to do is turn on the television. You
see the issues in Wisconsin and Michigan and other places, and
Minnesota--well, not Minnesota, Indiana, all these people are
addressing it, New York, Virginia, they're addressing the fact that
they've just got to cut back on their spending.
Well, we're addressing that fact too in this House right now. But the
businessman looks at that and says, well, what's their track record?
Well, our track record's not real good. In fact, our track record is
such that they say odds are they're not going to do these cuts that are
necessary to stop it.
Here's something kind of interesting. Right now, in H.R. 1, the
Republican majority has set forth a series of cuts that total up to
about $63 billion. They've agreed now to about $10 billion. So let's
call it $53 billion just kind of on the table out there waiting for
some kind of action from the Senate. This is attached to a continuing
resolution.
Now, that business owner back home, he looks at that and he says,
let's see, $63 billion--that's a tiny little bandaid on a gigantic rear
end of an elephant, but that's the tax cuts that are being proposed,
and they don't seem to be able to get those things. Not tax cuts.
That's the spending cuts that are being proposed. They don't even seem
to be able to do that. What in the world are they going to do about
this $1.6 trillion?
So he says, I don't think I want to play in that ballpark. That's too
dangerous for me. I have a little savings in my back pocket to invest
in my business. But now's not a good time. There's way too much debt
floating around out there. There's way too much uncertainty about the
economy floating around out there. I think I'll wait. So my plan to
create one or two new jobs to grow my profits for my business is going
to have to wait. Even though I may have the money to invest, it's going
to wait because I don't feel the environment's good for it. It's
another one of those unknowns that's keeping capital and keeping the
growing of the labor force from happening.
Finally, these regulations. When, as our friend from Georgia was just
talking about--just take, for instance, the issue that has to do with
this, these new regulations concerning pesticides that have come out.
It came out and then it was--I think, some court has gotten involved in
it.
But what they've done, basically, is told the people who use
pesticides, and I think everybody knows, pesticides are to kill bugs
that eat crops. That's kind of the general use for pesticides. So that
means that your farmers, your ranchers, and some of your business
people are going to be affected by this. And they look at it and say,
wow. I used to have to have a permit. I got one. Now all of a sudden
I've got to have a new permit. It's going to cost me some more money.
They changed the rules in the middle of the game, and now I'm sitting
here wondering what in the world am I going to do if they change the
rules again.
So what am I going to do with my money? I'm going to keep it in my
pocket. I'm not going to invest in my business. I'm not going to expand
my farm. I'm not going to buy that new combine. I'm not going to trade
for some more cattle. I'm basically going to sit where I am and hold
pat. And I'm also not going to hire anybody to help me with those
issues.
These are things that are typical of what causes the people who
invest in the real world of private business, who employ two-thirds or
more of the American public, to sit on the sidelines. So big business
or small, if you don't understand the playing field, and there are
people out there that can change your life at a whim, you get concerned
about it. We've seen so many examples of that.
I'll just throw out the flex permitting Clean Air Act issues that are
going on in Texas, which we've talked about before. After 15 years of
using a flex permit in Texas, never a word said by the EPA, all of a
sudden, out of the clear blue they decide, oh, you know what? I don't
think we like that flex permit, so we're just going to do away with it,
and we're going to change the rules.
Without going into what a flex permit is, it's very simple. If flex
permit worked for your business 1 day and the next day you had to have
a completely different permit with a whole new set of rules and a whole
new set of obligations, you would be very concerned about the
environment within which your business is being operated. And, by the
way you'd be really upset when you realized that your clean air issues
in your State where you're using a flexible permit, the clean air
reductions have met the demands of the EPA and, in fact, probably
exceed many, many States who don't go to a flexible permitting system.
{time} 2010
For some reason, your State who is doing good has to change permits
to do like some of the States that aren't doing as good as your State.
And you have to say to yourself, What is the motive for all this? Well,
would you put your money into a project when something like that could
happen to you?
We ask ourselves, Why have we been having unemployment in this
country
[[Page 4579]]
somewhere between 10 percent and 8.9 percent over the last 25 months?
Well, part of it is the people who create the jobs, the real jobs, the
jobs that make our economy grow, are the business people of this
country; and for 25 months they have not been hiring because we have
created a world of mistrust in what might happen to you that you
couldn't even imagine as a result of actions of this Federal
Government.
To me, the most important thing we have to do in this Congress right
now is create jobs. It will change the very makeup of our Nation if we
get our Nation back to work. And it is time for the government to get
out of the way of small business, get out of the way of the
entrepreneurs in this country, and give them the opportunity to create
jobs. With all the playing defense that we are trying do here in the
House with the Congressional Review Act and other proposals that are
out there, it seems to me we ought to just say, at least for a 2-year
period, just, Time out. Time out. No more regulations. Just stop right
where you are.
There are enough regulations in effect right now by the Federal
regulatory agencies to fill this entire Chamber to the ceiling with
books, so I don't think it would hurt us too much.
If it turns out it is a national emergency and you have such an issue
that it is just so overwhelmingly necessary to come up with a
regulation, then maybe we will put it out and submit it to Congress and
let Congress make a determination about whether or not it is of that
dire importance. But right now, just quit messing with us. Just get out
of the way and let us have a chance to go do what we do best.
I forget who it was. I want to say it was Calvin Coolidge, but it was
one of our past Presidents who said that the business of America is
business. And it still is.
Two or three Saturdays ago, I was at South by Southwest, which is a
very exciting activity that takes place in Austin, Texas, that not only
promotes the live music industry, which is huge in Austin--it is the
live music capital of the world--but, in addition, it promotes
entrepreneurship among people with new great ideas. And great people, I
talked to them and they were so exciting, such great young people, many
of them in the high-tech industry, but in all of the industries. And
those young people sat there and told me that, The one thing you can do
that would hurt us the most is tax stock options and put up regulations
that would prevent me doing what I need to do in my project. So, if the
government will stay out of my way and if you won't impose taxes on the
very source of investment money that I am seeking as a new
entrepreneur, if you don't do those two things and you stay out of the
way, I have got an idea that can change this country. And many of them
have just those ideas.
Some of the things we have now like Facebook, those things like that
they made a movie about and all that stuff, all that was the idea of a
young entrepreneur, and he got somebody to invest in it and, boom, it
swept the world. So that's why I have got a moratorium on regulations.
But in addition, we have got a couple of folks that are taking off
after regulations that are clearly hurting the opportunity to create
jobs. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, is being proposed and
requires Federal agencies to assess the economic impact of their
regulations on small business. We have something like this now, but it
is going to be expanded and made more clear. And, if the impact is
significant, consider alternatives that are less burdensome. The
agencies must balance the burdens imposed by the regulations against
the benefits, and propose alternatives to the regulations which create
economic disparities among different size entities.
The Small Business Committee has held hearings on the RFA and they
are holding some tomorrow, on Wednesday, to discuss this agency
compliance with the act. Bad regs are killing good jobs, and that is
what I have been talking about, and here is the Small Business
Committee looking at small business with really a focus on small
business.
Now, why do you hear people talk about small business in Congress
when you have got all these giant international corporations that our
friends on the other side of the aisle love to talk about? Well, for
one thing, seven out of 10 Americans get a job in small business. Small
business creates seven out of 10 private sector jobs in the United
States. Some of those private sector jobs are real well-paying jobs.
In fact, some of the people that I was talking to at this little
entrepreneur group that I was with, they said, Well, the first ten
people we will employ, we expect their salary range to be somewhere
between $100,000 and $150,000 a year. Now, that's darned good jobs. But
they are looking to hire highly skilled technical people to advance a
concept they have in the high-tech industry.
What do we get from those concepts? Well, you have probably got a
cell phone in your pocket. You may have the new Apple iPad sitting on
your desk, or you may actually be communicating with a brand-new one
which has a camera in it so you can talk to your spouse around the
world or your friend around the world and both of you can see each
other. These are all ideas that came from entrepreneurial thinking that
began with one person with an idea.
The one thing Americans still have to sell is ideas, and we are the
only innovative idea creators on Earth. Everybody else is good at
copying, but we are the guys with the original thoughts. We don't want
to kill that. We don't want regulations to kill it. And we don't want
bad regs to keep this unemployment number above 8 percent, almost 9
percent.
Another act is H.R. 872. This is a bill about Congress battling a bad
ruling by the Federal courts. The bill eliminates a costly and
duplicative permitting requirement for the application of pesticides.
That is what our friend from Georgia was talking about just a few
minutes ago, Mr. Scott. This will now require a different type of
permitting system and it will, quite honestly, place the burden on
farmers, ranchers, and anybody who uses pesticides, I assume
exterminators and so forth, and will put a huge burden on them. And the
only thing you can do is clearly put a halt to this EPA new regulatory
activity. Even though the court recently said, Well, we won't require
this until October, it doesn't matter whether it is required today or
whether it is required in October; whenever it is required, it is still
a burden. So my friends on the Ag Committee are very, very serious
about challenging the creation of this new regulation.
We have been using the Congressional Review Act, and we have got
several things that we have dealt with on the Congressional Review Act.
This is a law today. This law was created in the Clinton administration
and has been used once, and that is the only time it has ever been
used, which surprises me. But we are trying to use it on multiple bills
that are out there that are creating a regulatory burden on individuals
or industries of this country.
{time} 2020
Last year, the Federal Government issued a total of 3,316 new rules
and regulations, an average of 13 rules a day. Seventy-eight of those
new rules last year were major rules. A major rule is a rule that may
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a
major increase in costs or prices for consumers or significant adverse
effects on the economy.
If it is a new rule, it is required under the Congressional Review
Act that it be submitted to the committees of jurisdiction that cover
that rule in the House and Senate and that they have the opportunity
within 60 legislative days, that is days that the Congress is in
session, not counting the days it is not in session. And if there is a
vote, and let's say the House passes it and sends it to the Senate,
then it only requires 30 Senators to cosponsor the bill to bring that
vote to a full vote in the Senate.
Then we will have the opportunity to send some bad regulations that
passed both the House and the Senate to the President, and he told us
less than a month ago that one of his goals this
[[Page 4580]]
year was to get rid of these onerous regulations that are costing us
jobs in America. And I think that if both this House and the Senate,
the Senate across the way, if both those entities feel it is a bad
rule, I think the President will look at it, and I am very hopeful that
he will dispose of that rule. When I say this, we are not talking just
about the EPA. There are a lot of rules out there, but EPA just seems
to have more than their share right now.
I talked about the Flexible Permitting Act. We have filed a CRA
challenge, a Congressional Review Act challenge, to the flexible
permitting program. Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee
has been or is holding hearings on the Clean Air Act and on this issue.
That will be one issue that we are going to be working on trying to get
done.
The FCC has a regulation for net neutrality. This rule grants the
Federal Government new power to regulate the Internet, restricting
access and stalling innovation. One of the things that those young
people that I met with the other night, it was about 100 of them now,
it is not a small group, they all said, most of them, that the Internet
was a tool they were using to come up with good ideas or to promote
their good ideas or to use the Internet for their good ideas; and they
were very much opposed, as am I, to any regulation of the Internet.
The freedom of the Internet is a freedom of expression, a freedom of
expression which creates a freedom of ideas, and the exchange of ideas
creates innovation, which is the fuel to drive our economy. So Mr. Greg
Walden is addressing this issue under the CRA of net neutrality.
HHS has a rule on medical loss ratio. This regulation will require
all health care plans to pay a minimum of 80 percent of premiums toward
health services, eliminating coverage for 47 percent of Americans in
small group and individual health plans. This is an area which we have
filed, my office and John Carter have filed this. However, I am going
to have a lot of assistance from the medical professionals in this
House in going forward on this medical loss ratio. It is a serious
regulation which will seriously harm the advancement of health care in
America.
Then we have a NESHAP rule for portland cement manufacturing
industries. This has to do with cement kilns that make portland cement.
``Portland'' is not named after a town. It is a process whereby you
make the cement that binds concrete to create concrete for this
country. There are 18 cement kilns that are likely to close as a result
of this. This kills good-paying jobs. The average paying job in one of
these kilns starts at around $60,000 to $70,000 a year and goes up.
These are good jobs.
Now, where are these jobs going to go? You have to have cement. A
great number of the kilns that make portland cement have moved offshore
already, and they are over in China and they are over in India and
places like that where they have no regulation on particulates that go
into the air. Meanwhile, we have actually reduced a lot of the things
that go into the air under the present regulations. But these new
regulations will move those American jobs out of the country to another
country; and rather than help the air, because the same air is in India
and China as is over here, it is all part of this great big place we
call the world, we will still be polluting the air, but 10 times worse
than we do under our current regulations in the United States, and we
lose the jobs.
So we are going to seek a vote on portland cement manufacturing
regulations. And the argument that this increases mercury pollution is
absolutely false because we have evidence to show that mercury
pollution, if it is in the United States, it is coming from offshore.
So all these things are things that are proposed right now. We have
got charts over here to look at each one of them.
Here is the regulatory moratorium, an outright ban on Federal
regulations. It removes the top obstacle to economic recovery. Business
won't hire with ObamaCare and EPA regs hanging over their head.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act. The shaded areas indicate U.S.
recessions. The 09 research--that is a word I can't read--organization.
Look at this. This is what is happening from regulations. It is going
up on the unemployment scale.
The RFA requires the Federal agencies to assess the economic impact
on small businesses--we talked about that--to come up with
alternatives, because unemployment rates are around or above 9 percent
for the last 22 months, and it is time that we make these regulations
be assessed, and seven out of 10 new jobs are created by these small
businesses.
When you hear us talk about the Pesticide Act, very clearly there are
the folks that are dealing with it right there, the farmers of America.
It is duplicative. That means they already have a permit that allows
them to put out these pesticides, and because of this ruling they are
having to get another permit at another cost and meet other guidelines
for these pesticides.
The Sixth Circuit we think with this Cotton Council versus the EPA
made a bad ruling, and these higher costs to producers and consumers
and the government are all built into this one bad regulation. This act
that we talked about, 872, is to block this bad ruling. This is the
kind of fight we have to have to prevent the regulators from getting so
involved that they actually shut down our businesses.
Now, no one here, including me, I am certainly not, and I don't think
anybody in this House, is proposing that we are going to do things that
are harmful. It is not like they weren't already regulating that
pesticide. They just came up with a new permit, new money to spend, new
hoops to jump through in order to apply pesticides.
Here is what I have been talking about, the Congressional Review Act.
It allows Congress to review every new Federal regulation issued by the
government agencies and by passage of a joint resolution overrule that
regulation. On these things I have been talking about, the House and
the Senate both can go forward under this act, and we can put the
brakes on some bad regulations.
Here are the ones I mentioned. The Texas flexible permitting program,
the net neutrality rule, the medical loss ratio and the portland
cement: those all can be addressed by this act, and many more.
{time} 2030
But maybe we could save ourselves a whole lot of time and effort by
just passing the newest proposal that I have put forward, and that is a
law that says, time-out until 2013 on any regulations from the
government, and let's just hold off and let's give this economy a
chance to grow. And when it grows, we will prosper, we will get out of
this mess we're in, and we will get back to being the America we all
treasure and love.
It's not hard to imagine that if there's something really bad, of
course, this House will protect it. But many of these things are people
in closed rooms, some of which don't even understand the industry
they're regulating, coming up with rules because they have a concept of
government that is all government--all roads lead to Rome--all
government leads to Washington, and that all government decisions and
all life decisions should be made here, in Washington. There are people
in this city, literally tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands
of people in this city, that believe that all life issues should be
resolved by the Federal Government.
The perfect example that just really upsets me is the fact that, kind
of randomly, when the opposite party, the Democrats, took over in the
House, they decided to get rid of all the light bulbs in all the office
buildings, and they put in these curly Q light bulbs all over
everywhere. These lights, you turn some of them on, it takes you a good
20 count before the light even has enough light to see. That's very
uncomfortable, especially in the bathroom. But we've got them. And if
you take yours out and put the old incandescent light bulb in there,
the next
[[Page 4581]]
day you'll come back and the maintenance man will have taken it out and
put one of those curly Q light bulbs back in there, because the
government knows better what light bulbs you ought to have than you do.
In fact, they passed a law that says you're not going to be able to
have anything but those light bulbs.
They fail to realize that if you accidentally drop one of those light
bulbs onto the floor and it bursts, it's got mercury vapor in it--and
some other nasty stuff I don't even know what it is--and all of a
sudden you've got to call the hazardous material team to come in in
hoods and suits and do a hazmat removal of that broken light bulb.
Now I'm sorry. I like to say that one of the things that we have a
real shortage of in America, especially the America that's inside the
Beltway in Washington, D.C., is common sense. But to put a hazardous
material light bulb in to correct something that you have against a
normal light bulb because you think it burns too much power is really
not very cost efficient.
I am very pleased to see my friend, Mr. Steve King from Iowa, drift
in here. If the gentleman has anything he wants to talk about here
tonight, I would be glad to yield him some time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas, the good judge,
who has taught me a few things about all of this. One of those things
is sitting on the Judiciary Committee with the gentleman from Texas is,
and I haven't learned it very well, but at least I saw the
demonstration on how to listen. One of the common denominators of the
judges from Texas that we have serving in this Congress is they are all
good listeners. They also have heard a lot of stories, some the truth
and some not, and they sort that out pretty well.
When I hear Judge Carter come to the floor to tell us how it is, I'm
pretty confident that he has listened really carefully and drawn a
judgment as to what's the truth and what isn't and boiled it down to
the essential facts of Constitution and law and common sense and
rendered a verdict. So as I hear this verdict emerging here from the
presentation this evening, it calls me to the floor to say thank you to
the gentleman from Texas for bringing this up, for all the times that
you've come to the floor and sometimes fought a lonely battle that
turned out to stand on a good cause.
That's the way good things get started. It's usually one person
starting this out and then truth seems to attract more people to a
truthful and good and a just cause. I am interested in the gentleman's
presentation here and not particularly informed but I came to listen. I
would be happy to continue my listening.
Mr. CARTER. I will reclaim my time. I am just about through. I just
wanted to point out, I don't have anything against fluorescent light
bulbs. I've got a few fluorescent light bulbs in my workshop out in the
garage, mainly because they just gave me more light for less money, not
because of the electricity. But I made that choice. I think that's
fine. If people want to choose to have all fluorescent light bulbs in
their house, I think that's great. That's the America we love. But I
don't think Nancy Pelosi or anybody else in this House of
Representatives ought to be telling us what kind of light bulbs we have
to have. It doesn't make sense. It's not fair to you. You are a person
of independent will. You are granted liberty and freedom by your
Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, and those are just
recording God-given rights and privileges. I don't see why we think we
are the center of the universe for knowledge in this House to come up
and tell you what kind of light bulbs you can have. Or what kind of
energy that you can consume. Unless it comes out to be against the
national interest. And I would argue right now with all the alternative
energy, we haven't got anything to replace what we're using right now
yet. But keep working on it and then we'll let us make the choice, let
the American citizens make the choice as to what they want to do. I
think that's good freedom. That's good liberty. That's what we are all
about in this country, and that's why we prosper, because we give the
individual the right to make his own choices. If he chooses to do
something that harms others, we can put a stop to that. That's why we
have laws. But if he doesn't, if he just wants to live his life the way
he wants to live it, we don't have any business telling the individual
how to live his life. And I would argue this stupid light bulb rule is
one of those things. I will argue that until it is imposed completely
as a mandate sometime next fall, I think. And then I guess the light
bulb police will be coming after me.
But, seriously, this is the kind of things that we do by regulation,
or impose our will on others, and in many instances it is done by
bureaucrats who sit in Washington, D.C., and they probably have never
even seen that plow that we just saw in that farm, except maybe they've
seen it on television. But they've certainly not seen anybody out there
sweating on an Iowa farm or a Texas farm operating what looks like is a
disc harrow that's turning the soil there. And yet they're writing
regulations to regulate this man's life. Maybe they're the right thing
to do, but you wonder when they have one and they come up with another
one that you have to still meet the first one, stack the second one on
top of it, and it clearly serves no purpose.
These are all the kind of arguments that frustrate you. They're the
kind of things that make the average businessman, the average farmer,
rancher, decide to hold off on investing in America because he wants to
know what America he's investing in, he or she is investing in. That is
the real issue that is driving the fact that we are still sitting here
right around 9 percent unemployment after all these months, over 25
months, we're sitting here with the same 8.9, which is as close to 9 as
I want to get percent unemployment because the Americans that create
the jobs are concerned about what's next.
I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
As I listen to this presentation, a number of things occur to me
about what happens when you have the Federal agencies and the Federal
agencies are passing rules and regulations that even though there is a
broad authority that's granted to those agencies by this Congress, some
of the things that they do are beyond the imagination of the people
that debated or voted for the bill in the first place.
I look at the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, which
are more than 30 years old by now. They've turned into something way
beyond the imagination of the people that passed them. The
environmentalists that supported them then seemed to be on the edge of
what would be considered mainstream. Looking back on that, they would
be considered mainstream now. But the problem that we have, and
particularly with EPA, would be that the mothers and fathers of the EPA
employees that first implemented the rules and regulations of the Clean
Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, now their children have
picked this up and others from outside, a second generation of people.
{time} 2040
They have come into these professions now with--like many young
people do--and it's a very good thing to be idealistic and have a sense
of a cause--but if you look at a law that was written in 1978, and you
apply it with a vision of having a cause that you want to be championed
for in 2011, quite often the second generation environmentalist is
something entirely different than the first generation
environmentalist. And they will interpret the law and write rules
beyond the scope of the imagination of those who drafted it and
ratified it and the President that signed it.
And so I deal with things back in an environmental perspective,
having spent my life's work in the soil conservation business. We have
gone out and done some drainage work. Mostly, it's been surface work,
permanent practices--terraces, dams, and waterways--and I've envisioned
that we would want to send all the raindrops down through the soil
profile to purify that water in nature's intended way and keep the
[[Page 4582]]
soil from washing down stream and ending up in the Gulf of Mexico.
And yet the regulations that come from some of the EPA initiatives
are things such as--I can think of protected streams, an issue that
came to many States, but it came to Iowa. It was one of the things that
drew me into political life. They wrote a rule that said that these
waters for these streams, these 115 streams that were designed to be
protected for their natural riparian beauty, to quote the rule, some of
them were drainage ditches that I had floated and walked those streams
all through western Iowa. And some of those streams were just drainage
ditches. There was no natural riparian left-over beauty because they
had all been changed. But they wanted to preserve them and protect them
and call them endangered streams.
And so I began going to the hearings for the rules. And in the rules
they wrote that these streams, and according to the geographical
boundaries that are defined here, and--``waters hydrologically
connected to them'' shall be declared protected streams and shall be
under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources, which
regulates for the EPA. And I began to ask the question. And here's how
language gets stretched. I asked the question, What does ``waters
hydrologically connected to'' mean? And the regulators would stand
before the public meeting and they would say, We don't know. You're
here presenting a rule and you don't know what it means, ``waters
hydrologically connected to them.'' No, we don't know. Then take it
out. We can't. Why can't you? We can't. How do you know you can't if
you don't know what it means? Well, we're here to defend this rule.
So I followed that road show around the State, and they knew when I
walked in actually the second meeting who I was and what I was there
for. And I asked one question and I didn't get an answer. I just opened
my mouth for the second question and they said, Only one question per
person. And I said, I drove 2\1/2\ hours to get here. It's going to
take me 2\1/2\ hours to get home. And I've got a lot more than one
question. I'm going to stand here until I get them all answered.
Anyway, it came to this. They had decided what amounted to every
square foot of the State of Iowa under rules that were ``slipperly''
deceptive. And it was the language that said ``waters hydrologically
connected to.'' I know that moist soil will have in it a water content
of 25, 28, 30 percent and still be fairly stable. So that would
regulate us all the way up to the kitchen sink. Two water molecules
touching each other are hydrologically connected. And that's one of the
things that environmental extremists sought to impose upon us in the
State that gave them all kinds of latitude.
And another one would be when they decided to declare wetlands by
aerial photographs. And the aerial photographers would look down, take
a shot, and if there were a certain amount of vegetation growing in the
field, they declared it to be a wetland that otherwise would have been
farmed.
And so there could be somebody missed with the herbicide on top of
the hill and the foxtail would grow. It would show up in an aerial
photograph. The Corps of Engineers would declare that to be a wetland
on the top of the hill where water drained completely away. This is how
government regulation gets out of hand and starts to take over the
property rights of the individuals who have a right to use that
property in a responsible way as a means of an income to produce crops,
even if it happens to be cotton, which we don't have much of in my
district.
So I just think here that this Congress should do this: we should
bring every rule before this Congress for an affirmative vote before it
can have the force and effect of law. We can do it en bloc. Bring them
all in together. We need to give any Member an opportunity to divide a
rule out and force a separate vote on it, and we need to give Members
the opportunity to amend them.
And the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) has a bill that addresses
this in this fashion. It's not as broad in scope as I would go, but it
is a very, very good start on getting this Congress under control and
the regulators under control and giving Congress the authority that's
vested in us in the Constitution rather than subcontracting it off to
the agencies and letting them run this government at will.
So I appreciate the gentleman from Texas giving me an opportunity to
vent myself on these frustrating issues. I appreciate your leadership.
Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, our friend from Kentucky has been
down here with me talking just about that act. I don't know if you were
in when we first started this. I have just proposed, because I see this
tidal wave of regulation, this hurry up and regulate everything you can
in a hurry going on by the administration, I will tomorrow morning file
a bill to declare a moratorium on all regulations. And they would have
to come to Congress showing good cause why it's in the national
interest for the good of all mankind that there be an exception to that
moratorium so that we would basically just call a king's X, time out,
and let's wait for the end of this administration and we'll see what
happens in the next one. And by that time we can settle down and create
a few jobs in this country because they wouldn't have to, at least for
the next 2 years, worry about regulations. So I'll get you a copy of
that. It's real simple: no regulations for the next 2 years.
Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. CARTER. Yes, I will.
Mr. KING of Iowa. If the title of that bill is the king's X bill, I'm
going to be very interested in signing on.
Mr. CARTER. I like king's X.
I thank you, Steve King. You're a good friend for coming down here
and joining me. I have gone over what I have to say here tonight. I
just want to finish up by saying nobody is against doing the right
thing. I'm against people who are creating regulations for the sake of
regulations and damaging the people who are the job creators in this
country. I'm for protecting the environment, but if you're belching out
pollutants in China because you moved out of the United States because
of onerous regulations and you weren't belching out those pollutants in
America because we had a good Clean Air Act in place before you wrote
the bad regulations, then you're not helping the environment at all by
sending that to an unregulated place in China or India.
So let's get real. Let's try to set up an environment in this Nation
that creates jobs so Americans can go back to work. It's all about
going back to work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
OBAMACARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Noem). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady for recognizing me here on
the floor of the House, Madam Speaker, and appreciate the privilege to
address you. I came to this floor, one, to hear from Judge Carter and
to listen to the presentation that he made. And the other component of
it is I came here to talk about one or perhaps two subject matters. One
of them is ObamaCare, as one might imagine.
I would make this point that--first, Madam Speaker, if it's possible
that there's anybody that doesn't know why ObamaCare is so bad, if they
maybe haven't heard the argument in some time and they're forgetting
about how bad ObamaCare is, and if they're starting to hear the
language about what is redeemable about ObamaCare, I want to make it
real clear: nothing. There is not one single component of ObamaCare
that is worthy of us making any effort to do anything except to repeal
it all, eradicate it all, pull it all out by the roots.
I listen to some Members of this Congress that will say, Well, don't
you want your children to be on your insurance when they're 26? No. I
raised them to grow up. I want them to take their own responsibility.
If they can be elected to the United States Congress when
[[Page 4583]]
they're 25, then I think that's a pretty good age to at least say you
are free, on your on--well, first, you got your car keys when you were
16--your license, anyway.
{time} 2050
Then you get to vote when you're 18 and choose the next leader of the
Free World. Then you get to go out and, let me say, go into the tavern
legally when you're 21 and get elected to the United States Congress
when you're 25. Then they kick you off of Mommy and Daddy's insurance
when you're 26? Somehow I think that delays the growing-up process.
I think that we need to have people growing up and taking personal
responsibility at an early age rather than delaying it to a later age.
If the States want to have it at 26, let them have it at 26. If
insurance companies want to provide for that market, let them write the
policies to provide for that market; but the Federal Government should
not stick a mandate on this that requires all health insurance policies
to keep the kids on until they're 26.
Let's just say there's a young person who gets elected to Congress,
like--well, yes, I would think that there are some Members of the new
class that would fit very close to that category. Would one really
think that they would come in here at age 25 and transition from their
parents' health insurance on over to the Federal opportunity of health
insurance that they can access and pay their share of the premiums that
come with this job of working in this Congress and maybe never have a
window where they were responsible to go out in the marketplace and buy
their own health insurance?
I think that's actually a bad idea, but if people want it, let them
drive that through their States.
Some will say that we want to cover preexisting conditions so that
children cannot be denied insurance on policies that their parents
have. Well, that's a good idea, and it's one that can be sustained by
demand in the marketplace. If that doesn't do it, it can certainly be
sustained by mandates within the States, but it does not require, Madam
Speaker, that the Federal Government get involved in mandating to the
States, actually mandating to everybody in America, what shall be done
with insurance.
So now I've used up, I think, the two things that had some popularity
in ObamaCare. That's it--insurance for 26-year-olds and no denial
because of preexisting conditions to children whose parents have
policies.
If I want to go out and buy a policy that ensures that my children
could stay on it, that policy is available in the marketplace. I will
say this, that before ObamaCare wrecked the markets and drove out a
number of health insurance companies, we had 1,300 health insurance
companies in this country which were viable in the marketplace,
competing, providing all kinds of policy varieties for customers to
choose from--in fact, over 100,000 health insurance policy varieties
and 1,300 companies. There were 100,000 policy varieties. We had plenty
of competition. ObamaCare has driven out competition. It has not added
to it. It has driven out competition. It has made it harder. It has
driven up the cost of health care.
The indecision and the fear of what's happening has caused the entire
health care industry to be frozen in place. Now they come along and
say, Well, if you're not going to repeal it, can you accommodate me in
some way?--perhaps in some way like granting them a waiver. I'm hearing
individuals say, I want my waiver. They know that there have been 1,040
waivers to ObamaCare.
Madam Speaker, I know that there are people out there who are
listening who maybe don't understand what that means. It is this:
ObamaCare is the law of the land. It is imposed upon everyone in
America. A law is to be applied to every individual in an equal
fashion. We might sit in different categories. We might have Medicare
that applies differently to somebody who's 65 than it does to somebody
who's 60 years old; but these are waivers to statutes and to
individuals and to entities.
From my standpoint, it's unheard of, and where that authority came
from I did not see coming; but this administration has found out that
they pushed a law that's so bad--so bad--that they are granting waivers
to companies, to entities, and to entire States, like the State of
Maine.
Now we find out that one of the people who has taken credit for
helping to write ObamaCare, the gentleman from New York, who, I
believe, is a candidate for the mayor of New York City, is now calling
for a waiver for the City of New York to ObamaCare. So maybe, if he
gets his way, it won't be 1,040; it will be 1,041 waivers.
That's appalling to think that you would sit in a strategy meeting/
session and try to drive a policy that, I believe, is flat out
socialized medicine and argue that it's good for everybody in America
because they're too ignorant to take care of their own health care and
now find out that the policy is so ignorant you want a waiver from it
for the largest city in America. That's appalling to think that that
would happen.
1,040--1,040 waivers. Let me see. The IRS will enforce this. It will
punish people with an extra penalty if they don't comply. Let me see.
The E-Z formula. The E-Z form for the IRS is the 1040EZ. We've had 1040
waivers, 1,040 waivers. It's E-Z for them, Madam Speaker, but it's not
going to be easy for anyone who doesn't get a waiver.
We have this thing called the equal protection clause. It's in the
Constitution, the 14th Amendment. Everybody is going to be protected
with equal protection. ObamaCare, itself, violates the equal protection
clause because it gives some American citizens a different standard
than others. I'm thinking of Florida and their Medicare Advantage,
which they have an exemption from under ObamaCare. Even though the
cornhusker kickback was removed because, actually, Nebraskans rejected
it--to their great credit--Floridians didn't reject their exemptions so
that they kept their Advantage. That was an existing policy that
exempted them from the wipe-out of Medicare Advantage, which happened
to people like Iowans, for example. The equal protection clause? Not
hardly. It's a violation of the equal protection clause. It's an
unconstitutional bill, ObamaCare.
But I forgot to tell you, Madam Speaker, all of the reasons why it's
bad. It cannot be afforded. It's a $2.6 trillion total outlay for the
first full 10 years once it would be implemented, and it increases
taxes almost to that much over that period of time. It cuts Medicare,
which is going to have a huge increase from 40 million to 70 million
recipients of Medicare over the next few years. That huge increase cuts
Medicare by $532 billion. It purports to reform Medicare. While this
cut we know has got to actually happen, it just simply calculates it
into the CBO score.
We can't afford ObamaCare. It's unsustainable therefore. It will
reduce the research and development. It will increase lines and delays.
It will ration care, and it will take that care out of the cost of many
people and put it on a mandate that will force more people into
Medicaid, and there will be companies that will be forced off the
coverage they now provide for their employees and force those people
onto a program that's federally subsidized, where there is a fund that
will fund their health insurance premiums, which is also unaffordable.
All these things are bad. There are so many bad things about
ObamaCare that I don't think there is any one person in the country who
could stand up in 30 minutes and list all of the bad things about
ObamaCare. It boils down, though, to this: it's unaffordable. It's
unsustainable. It reduces research and development. It reduces the
quality and lengthens the lines. It delays the service. It rations the
care.
It takes away one more thing. The most important thing about
ObamaCare is this: I believe it is the unconstitutional takings of
American liberty. It is unconstitutional in numbers of ways, three or
four ways at least. American liberty is something that is precious; and
to think that the Federal Government would step in and commandeer,
usurp, the God-given liberty and right that we have to manage
[[Page 4584]]
our own health care and turn it into a rationed service, according to
formula, in which only government would decide who would get what
service and when and who would be on the waiting list for surgery and
who would be on the waiting list to die without surgery, is a result of
ObamaCare. It cannot be argued or refuted.
They put you on a waiting list for a hip replacement, or they put you
on a waiting list to die without. That's one of the things that
happens. They don't seem to think that's what they're doing willfully,
and I don't accuse them of willfully wanting to do that. It's a
consequence of the thick-skulled action of people who believe that
there is a Socialist model to produce their version of Utopia rather
than the individual dynamics that come from people who have free
choices.
But we are a vigorous people, Madam Speaker. We're a unique people.
We're the kind of people who recognize from the beginning that our
rights come from God. We are endowed by our Creator with certain
unalienable rights. Among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. That pursuit of happiness wasn't the pursuit of hedonism; it
was the pursuit of perfection, just the pursuit of perfection--both
intellectual and physical improvements. That's the pursuit of happiness
in the Greek form, and that's what our Founding Fathers understood.
{time} 2100
They're unique, vigorous people with rights that come from God, and
of all the things that flow through with this, these rights, many of
them laid out in our Bill of Rights: freedom of speech, religion, and
the press; freedom to peaceably assemble and petition the government
for redress of grievances; the right to keep and bear arms--the right
to keep and bear arms; the property rights that are the Fifth
Amendment; the right to protection of trial by jury, to be tried by a
jury of your peers, and the right to protection against double
jeopardy; the rights that are endowed to the States and then the
people, respectively, in the Ninth and mostly the Tenth Amendment.
All of those are unique things to Americans. They don't apply to
Western European democratic socialist states or, should I say, social
democratic states. They don't apply to people in Canada. They don't
have that same level of rights. They don't apply to people in Mexico or
anyplace in this hemisphere or anyplace else on this planet. These
rights, as understood and envisioned by our Founding Fathers, apply
only to Americans. And they are the foundation of why Americans are a
unique and vigorous people, and they're the foundation of why we are
the unchallenged greatest Nation in the world. And we have a unique
vigor, and that vigor comes from the foundation of these rights.
But, Madam Speaker, I would take the position this, that you could
take all of these rights that we have, that we identify as coming from
our Creator, from God, and you can bestow them upon any other people on
the planet and ask them to go out and build a vigorous society that
would match and mirror that of America, and I will submit that that
effort would fail. It would fail no matter if they had unlimited
natural resources, if they had free enterprise to no end, if they had a
reverence for the Constitution the way we do.
You could take this package, this vision of American rights and
Constitution, you could put it in the richest land in the world or the
poorest and offer it to any people on the planet, and I will submit
that they could not succeed in producing another country that has the
vigor and the success that this country has. And I'm not standing here,
Madam Speaker, taking credit for this. I'm standing here giving
reverence to this gift that we have that is America.
And I will continue, that of all of the rights that are foundations
of those beautiful marble pillars of American exceptionalism and the
free enterprise component that goes along with it--property rights,
freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and the list goes on--
there's one other component that no other nation can have, and that is
the unique vigor of the American people.
And we are a people that have been blessed by the vigor of every
contributing, every donor civilization on the planet, no matter the
country. The people that came here, the legal immigrants that came to
the United States, came here with the vision of the American Dream.
They were attracted to the vision of the American Dream. And so we were
able to, by good sense of circumstance and forethought and vision, skim
the cream of the crop off of every donor civilization on the planet:
the people that had a vision, that had a dream, that had a vision, that
wanted to test themselves, that wanted to build something that went
beyond their generation; people that wanted to leave the world a better
place than it was when they found it; people that wanted to prepare the
ground for the next generation to farm, so to speak, and in some cases
literally, these are the people that we got that came to America from
every country, whether it would be England or Scotland or Wales or
Poland or Germany or Italy or any of the countries on the planet, all
across Asia, all across Central and South America; people that had a
vision that they wanted to live free and breathe free and build
something and have children and grandchildren that could benefit from
their labors.
And their vision and their intuitiveness and their creativity and the
entrepreneurial nature, they came to America, and that set up a natural
filter, natural filter for people to save up enough money and to get
passage to come to the United States. Some of them sold themselves for
as long as 7 years of labor just to pay the passage to get here. That's
a dream. You don't get any calls that come like that. You get people
that are vigorous, and we attracted them, and that's the American
spirit.
This vigorous American spirit is totally unsuitable for a social
democracy or socialism or hardcore leftist communist Marxism or any of
those other utopian philosophies that many of them emerged out of the
non-English speaking portion of Western Europe, and their philosophies
permeated a lot of the components of the globe because they're built
upon class envy, but they're not built upon the truths of human nature
nor are they built upon our rights coming from God.
And so here we are in this country, fantastic that we are the
recipients of such gifts, and the gifts that we have and the vigor that
we have, we need to understand what it's rooted in. And it's rooted in
these freedoms and it's rooted in the filter, the filter that filtered
out people that wanted to come here but didn't have quite the ambition
to make it happen. It was hard to get here, and you had to have a dream
to want to come here; and when you came here, we respected hard work
and smart work and people that planned and invested and they were
rewarded, and we admired them and raised our children to emulate them.
How many people like Donald Trump today, even though--like I said, I
don't have anything bad to say about Donald Trump, not here into the
Record. It's because he's been successful, people admire him. Bill
Gates, because he's been successful. Steve Jobs, they admire him
because he's been successful. They've been successful because they've
been entrepreneurs. They've been creative. They've worked within the
free market system. They have made our lives better and improved the
quality of our lives and lowered the cost of the services that we need
for our quality of life to be upheld and made those contributions and
gotten rich in the process. That's the free enterprise system.
So here we are, these vigorous people, and some of the nanny state
advocates here in this Congress--actually, it was a majority of them
last year--decided they want to impose ObamaCare on us and take away
our personal vigor. They wanted to take over the responsibility of
managing our health care. What they finally did was, because ObamaCare
is right now the law of the land, they nationalized our
[[Page 4585]]
skin and everything inside it, a government takeover of my body. The
government took my body over and the body of 308 million Americans, and
now they're going to tell us when we get health care, under what
conditions we get health care, that we must have their health insurance
policy that they prescribe for us. They've taken away our individual
responsibility. They've nationalized our skin and everything inside it.
And they had the audacity--and the President's fond of that word
``audacity.'' It was in the title of one of his books, ``The Audacity
of Hope.'' The President of the United States had the audacity to
impose a 10 percent tax on the outside of the skin that he nationalized
inside of if you go into a tanning salon to turn yourself a little
browner. That is a reach of the nanny state to impose a tax. They
wanted to tax your non-Diet Coke. They want to manage our lifestyles in
such a way that they will tax us if we eat fat foods and then presume
we should get a discount if we eat healthy foods.
This is a nanny state personified. ObamaCare is so bad. It's bad
because of all the things that I've listed about the cost and the
quality and the lines and the rationing and the net result of all of
that, Madam Speaker, but the worst part is it is an unconstitutional
taking of American liberty. It takes from us the ability, the right to
manage our own health care, and it must go.
And when that legislation was passed and signed into law--I believe
the anniversary date was March 23 of this year--I laid awake most of
the night and slept a little bit and got up in the middle of the night
and drafted a piece of legislation to repeal ObamaCare. It was waiting
at the door of the service team to be formally put into the form of a
bill when they opened up that morning.
Very interestingly, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had
done the same thing, and her legislation came down within 3 minutes of
mine, exactly the same 40 words that said we're going to repeal
ObamaCare and, ``as if it had never been enacted'' were the last words
in the bill. Forty words, repeal ObamaCare, gives the names of the
bill, the numbers of the bill, et cetera, the last line, ``as if it had
never been enacted.''
{time} 2110
Rip it out by the roots, Madam Speaker.
Now, that was not necessarily unheard of, but there aren't many
precedents in the history of Congress for repeal legislation to be
filed actually the next day after a huge piece of legislation has been
passed. But that is what we did, and we started down that path
immediately, working to get signatures on the bill and building up the
support to repeal ObamaCare.
By mid-summer we had a discharge petition. By the end of the 111th
Congress, going into the election as the only part that counted, we had
173 signatures on my discharge petition, people that wanted to see
ObamaCare repealed come to the floor, bypass the committee process,
bypass the Speaker's ability to kill the bill before it got here, and
bring it to the floor for a vote. We had 173; we needed 218.
And the message that went out across America was useful in that some
Members of Congress that are here today will say straight up they
wouldn't be here if it were not for the discharge petition and they
could challenge their opponent to sign it. And almost every Democrat
refused to do so. And now there are 87 new freshman Republicans. Every
single one has run on the repeal of ObamaCare. As far as I know,
everyone has run on the defunding of ObamaCare. And I know that every
single Republican in the House of Representatives voted for H.R. 2,
which is the repeal of ObamaCare. And I know that every single
Republican in the United States Senate voted to repeal ObamaCare. The
language that we generated then is the language that emerged into H.R.
2. And today every Republican and some Democrats are on record voting
to repeal ObamaCare.
Now, that didn't stop there. The strategy that I put together almost
a year ago was this: that we needed to win the majority, which we did;
bring the repeal of ObamaCare, which we did. It didn't succeed in the
United States Senate, but behind that always was this majority here in
the House of Representatives has an obligation to cut off all funding
that would be used to implement or enforce ObamaCare.
And I have been consistent with that language all the way through
last summer into last fall and past the election and beyond. Repealing
ObamaCare, then cut off the funding to ObamaCare. Stop the
implementation of ObamaCare and stop the enforcement of it by shutting
off the budget dollars and hold this waste of money to this
unconstitutional bill of ObamaCare until such a time as we can elect a
President who will sign the repeal.
The date for that to happen in my strategy is January 20, 2013, Madam
Speaker. And that's the date that the next President of the United
States will be inaugurated out here on the west portico of the Capitol
Building.
And when that President stands there and takes that oath of office,
it's my vision and my dream and my commitment to work towards it, I am
going to ask him take your oath of office with pen in hand, Mr.
President-elect, and I'm going to ask you to solemnly swear to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States to
the best of your ability so help you God. And once that statement is
made and it's completed and the oath of office is finished and he's
formally the President of the United States, and before that new
President on January 20 of 2013 shakes the hand of Chief Justice John
Roberts, I want that pen in his hand to come right down to the
parchment, and I want him to sign the repeal of the ObamaCare right
there on the podium of the west portico of the Capitol, right out there
as the first act of the next President of the United States. That's my
vision. That's my commitment.
But until then shutting off funding to ObamaCare is a must-do. And
most of America knows by now that there is $105.5 billion automatically
appropriated in a deceptive way by the way the bill was drafted up in
Nancy Pelosi's office, not going through committee, not having the work
of the will of this Congress, but drafted up in her office and dropped
on us with hardly any notice and certainly no time to inform the
American people of what was in it, automatic, unprecedented in their
scope, appropriations to the tune of $105.5 billion, Madam Speaker.
And already it automatically appropriated in the 2010 budget. So
that's $18.6 billion and $4.95 billion in the 2011 budget. It totals up
to $23.6 billion, already appropriated, almost all of it set aside for
the purposes of implementing ObamaCare.
We must have a showdown. We must face the President down. If the
President demands that ObamaCare be funded, what are we going to do?
Say, no, Mr. President, that he vetoes legislation that would otherwise
fund all of government?
And if President Obama does that or if Harry Reid continues to
perform as his proxy and shuts off anything that we send over that way
even though we've demonstrated our desire to keep the legitimate
functions of government, all of them, functioning, if the President
shuts it down or Harry Reid shuts it down and this government comes to
a halt, here's the irony.
The irony is this: lights would go out in Federal offices around this
land. Not all of them because essential services will keep going. But
lights will go out. And as the lights go out in the nonessential
service Federal offices, what will be going in the other offices?
ObamaCare will continue even in a government shutdown to be implemented
because there's $23.6 billion sitting in their pot to spend out of to
implement ObamaCare, and we could have shutdown after shutdown, and
ObamaCare is implemented and implemented.
We must hold the line. We must stand on this principle. It is our
obligation. It is unconstitutional. We take an oath to uphold the
Constitution too. And that includes defending the Constitution and
opposing unconstitutional legislation with every tool at our disposal.
[[Page 4586]]
The President and the Democrats, I believe, Madam Speaker, plan to
shut this government down. That's why they agreed to a continuing
resolution in December that funds the government until March 4. It was
to bring this to a head. They wanted to box us into a corner and then
blame Republicans for shutting the government down.
Well, it's real clear: Republican leadership wants to avoid a
shutdown. It's clear to me that Democrats are determined to provide a
shutdown and try to blame it on Republicans. And it's clear to me that
if we fund all the functions of government except ObamaCare and if the
President brings about a shutdown, it won't be the House Republicans;
it will be Harry Reid as proxy for the President.
If that happens, what we're going to see happen here is the President
of the United States could veto an appropriations bill that funds
everything except ObamaCare. It would be a Presidential executive
tantrum that he would be throwing. That tantrum that he would be
throwing would be saying this: that his signature piece of legislation,
ObamaCare, means more to him than all of the other legitimate functions
of government combined.
That's the scenario that we are in. The American people will render a
verdict when that day comes that there is that kind of a showdown. And
it must come. The American people will render a verdict. They will side
with us. They are not going to side with the President who has imposed
ObamaCare when 62 percent of Americans want it repealed, 51 percent
intensely want to do so, and only 24 percent want to keep it in any
kind of a vigorous way.
So, Madam Speaker, I will say this: we have an obligation to stand
and hold our ground. This showdown will come. It must come. If it
doesn't, we will be capitulating to the President in every way that
he's willing to fight. I say let's stand our ground now. Let's have our
fight now. Let's get it over with, and let's get on with the business
of the 112th Congress.
With that, Madam Speaker, I would yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
CONCERNS ABOUT LIBYA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address
the assembled body tonight.
As one of the few combat veterans in the U.S. Congress, I rise to
express deep concerns about what we are doing in Libya at this moment.
Madam Speaker, we have committed the U.S. taxpayers and we've
committed U.S. troops to engagements that have extended almost a
decade. Having been involved in one of those long overseas engagements
before in Vietnam, I know the strain that these actions place on our
families and on our young soldiers, and I don't think that the
administration has adequately thought out what we are doing and what
we're asking the taxpayers of this country to do and the young people
of this country to do, engaging in yet a third front with questionable
ideas and questionable values at the heart of why we're engaging in the
discussion.
{time} 2120
I've been an ardent supporter of the war on terror. I believe that
we're going to be committed to the war regardless if it is there in
their back yard or in our back yard.
But I rise tonight to say that I'm adamantly opposed to extending our
forces any further than what we've already extended them without asking
our allies to provide their tax money and to put the lives of their
young people on the line.
The entire world is benefiting from the sacrifices that this country
is making to establish order and to establish some modicum of peace in
regions that are not given naturally to such. And since the world
benefits, then the world has a responsibility. So I think the President
should be calling on our allies to fund the NATO mission and to provide
the people, the personnel, and the weapons.
And, yet, as I look at a breakdown of the missions that have been
flown and fought so far, I find a dominance of U.S. cost in lives, in
hours, monetary resources and in morale.
As a veteran, I find it disturbing that we're in two wars and now
intervening in a third with no end in sight. Our mission is unclear.
Having served in Vietnam at a time when our Nation was beginning to
withdraw support for that war, and remembering being there in those
countries when funding was made short and gasoline and fuel was taken
from stateside missions in order to fly combat missions, I remember
with dismay a Nation that was not fully supporting the combat troops.
I find these actions to be questionable on behalf of our Commander in
Chief as it regards Libya. Despite his speech last night, President
Obama simply raised more questions. He explained that America is
different. I'm not certain of exactly how that rationale applies to
putting young men and women in harm's way, but I don't think it is a
deep enough explanation.
What is the time frame? The President has yet to clarify. Are we
there to enforce a no-fly zone? Then let our friends and neighbors in
the U.N., the United Nations, enforce the no-fly zone.
If we're there to enforce a no-fly zone, why then are we bombing
ground troops? They don't affect the no-fly zone.
If the goal is to protect civilians, why did Secretary Clinton meet
with the rebel leader in London? Why is Secretary Clinton calling for
Mr. Qadhafi to step down if we're only enforcing the no-fly zone and
protecting civilians?
This war is going to go back and forth, and already you see our
leaders wondering if we can be out by the end of the year. And I wonder
if we can be out by the end of the decade.
Now, make no mistake about it: if Libya had done something to harm
us, to put our troops in danger, I would be 100 percent supportive, but
I question extending us and our troops to one more war zone.
Why are we fighting a war that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said
bears no strategic interest to the U.S. and does not jeopardize our
national security?
Why are we working on the side of the rebels?
Their own commander has stated that al Qaeda members who fought our
troops in Iraq are now fighting Mr. Qadhafi. In Libya we're working
with the same people we're trying to kill in Afghanistan.
Not only that, but it looks like we're arming those same troops. And
I worry that our armaments supplied to troops in Libya will show up in
the fight against Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As a combat veteran, I find these concerns to be deeply disappointing
in an administration who, for nearly 2 weeks, could not point to
whether NATO, the U.S., France or the United Kingdom was in charge.
This is poor management, a management I saw during the Vietnam war,
with little sense of purpose and always a confusion about exactly why
we were there and how long we would stay.
Humanitarian missions are admirable. However, sending troops into
combat with no apparent overarching mission is dangerous. Everyone in
this room remembers Somalia in 1993.
Why are we singling out Libya? There's a war going on in the Ivory
Coast right now. Saudi troops have cracked down on protesters in
Bahrain in recent weeks, with civilian deaths reported. Not a whisper
of American intervention there.
According to the Genocide Intervention Network, since 2009 almost 1
million people have been displaced in ongoing fighting in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo; 5.6 million civilians are estimated
killed since 1996. Are we going to intervene there?
Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own people using
mustard gas and other weapons. The President was totally opposed, as a
Senator, to that war, despite the fact that it had congressional
authorization. And, yet, here he is leading us into this new conflict.
[[Page 4587]]
The President needs to consider the fact that the mission is unclear,
despite his speech last night. He needs to realize that America cannot
intervene in wars where we face no threat to our national security and
have no strategic interest. He should listen to his Secretary of
Defense.
As we engage in this yet third conflict, we're going to continue to
put budget pressure on a budget that is straining beyond belief. In
this country, the greatest threat that we face right now is a mounting
national debt that is almost $15 trillion, almost the equivalent of our
entire gross domestic product.
At the time when we're expending more resources and more dollars in a
conflict that has to be yet determined as to its scope, purpose and
length, we're straining our budget even further. And while we're
conducting these outside forces to greater cost to our U.S. Government,
we are conducting a war on the West in this country, in choking the
West of jobs right now. So at a time when the cost to our government is
increasing, we're choking down the tax resources by simply regulating
and taxing jobs out of existence.
In the past 10 days, most of us were at home at work in our
districts. I, like everyone else, made a lot of miles in the last 10
days. We drove almost 1,300 miles and did 20 and 30 and 40 events,
meeting with people and listening to their concerns. And everywhere we
heard the same concern: What are you doing about jobs?
And my sad report had to be that this government, instead of creating
jobs, is, in fact, choking off jobs. This government is, in fact,
making it impossible for employers to bring on new laborers to expand
the workforce and create that sense of prosperity that this Nation has
always had available to it.
And people would ask why. And they would also ask how, how's our
government choking off jobs? They find it incredulous. They don't want
to believe me when I say that in our speeches to begin with. How is our
government choking off jobs?
So I use as an example the forest service. This Nation used to have a
vibrant logging industry, a timber industry that employed hundreds of
thousands. Just in New Mexico, a very small State, over 20,000 people
made their living in the timber industry in New Mexico.
Today, no one makes their living in the timber industry in New
Mexico. Over 20 mills have been idled. The woodcutters and the choppers
no longer have work.
{time} 2130
Our mountain communities that used to depend on logging now depend on
tourism, which is a very distant second as it provides incomes for our
families to live and pay their bills on.
Our government put an entire industry out of work in the 1970s with a
regulation based around the spotted owl. The theory was that if we
wanted to protect the owl, we had to limit all the activity in the
forest; and so we simply killed the timber-cutting jobs in our national
forests across the country, and nowhere did it hit harder than in New
Mexico. Our government said you can no longer go into the forest and
cuts trees because we are going to reserve the entire amount of land
for the spotted owl, and an industry was killed overnight.
Right now, in New Mexico, the oil and gas industry hires about the
same number of people that the timber industry used to hire. About
23,000 people now work for oil and gas. We provide energy for much of
the country. And yet those jobs now are at risk because the Fish and
Wildlife Service just recently announced that they are going to list a
lizard as an endangered species.
Now, keep in mind that this lizard is seen everywhere. But when
people ask me what is so significant about this lizard, I tell them,
well, you just can't count the lizards out there. You have to stop
them, raise their arm, and count the number of scales between the elbow
and shoulder underneath their arm. And the endangered lizard has one
less scale or one more scale, I'm not sure which, than the other
lizards. And people are saying: Wait. Your government would kill our
jobs over one scale under a lizard's arm, his front leg? And they are
simply aghast that, with 9.5 percent unemployment, that our government
would be undertaking such punitive ways of interpreting the Endangered
Species Act.
Now, my belief is that we can keep the spotted owl alive in our
forests and cut timber, and my belief is it will make healthier
forests. And so we have introduced a bill which simply says, yes, we
want to keep the spotted owl alive in sanctuaries. We will keep 1,000
acres here, 1,000 acres over here. But in the million acres in between
we are going to allow logging for the first time in a couple of
decades. For the first time, the mountain communities that used to
thrive on timber cutting have the opportunity for jobs.
But even more than that, as we cut trees, New Mexico is a very arid
climate, and what used to happen is that fires would burn the trees
down to where there were only about 50 per acre. So we were broad
savannah lands with our natural forests and scattered trees. You can
visualize how many 50 per acre is. That would be widely spaced with
grass in between. And when the rains would come, the water would soak
in and recharge the aquifers, but also recharge the aquifers around our
streams.
Since we have stopped cutting trees in our national forests, they now
are crowded from 50 trees per acre to 2,500 trees per acre. And now the
streams are running dry because the trees use up so much more water
than the grasslands that were native to the region. Instead of
percolating down, the water is now soaked up by the trees and
transpired into the atmosphere, causing our communities to be running
out of water, our rivers to be running dry, and irrigation that used to
provide jobs to be gone, all in the name of the spotted owl.
Now, I believe that a reasonable society can protect the spotted owl
and create jobs, and that's the purpose of my bill. But before we go
and rescue an industry from the past, we have to fight the fight to
keep American oil being produced here, because the listing of that
lizard has the potential to shut down all of the oil and gas jobs in a
three-county region and maybe even across the entire State. That is
still unclear.
We have people beginning to show up in large numbers to demonstrate
against a government that is becoming too insensitive, too concerned
about the hypothetical and not concerned enough about people who are
just struggling to make ends meet. We find citizens who are simply
aghast that this government would be killing jobs at a time when our
economy is struggling so bad. And at the very time that we are
struggling to keep our industry alive from some nameless bureaucrat, we
find our President going to South America to see what he can do to
invigorate an oil industry there. My friends, this is a time for us to
produce American jobs and American energy.
Now, I believe that we can produce energy and protect the species. I
believe that we can produce energy and keep our environment clean. And
I believe that we can produce American jobs while protecting species,
the environment, workers. I believe that we can do it all, and I
believe that Americans insist that we do it. They don't want to see the
species go extinct, but neither do they want jobs to be shipped
overseas in the name of some value they don't quite understand.
Now, the truth is that where we have stopped logging, the trees are
too dense for the spotted owl now. The habitat, instead of getting
better, has gotten worse. And right across the street in the Mescalero
Indian reservation, where they can log at their own will and they have
been logging, the spotted owl prefers that habitat because they need to
sit on the branches, they jump off the trees, they get flying speed,
and they are able to overtake the rodents or whatever it is they live
off of.
And so the habitat we are trying to protect actually is simply not
suitable now for the spotted owl and they are moving over next-door,
and we have done this in the name of some science
[[Page 4588]]
that has never been made clear to us and it is very similar to what is
going on with the lizard. They are going to list some species that I
suspect there is no DNA difference between the five-scaled lizard and
the six-scaled lizard. I suspect that is a mutation rather than a DNA
difference. I suspect that there is no science on it.
And so we joined with people in our district this week to begin to
say publicly to the government: Enough is enough. You are making
promises with our money that you can't keep. You are committing us to
more wars. You are committing us to more social payments. You are
committing the taxpayer to a higher burden. At the same time, you are
causing dwindling taxation into the government coffers by killing our
jobs, and people are saying it is enough.
We saw in the last election a turnout of incredible magnitude of
people saying: The government is not listening, and we don't care about
what the government is doing anymore. The frustration is deeper and
deeper. And, frankly, I encourage that, because I believe that the only
hope in turning back a government that is too strong, a government that
does not care, a government that is willing to take jobs from its
people, a government that is willing to commit our troops anywhere in
the world in the name of whatever vague policy they have is a
government that is out of control. This needs to return to be a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
We have set up on our Web page places where you can go and make
comment to the government. You can call our office here and make those
comments, and we will relay those comments for you.
So understand that we are in a fight for the future of this Nation,
in a fight for our economy, and the greatest enemy is the government
itself. The government intervenes in ways that it has no constitutional
authority. The government intervenes with increasing tax policies so
that even our President said in his State of the Union message that we
are too highly taxed in our corporations and we need to get that in
control. Let our President get that in control. We will vote gladly for
such tax decreases here on the floor of this House in order to ensure
that jobs are created.
The greatest reason that our jobs are going overseas are two:
taxation policy and regulation policy. Regulations like the spotted
owl. Regulations like the listing of the lizard. Regulations like the
choking down of our financial system by the regulators now who are
going into banks and scaring them by threats of fines. We are choking
our economy down in the name of safety and security and achieving
neither. The sad thing is that we could cure most of our economic ills
if we simply grow the economy.
{time} 2140
Actuarial tables tell us that if we had a 3.5 percent rate of growth,
that our economic problems in the States and in this government begin
to disappear. And you would ask, is 3.5 percent possible? Well, that is
exactly the rate we have averaged for the last 75 years. But, today,
because of our policies of overtaxation, overregulation, our
unfriendliness to business in general, we find ourselves stuck at about
a 1 to 1.5 percent rate of growth.
Thus, we are finding the pressure on Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid. We are finding the pressure of the $15 trillion debt. We are
finding the pressure of $1.5 trillion deficits. In order to meet those
pressures, our Federal Reserve is beginning to print more and more
money, so we are seeing prices skyrocket.
So at a time when jobs are scarce and people worry for the future, we
are seeing the price of gasoline go up, the price of vegetables going
up, the price of gold, silver, iron, everything is going up; not
because their value has increased since last year or last month, but
because the value of your dollar is decreasing because we are printing
so many.
And even then we still are having increased pressure. We find the
Japanese are not going to be able to lend us money. They typically were
large buyers of our Treasury Bills, meaning they were loaning the
government money. Not for a long time. China is beginning to decrease
its holdings of Treasury Bills. And we are hearing these vague messages
that our bankers, Chinese, Japanese, our own citizens, think our
economy is out of control, our debt and our deficits are out of
control, so they are saying no more, we are not going to lend you any
more. That then drives the Federal Reserve to make up the difference by
printing money.
That is an avenue that some of the worst economies in the world have
pursued. In Argentina last year, Argentina had a rate of inflation of
1,500 percent. That means if you began the year with $1.5 million in
the bank, at the end of that year you had about $100,000. At the end of
next year it is going to be under $10,000. So in just 2 years, if you
had a nest egg in retirement, it will become of no value.
That is the path that Argentina chose, and it is the path now that we
are beginning to choose; endless deficits, endless debt, wars that
bankrupt us with no reasonable explanation of why we are in those wars.
It is that situation that the American taxpayer faces today. It is that
situation that causes me to stand and say America has done enough,
American soldiers have done enough, American taxpayers have done
enough. Let our friends come to the table. Let our friends begin to
shoulder their share of the burdens.
Meanwhile, let us begin to cut the spending here in Washington. We
can cut many ways without cutting the actual outcomes to people. We
have duplicate agencies. We have waste, we have fraud, we have abuse.
Cut those, but, on the other hand, begin to grow our economy and create
jobs in industries that used to be here, industries that would start up
overnight.
These are not 10- and 20-year plans. These are ideas that can begin
immediately. The people would begin to work in the forest immediately
if we would let them. They would begin to drill wells again. Offshore
we could get our deepwater platforms working once again. Those have
been idled by a government that is too powerful and has shut down over
100,000 jobs offshore.
These are the reasons that we are having the economic difficulties
that we do. And when we have difficulties, as the world's largest
economy, the Germans said it best: When you sneeze, you--the U.S.--
sneeze economically, you give the rest of the world the flu.
If we will begin to set about creating American jobs, producing
American energy, American timber, American manufactured goods up and
down the economic spectrum, then we can cure not only our economy, but
we can cure the world's economy. And I believe that we are going to do
that. I believe that because the American people are beginning to stand
and insist on it. Their insistence is patient, their insistence is
respectful, but it is insistent nonetheless, and it has no waver and no
quiver to it.
It says fix the problems. Come to this city of Washington and vote
not like Republicans, not like Democrats, but like Americans. And when
we begin to do that in this body, I believe that the American people
will come together and support us in rekindling that greatness that
lies within this country, that American exceptionalism that people for
generations have come here to find, leaving everything behind, leaving
families, a culture behind, leaving their own language behind, and they
have come here for generations to find those words ``opportunity'' and
``hope'' which have been so deeply ingrained into the fabric of this
Nation. And that is what I believe that we should be engaged in at this
moment in this body.
Madam Speaker, I would yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Rangel (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of
official business in the district.
Mr. Frelinghuysen (at the request of Mr. Cantor) for today and the
balance of the week on account of surgery.
[[Page 4589]]
____________________
BILL AND JOINT RESOLUTION PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House reports that on March 03, 2011 she
presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the
following bill.
H.R. 662. To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other
programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending
enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs.
Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House further reports that on March 17,
2011 she presented to the President of the United States, for his
approval, the following joint resolution.
H.J. Res. 48. Making further continuing appropriations for
fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 46 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Wednesday, March 30, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
923. A letter from the transmitting the Department's
``Major'' final rule -- Regulation to Implement the Equal
Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
as amended (RIN: 3046-AA85) received March 18, 2011, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
924. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a message on the United States'
involvement in the international effort authorized by the
United Nations Security Council; (H. Doc. No. 112-14); to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed.
925. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-39,
``Reinstated Government Employee Review Temporary Act of
2011''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
926. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-34,
``Balanced Budget Holiday Furlough Temporary Act of 2011'';
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
927. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-35,
``Processing Sales Tax Clarification Temporary Amendment Act
of 2011''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
928. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-36, ``One
City Service and Response Training Temporary Act of 2011'';
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
929. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-37,
``Howard Theatre Redevelopment Project Great Streets
Initiative Tax Increment Financing Temporary Amendment Act of
2011''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
930. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-38,
``Fiscal Year 2011 Office of Public Education Facilities
Modernization Funding Revised Temporary Act of 2011''; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
931. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 18-160,
``Attorney General for the District of Columbia Clarification
and Elected Term Amendment Act of 2010''; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
932. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of
Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 18-724,
``District of Columbia Official Code Title 29 (Business
Organizations) Enactment Act of 2010''; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
____________________
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:
[The following action occurred on January 3, 2011]
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania: Committee on House
Administration. Report on the Activities of the Committee on
House Administration During the 111th Congress (Rept. 111-
715). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
[Filed on March 29, 2011]
Mr. MICA: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.R. 1079. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United
States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and
for other purposes (Rept. 112-41 Pt. 1). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. MICA: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.R. 362. A bill to redesignate the Federal building and
United States Courthouse located at 200 East Wall Street in
Midland, Texas, as the ``George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush
United States Courthouse and George Mahon Federal Building''
(Rept. 112-42). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. MICA: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.R. 872. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation
of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for
other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 112-43 Pt. 1).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union.
Mr. LUCAS: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 872. A bill to
amend the FEderal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify
Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of
pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other
purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 112-43 Pt. 2). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. CAMP: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 1034. A bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding
and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund (Rept. 112-44 Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah: Committee on Rules. House Resolution
186. A resolution providing for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 471) to reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship
program, and for other purposes (Rept. 112-45). Referred to
the House Calendar.
discharge of committee
[The following action occurred on March 23, 2011]
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII the Committees on Science, Space,
and Technology and the Judiciary discharged from further consideration.
H.R. 658 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed.
[The following action occurred on March 29, 2011]
Pursuant to clause 2 or rule XIII the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure discharged from further consideration. H.R. 1034
referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
and ordered to be printed.
Pursuant to clause 2 or rule XIII the Committee on Ways and Means
discharged from further consideration. H.R. 1079 referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to
be printed.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
Bilbray, and Mr. Westmoreland):
H.R. 1211. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to strengthen student visa background checks and
improve the monitoring of foreign students in the United
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. AMASH (for himself, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Johnson of
Illinois, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. Paul):
H.R. 1212. A bill to require the cessation of the use of
force in, or directed at, the country of Libya by the United
States Armed Forces unless a subsequent Act specifically
authorizes such use of force; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. UPTON:
H.R. 1213. A bill to repeal mandatory funding provided to
States in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to
establish American Health Benefit Exchanges; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BURGESS:
H.R. 1214. A bill to repeal mandatory funding for school-
based health center construction; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
[[Page 4590]]
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. LATTA:
H.R. 1215. A bill to amend title V of the Social Security
Act to convert funding for personal responsibility education
programs from direct appropriations to an authorization of
appropriations; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. GUTHRIE:
H.R. 1216. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
convert funding for graduate medical education in qualified
teaching health centers from direct appropriations to an
authorization of appropriations; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. PITTS:
H.R. 1217. A bill to repeal the Prevention and Public
Health Fund; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SHUSTER:
H.R. 1218. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to
allow a State to use as a credit toward the non-Federal share
requirement for funds made available to carry out such title
the Appalachian development highway system program; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. HALL (for himself, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Terry,
Mr. Whitfield, and Mr. Barrow):
H.R. 1219. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to require Medicaid coverage of optometrists; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 1220. A bill to require the conveyance of the
decommissioned Coast Guard Cutter STORIS; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. BACHUS (for himself, Mr. Garrett, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Pearce, and Mrs. Biggert):
H.R. 1221. A bill to suspend the current compensation
packages for the senior executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac and establish compensation for such positions in
accordance with rates of pay for senior employees in the
Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services, and in
addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. NEUGEBAUER (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Garrett, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. Hensarling):
H.R. 1222. A bill to increase the guarantee fees charged by
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with respect to mortgage-backed
securities guaranteed by such enterprises; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
By Mr. GARRETT (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Hensarling, and Mr. Pearce):
H.R. 1223. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 to ensure mortgages held or securitized by Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac and asset-backed securities issued by such
enterprises are treated similarly as other mortgages and
asset-backed securities for purposes of the credit risk
retention requirements under such Act; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. HENSARLING (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Garrett, and Mr. Pearce):
H.R. 1224. A bill to increase the rate of the required
annual reductions of the retained portfolios of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Bachus,
and Mr. Hensarling):
H.R. 1225. A bill to prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
from issuing any new debt without approval in advance by the
Secretary of the Treasury; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Garrett, Mr.
Pearce, and Mr. Hensarling):
H.R. 1226. A bill to repeal the affordable housing goals
for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Garrett, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. Hensarling):
H.R. 1227. A bill to prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
from offering any new products during the term of any
conservatorship or receivership of such enterprises; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. LANDRY:
H.R. 1228. A bill to provide for payments to certain
natural resource trustees to assist in restoring natural
resources damaged as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself, Mr.
Lamborn, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Landry, Mr. Flores, Mr.
Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr.
Wittman, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Tipton, Mr.
Gohmert, Mr. Denham, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr.
Nunes, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Grimm, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Ross
of Florida, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mrs. Myrick, Mrs.
Lummis, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Pompeo, Mr.
Olson, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Long, Mr.
Simpson, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Rigell, Mr.
Heller, Mrs. Hartzler, and Mr. Posey):
H.R. 1229. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to facilitate the safe and timely production of
American energy resources from the Gulf of Mexico; to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself, Mr.
Lamborn, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Landry, Mr. Flores, Mr.
Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr.
Wittman, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Tipton, Mr.
Gohmert, Mr. Denham, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr.
Nunes, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Grimm, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Ross
of Florida, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mrs. Myrick, Mrs.
Lummis, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Pompeo, Mr.
Olson, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Long, Mr.
Simpson, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Rigell, Mr.
Heller, and Mrs. Hartzler):
H.R. 1230. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself, Mr.
Lamborn, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Landry, Mr. Flores, Mr.
Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr.
Wittman, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Tipton, Mr.
Gohmert, Mr. Denham, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr.
Fleischmann, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Grimm, Mr.
Scalise, Mr. Ross of Florida, Mr. Graves of Missouri,
Mrs. Myrick, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Olson, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Long, Mr. Simpson, Ms.
Jenkins, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Rigell, Mr. Heller, Mrs.
Hartzler, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, and Mr.
Posey):
H.R. 1231. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas
leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most
prospective oil and gas resources, to establish a domestic
oil and natural gas production goal, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. CAMP:
H.R. 1232. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to eliminate certain tax benefits relating to abortion;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BOSWELL (for himself, Mr. Butterfield, Mr.
Loebsack, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Latham, and Mr.
Braley of Iowa):
H.R. 1233. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act to suspend a limitation on the period for
which certain borrowers are eligible for guaranteed
assistance; to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. KILDEE:
H.R. 1234. A bill to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to
reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to
take land into trust for Indian tribes; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
By Mr. CARTER:
H.R. 1235. A bill to provide a Federal regulatory
moratorium, 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. GERLACH (for himself, Mr. Neal, Mr. Paulsen, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. DeFazio):
H.R. 1236. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a reduced rate of excise tax on beer produced
domestically by certain small producers; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. HERGER:
H.R. 1237. A bill to provide for a land exchange with the
Trinity Public Utilities District of Trinity County,
California, involving the transfer of land to the Bureau of
Land Management and the Six Rivers National Forest in
exchange for National Forest System land in the Shasta-
Trinity National Forest, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Mr. LaTourette, and Mr.
Turner):
H.R. 1238. A bill to amend the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 to allow amounts under the Troubled
Assets Relief Program to be used to provide legal assistance
to homeowners to avoid foreclosure; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr.
Jones):
H.R. 1239. A bill to clarify the applicability of the Buy
American Act to products purchased for the use of the
legislative branch,
[[Page 4591]]
to prohibit the application of any of the exceptions to the
requirements of such Act to products bearing an official
Congressional insignia, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. LOEBSACK (for himself and Mr. Platts):
H.R. 1240. A bill to promote industry growth and
competitiveness and to improve worker training, retention,
and advancement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. LUJAN (for himself and Mr. Heinrich):
H.R. 1241. A bill to establish the Rio Grande del Norte
National Conservation Area in the State of New Mexico, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. MARKEY:
H.R. 1242. A bill to ensure that nuclear power plants can
withstand and adequately respond to earthquakes, tsunamis,
strong storms, or other events that threaten a major impact;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. NADLER:
H.R. 1243. A bill to authorize States or political
subdivisions thereof to regulate fuel economy and emissions
standards for taxicabs; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. REICHERT (for himself, Mr. Kind, Mr. Boustany,
Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Paulsen, and Mr. Pascrell):
H.R. 1244. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 and the Small Business Act to expand the availability of
employee stock ownership plans in S corporations, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce,
and Small Business, 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. ROONEY (for himself and Mr. Hastings of
Florida):
H.R. 1245. A bill to recognize the memorial at the Navy
UDT-SEAL Museum in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the official
national memorial of Navy SEALS and their predecessors; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. WEST:
H.R. 1246. A bill to reduce the amounts otherwise
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense
for printing and reproduction; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. WEST:
H.R. 1247. A bill to reduce the amounts otherwise
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense
for studies, analysis, and evaluations; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
By Mr. WEST:
H.R. 1248. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to
provide that civilian employees of the Department of Defense
performing unsatisfactory work shall not be eligible for
annual nationwide adjustments to pay schedules; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. THOMPSON of California:
H. Res. 185. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of National Tsunami Awareness Week; to the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology.
____________________
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 Mr. BILIRAKIS:
H.R. 1211.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Article I, Section 8,
Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which
grants Congress the power to provide for the common Defense
of the United States, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of
the Constitution of the United States, which provides
Congress the power to make ``all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper'' for carrying out the constitutional
powers vested in the Government of the United States.
By Mr. AMASH:
H.R. 1212.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution
states that Congress shall have the power ``To declare War,''
``To raise and support Armies,'' ``To provide and maintain a
Navy,'' and ``To make Rules for the Government and Regulation
of the land and naval Forces.'' Although the Constitution's
Article II, Section 2 designates the President as ``Commander
in Chief,'' that title does not empower the President to
order congressionally unauthorized force when the United
States has not been attacked or is not in imminent danger of
attack. This bill reclaims Congress's core constitutional
prerogative to control when offensive military force is used.
By Mr. UPTON:
H.R. 1213.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have
Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
By Mr. BURGESS:
H.R. 1214.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have
Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
By Mr. LATTA:
H.R. 1215.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have
Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
By Mr. GUTHRIE:
H.R. 1216.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have
Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
By Mr. PITTS:
H.R. 1217.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have
Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
By Mr. SHUSTER:
H.R. 1218.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.
By Mr. HALL:
H.R. 1219.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The reference to the Commerce Clause is applicable to this
bill: `` This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted
to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
United States Constitution.''
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 1220.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
By Mr. BACHUS:
H.R. 1221.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 3: (``To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes''), and 18 (``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. NEUGEBAUER:
H.R. 1222.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 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. GARRETT:
H.R. 1223.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 3 (``To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes''), and 18 (``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. HENSARLING:
H.R. 1224.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 (``The Congress shall
have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense
and general Welfare of the United
[[Page 4592]]
States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States''), 3 (``To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes''), and 18 (``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. PEARCE:
H.R. 1225.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 (``The Congress shall have
Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States''),
3 (``To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes''), and 18 (``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. ROYCE:
H.R. 1226.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 3 (``To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes''), and 18 (``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. SCHWEIKERT:
H.R. 1227.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 (``The Congress shall have
Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States''),
3 (``To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes''), and 18 (``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. LANDRY:
H.R. 1228.
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 1 of the United
States Constitution.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Washington:
H.R. 1229.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article IV, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Washington:
H.R. 1230.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Washington:
H.R. 1231.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
By Mr. CAMP:
H.R. 1232.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article I of the United States
Constitution and Amendment XVI of the United States
Constitution.
By Mr. BOSWELL:
H.R. 1233.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 18.
By Mr. KILDEE:
H.R. 1234.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The Indian Commerce Clause: Clause 3 of Section 8 of
Article I and the Necessary and Proper Clause: Clause 18 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.
By Mr. CARTER:
H.R. 1235.
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. GERLACH:
H.R. 1236.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The Congress enacts this bill pursuant to Clause 1 of
Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution.
By Mr. HERGER:
H.R. 1237.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 1238.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8.
By Ms. KAPTUR:
H.R. 1239.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8.
By Mr. LOEBSACK:
H.R. 1240.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
By Mr. LUJAN:
H.R. 1241.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8.
By Mr. MARKEY:
H.R. 1242.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
By Mr. NADLER:
H.R. 1243.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause), and
Clause 18 (Necessary and Proper Clause).
By Mr. REICHERT:
H.R. 1244.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this
legislation is provided by Article I, Section 8 of the United
States Constitution, specifically Clause 1 (relating to
providing for the general welfare of the United States) and
Clause 18 (relating to the power to make all laws necessary
and proper for carrying out the powers vested in Congress),
and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (relating to the power of
Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States).
By Mr. ROONEY:
H.R. 1245.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this
legislation is provided by Article I, Section 8 of the United
States Constitution: Clauses 13 and 14, which grants Congress
the power to provide and maintain a Navy and to make rules
for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces, Clause 1, which grants Congress the power to provide
for the general welfare of the United States, and Clause 18,
which grants Congress the power to make all laws necessary
and proper for carrying out the foregoing powers.
By Mr. WEST:
H.R. 1246.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this
legislation is provided by Article I, Section 8 of the United
States Constitution (Clauses 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), which
grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to
provide and maintain a Navy; to make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and to make
all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing
powers.
By Mr. WEST:
H.R. 1247.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this
legislation is provided by Article I, Section 8 of the United
States Constitution (Clauses 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), which
grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to
provide and maintain a Navy; to make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and to make
all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing
powers.
By Mr. WEST:
H.R. 1248.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this
legislation is provided by Article I, Section 8 of the United
States Constitution (Clauses 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), which
grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to
provide and maintain a Navy; to make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and to make
all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing
powers.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 5: Ms. Buerkle, Mr. Roskam, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Thompson
of Pennsylvania,
[[Page 4593]]
Mr. McCaul, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Bartlett, Mrs.
Bachmann, Ms. Granger, Mr. Long, Mr. Mack, Mr. Hanna, Mr.
Petri, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Hensarling, Mrs. Hartzler, and Mr.
Sam Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 11: Mr. Holt and Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 23: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 25: Mr. Rigell.
H.R. 27: Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 31: Mr. Bachus, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Hensarling, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Dold, Mr. Hurt, Mr.
Fitzpatrick, Mr. Schock, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Grimm, Mr. Stivers,
Mr. Lucas, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Walsh of Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger
of Illinois, and Mr. Issa.
H.R. 58: Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr.
Carter.
H.R. 59: Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Farenthold, and Mr. Stutzman.
H.R. 85: Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 100: Mr. McKinley and Ms. Jenkins.
H.R. 104: Mr. Duffy, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Ms. Speier, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Jones,
Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Keating, Mr. Rigell, and Ms.
Hirono.
H.R. 120: Mrs. Black.
H.R. 140: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 178: Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Mr. Heck, Mr. Runyan,
Mr. Ryan of Ohio, and Mr. King of New York.
H.R. 181: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 186: Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 192: Mr. Markey.
H.R. 198: Mr. McGovern and Mr. Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 258: Mr. Rigell.
H.R. 303: Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 308: Mr. Rush, Mr. Doggett, and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 321: Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 361: Mr. Baca, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Buchanan.
H.R. 365: Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 371: Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Simpson.
H.R. 396: Mr. Hall.
H.R. 416: Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 439: Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 440: Mr. Grimm, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Kelly.
H.R. 450: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 452: Mr. Rogers of Michigan.
H.R. 458: Mrs. Capps, Mr. Berman, Ms. Sutton, and Mr. Frank
of Massachusetts.
H.R. 459: Mr. Young of Indiana, Mr. Polls, Mr. McIntyre,
Mr. Heck, Ms. Herrera Beutler, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Stearns, Mr.
Gowdy, Mrs. Lummis, and Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 466: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 478: Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 482: Mrs. Black.
H.R. 535: Mr. Rush and Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 572: Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 575: Mr. Kissell.
H.R. 576: Ms. Berkley and Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 584: Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 589: Mr. Weiner, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Wilson of Florida,
and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 595: Mr. Hanna.
H.R. 607: Mr. Michaud and Mr. Latham.
H.R. 610: Mr. Crenshaw and Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 615: Mr. Scalise and Mr. Rogers of Alabama.
H.R. 616: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 652: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 674: Mr. King of Iowa, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Long, and Mr.
Davis of Kentucky.
H.R. 679: Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 681: Mr. Ribble and Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 694: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 709: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. Quigley.
H.R. 721: Mr. Yoder.
H.R. 729: Mr. Berman.
H.R. 735: Mr. Paulsen and Ms. Buerkle.
H.R. 743: Mr. Turner and Mr. Runyan.
H.R. 749: Mr. Heller.
H.R. 750: Mr. Tipton.
H.R. 795: Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
H.R. 798: Mr. Platts.
H.R. 800: Mr. Kingston, Mr. Landry, Mr. Bilbray, and Mr.
McKinley.
H.R. 808: Mr. Ellison and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 812: Mr. Courtney.
H.R. 821: Mrs. Adams and Mrs. Blackburn.
H.R. 822: Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Platts, Mr.
Forbes, Mr. Schock, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Mr.
Sullivan, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, and
Mr. Scalise.
H.R. 827: Mr. Meehan, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mrs. Davis of California, and Mr. Bilbray.
H.R. 849: Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 855: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 870: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 872: Mr. Scalise, Mr. Hurt, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Boustany,
Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Forbes, Ms. Granger, Mr. Carter, Mr.
McClintock, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Kline, Mr. Rogers of
Alabama, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Berg, Mr. Reed, Mr. Camp, Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Posey, Mr. Cravaack, Mr.
Hastings of Washington, Mr. Cole, Mr. Pence, Ms. Foxx, Mr.
Fortenberry, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. Gowdy, Mr.
Palazzo, Mr. Dold, Mr. Dent, and Mr. McHenry.
H.R. 873: Mr. Doggett and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 875: Mrs. Bachmann.
H.R. 876: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 885: Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Hinchey, and
Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 889: Ms. Schwartz and Ms. Matsui.
H.R. 893: Mr. Ellison and Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 894: Mr. Cummings, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Stark, and Mrs.
Capps.
H.R. 903: Mr. Denham.
H.R. 904: Mr. Jones, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Ross
of Arkansas, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Rogers of
Michigan.
H.R. 905: Mr. Walden, Mrs. Myrick, Ms. Sewell, and Ms.
Berkley.
H.R. 910: Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Turner,
Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Farenthold, Mr.
Tipton, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Fleischmann, and Mr. Graves of
Missouri.
H.R. 912: Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Ellison, and Mr.
Jackson of Illinois.
H.R. 925: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 938: Mr. Neal, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Kissell, and Mr.
Runyan.
H.R. 941: Mr. Lujan, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Latham, Mr. Boswell,
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 943: Mr. Towns and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 948: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr.
Kissell, and Mr. Moran.
H.R. 969: Mr. Benishek.
H.R. 973: Mr. Rigell.
H.R. 984: Mrs. Adams, Mr. Jones, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Grimm, Mr. Westmoreland, and Mr. Mack.
H.R. 987: Mr. Bilbray.
H.R. 1004: Mr. Reichert.
H.R. 1006: Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Herger, and Ms.
Berkley.
H.R. 1013: Mr. Lynch.
H.R. 1033: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 1040: Mr. Jones and Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 1047: Mr. Lankford, Mr. Pompeo, and Mr. Tipton.
H.R. 1049: Mr. Farenthold and Mrs. Lummis.
H.R. 1055: Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 1058: Mr. Guthrie, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, and Mr.
McKinley.
H.R. 1066: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Moran, Mrs. Maloney,
Mr. Ross of Arkansas, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Boren, Ms. Speier,
Ms. Hirono, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Holden, Mr.
Barletta, Ms. Moore, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Jones, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Grijalva, Ms.
Richardson, Mr. Sires, Mr. Levin, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Matsui,
Mr. Crowley, Mr. Rahall, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. David Scott of
Georgia, and Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 1070: Ms. Eshoo and Mrs. Bachmann.
H.R. 1075: Mr. Chaffetz, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Flake,
and Ms. Herrera Beutler.
H.R. 1081: Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr.
David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Filner, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Paul,
Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Flores, Mr. Holden, and Mr. Coffman of
Colorado.
H.R. 1112: Mr. Flores.
H.R. 1113: Mr. Honda, Mr. Baca, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Al Green
of Texas, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Stark, Ms.
Moore, Mr. Payne, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Cummings, Mrs.
Maloney, and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 1121: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 1131: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 1132: Ms. Moore, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Stark,
Ms. Woolsey, and Ms. Norton.
H.R. 1153: Mr. King of New York.
H.R. 1161: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr.
Barrow, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Flores, Mr.
Poe of Texas, Mr. Rooney, Mr. West, Mr. Andrews, and Mr.
David Scott of Georgia.
H.R. 1173: Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. McClintock, and Mr.
Duncan of South Carolina.
H.R. 1175: Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Bartlett, and Mr.
Marino.
H.R. 1184: Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Burton of Indiana,
and Mr. Gingrey of Georgia.
H.R. 1185: Mr. Gingrey of Georgia.
H.R. 1186: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Paul.
H.R. 1187: Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H.R. 1206: Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr.
Ruppersberger, Mr. Yoder, Mr. Sessions, Mr. McCaul, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Kissell,
and Mr. Price of Georgia.
H.J. Res. 13: Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Posey, Mr. Rogers of
Michigan, Mr. Runyan, Mr. Austria, and Mr. Jordan.
H.J. Res. 47: Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Moran, and Ms. Edwards.
H.J. Res. 49: Mr. Chaffetz and Mr. Stark.
H. Con. Res. 7: Mr. Peterson and Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H. Con. Res. 31: Mr. Kucinich.
H. Res. 23: Mr. Sessions.
H. Res. 25: Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr.
Honda, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H. Res. 47: Mr. Berman, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Schiff.
H. Res. 60: Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Coble, and Mr. McGovern.
H. Res. 81: Mrs. Maloney.
H. Res. 82: Mr. Benishek, Mr. Guinta, Mr. Ross of Florida,
Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Neugebauer, and Mr. Jones.
H. Res. 85: Mr. Van Hollen.
[[Page 4594]]
H. Res. 87: Mr. Al Green of Texas.
H. Res. 111: Mr. Capuano, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr.
Andrews, Mr. Sires, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Gene Green
of Texas, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
H. Res. 134: Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Grimm, Ms.
Speier, and Mr. Sensenbrenner.
H. Res. 137: Mr. Baca, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Boswell, Mr.
Kissell, Mr. Holden, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Latham, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Jackson of Illinois,
Mr. Costa, Mr. Stark, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Peterson, Mr.
Tierney, Mr. Inslee, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Wu, Mr. Schrader, Mr.
Israel, Mr. Critz, and Mr. Michaud.
H. Res. 139: Mr. Kind, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Schock,
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Johnson of Georgia,
Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Ms. Wilson
of Florida, Mr. Austria, and Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
H. Res. 140: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Rigell.
H. Res. 163: Ms. Tsongas.
H. Res. 172: Mr. Higgins, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Bishop of New
York, and Mr. Stark.
H. Res. 173: Mr. Ross of Florida.
H. Res. 177: Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr.
Honda.
H. Res. 179: Mr. Crowley and Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H. Res. 182: Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Clarke of New York, and Mr.
Grimm.
____________________
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 Delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton, or a designee, to H.R. 471, the Scholarships for
Opportunity and Results Act, does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.
[[Page 4595]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
HONORING THE DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS CHAPTER 91
______
HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
proclamation:
Whereas, DeKalb County serves as home for many Veterans who have
served honorably in the United States Military; and
Whereas, the Disabled American Veterans Chapter 91 of Decatur is an
organization that continues to serve those who have represented our
nation in times of peace and war; and
Whereas, our beloved county, continues to rely on the wisdom,
leadership and service from the Disabled American Veterans to assist
and build our community; and
Whereas, this unique organization has given of themselves tirelessly
and unconditionally to preserve integrity and advocate strongly for our
disabled veterans and their families; and
Whereas, the Disabled American Veterans Chapter 91 continues to serve
our county by being the sword and shield of those who served our
country in the United States military; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Disabled American
Veterans Chapter 91 of Decatur, Georgia for their outstanding service
to our District;
Now Therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
March 20, 2011 as Disabled American Veterans Chapter 91 Day in the 4th
Congressional District.
Proclaimed, this 20th day of March, 2011.
____________________
HONORING MR. ADAM BRATTON
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the three
and a half years of service given from Mr. Adam Bratton, the outgoing
Executive Director of the Robert H. Jackson Center. Under the direction
of Mr. Bratton the Jackson Center has seen many innovations and
improvements bringing the Jackson Center into the international
community.
Through new social media innovations Mr. Bratton has ushered the
Jackson Center into a new realm of possibilities. He has created an
international constituency with hundreds of thousands of individuals.
Mr. Bratton is responsible for increasing the donor base
tremendously. During his service the Jackson Center raised over $2
million and the number of donors has increased by 75%. Adding to his
successes, the number of annual individual gifts has increased by more
than 100% over the past three years.
The board of directors has also grown stronger and more involved in
the Jackson Center. Many nationally known and respected individuals
have been added to work together and make this establishment thrive.
We are truly blessed to have such strong individuals that work
tirelessly to make our world a better place. Mr. Bratton is one of
those people and that is why Mr. Speaker I rise in tribute to him
today.
____________________
DORIS AND MELVIN PORTH TRIBUTE
______
HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, it brings me great joy to stand and pay
tribute to Doris and Melvin Porth of Westcliffe, Colorado. The Porths
have shown endless loyalty and devotion to Custer Country, the state of
Colorado, and the Republican Party.
Originally from Kansas, Mr. and Mrs. Porth quickly became true
Coloradans upon arriving in the Centennial State. Both Mr. and Mrs.
Porth have been staples in local and state politics for decades, and
their service has not gone unnoticed. Doris Porth was the Custer
Country Treasurer for 32 years, and had a long tenure as the Republican
Party Treasurer in Custer County as well. For his part, Melvin Porth
was the Republican Party Chairman for two decades, he worked tirelessly
in the school district for 18 years, and he owned and operated an
equipment rental business. Mr. and Mrs. Porth have also been active
members of the Custer County Chamber of Commerce. The Porth's civic
endeavors continue as leading contributors to their historical railroad
district, which is a vibrant and important part of Westcliffe's
frontier history. The community outreach of Mr. and Mrs. Porth
continues due in part to their active faith life as leaders within
their church.
Mr. Speaker, Doris and Melvin Porth represent the finest our state
has to offer in terms of civic responsibility and patriotism. The
Porths have given decades of their time to the community and their
political party for the benefit of others. Mr. and Mrs. Porth are a
shining example of selflessness, and it has been an honor to rise and
pay tribute to these wonderful people.
____________________
``JIM LANGEVIN SPEAKS OUT FOR FAIRNESS''
______
HON. BARNEY FRANK
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the gentleman
from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, recently wrote a cogent, heartfelt
article published in the Providence Journal calling on his former
colleagues in the Rhode Island Legislature to allow people of the same
sex to marry. That is, Representative Langevin urges that his State
join those that allow individuals who love someone of the same sex to
have that love treated with the respect--and legal equality--that it
deserves.
As our colleague notes, he has for some time felt that civil unions
were the appropriate forum in which people of the same sex could
express their love for each other in a legally recognized way, but as
he ``realized that their union would not be treated the same way under
the law'' as opposite-sex couples, he ``began to see that civil unions
fell short of the equality I believe that same-sex couples deserved.''
Jim Langevin has long been an articulate advocate for equality under
the law for all citizens, and his urging ``all Rhode Islanders to honor
our State's founding principles of tolerance and freedom'' is an
example of his courageous commitment to that principle for all people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that Jim Langevin's compelling argument on behalf
of the legalization of same-sex marriage be printed here.
[From the Providence Journal, Mar. 5, 2011]
Jim Langevin: Now Is the Time To Redefine Marriage in R.I.
(By Jim Langevin)
Throughout my career in public service, I have strongly
opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation at both
the state and federal level, co-sponsoring the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act and hate crimes legislation, and
supporting efforts to repeal the military's ``don't ask,
don't tell'' policy.
While those topics have been controversial, they never
elicited the intensely passionate and emotional debate that
occurred as our nation began struggling with the question of
same-sex marriage. For many years, I supported civil unions
as a reasonable way to achieve consensus on a divisive issue,
providing rights and protections to same-sex couples while
respecting the deeply held beliefs of those not comfortable
with the idea of marriage rights.
Then, three years ago, I attended the commitment ceremony
of a longtime staff member and his partner of nine years.
Before their friends and family, they professed their love,
commitment and respect for each other. Their sentiments were
just as moving, heartfelt and sincere as any of the vows I
had heard at other weddings, yet I realized
[[Page 4596]]
that their union would not be treated the same under the law.
That difference struck me as fundamentally unjust, and I
began to challenge the wisdom of creating separate categories
of rights for certain groups of citizens. I began to see that
civil unions fell short of the equality I believed that same-
sex couples deserved.
As the debate about same-sex marriage continues in Rhode
Island and in Washington, I have taken time to reflect
carefully on my own position. Based on my own experiences and
my firm belief that all Americans should be treated equally
under the law, I am now convinced that affording full
marriage equality rights to same-sex couples is the only fair
and responsible approach for both Rhode Island and the
nation. If our nation expects to provide equal protection to
all, then our civic institutions must reflect that noble
goal.
As a U.S. representative, I take seriously my
constitutional responsibility to protect the rights and
liberties of our citizens. Marriage equality is consistent
with that view because it safeguards basic civil rights and
provides appropriate legal protections so that all loving and
committed couples may care for each other. At the same time,
our nation's fundamental freedom of religion dictates that
religious institutions should be allowed to define marriage
as they deem appropriate. The marriage-equality legislation
before the General Assembly respects the important separation
of church and state by not requiring religious institutions
to change any of their practices or standards relating to
marriage.
The members of the General Assembly now have a historic
opportunity. As a former member of that body, I understand
the challenges they face, but this is a time for leadership.
During my time as a state representative, I remember
talking with my father about pending legislation to prevent
discrimination based on sexual orientation, which was highly
controversial at the time. While I greatly valued his
thoughtful and balanced perspective, my father was certainly
no social activist. He was just an ordinary man who had grown
up through the civil-rights movement and always believed it
was fundamentally unjust to treat people differently because
of their race. When I told him I had decided to support the
non-discrimination legislation, he expressed his pride in my
decision because it showed that I viewed issues of fairness
and justice as he did. And he was convinced that, in the same
way racial discrimination became a shameful part of our
history, one day our nation would look back in disbelief at a
time when we denied our fellow citizens basic civil rights
based on their sexual orientation. I now believe that day is
within our reach.
As the General Assembly considers this important topic, I
ask lawmakers and all Rhode Islanders to honor our state's
founding principles of tolerance and freedom and to support
marriage equality in our state. It's time to do the right
thing.
____________________
TED STRICKLAND TRIBUTE
______
HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ted Strickland,
one of Colorado's most prominent statesmen. Mr. Strickland, originally
of Austin, Texas, was a Colorado state Representative, Senator and
Lieutenant Governor in a political career that lasted for well over two
decades. His lengthy tenure in public office is a testament to his
adoration for Colorado and desire to make it the wonderful state that
it is today.
Though Mr. Strickland did not grow up in Colorado, it did not take
long for him to make it his permanent home. After working for an oil
well information firm following college in Oklahoma, he decided to run
for a position in the state legislature. He was a popular candidate and
rose quickly within the Republican Party. He held numerous leadership
positions, including his service as Senate President for nine years.
While in office his priority was to strengthen the state economy by
advancing conservative economic principles. He fought for lower taxes,
a balanced budget, and less government spending.
His popularity as a state senator led to his nomination as Lieutenant
Governor under John David Vanderhoof. As the state's 39th Lieutenant
Governor, he was instrumental in the success of Governor Vanderhoof's
administration.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Ted Strickland today. His
impact can still be felt in Colorado and his devotion to the state is
truly exemplary.
____________________
IN TRIBUTE TO FALLEN POLICE OFFICER ANDREW S. DUNN
______
HON. MARCY KAPTUR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of heroic
Sandusky, Ohio police officer Andrew Dunn. This past Friday, March 25,
Officer Dunn, age 30, Badge #2083, was laid to rest in his hometown.
His beloved wife Julie and young children Caleb, 2, and infant Conner,
his parents, friends and neighbors were joined by thousands of citizens
of all ages, hundreds of police officers from near and far, and the
Sandusky police force to honor his last call.
Citizens who gathered formed a vanguard for America as their hearts
united in deep gratitude as well as deep mourning. No words would
capture the solemnity of the occasion nor the weight of loss all who
knew Officer Dunn carry.
Praised as a loving husband, father, son, and friend, officer Dunn
represented the very finest of citizens in our nation. He laid down his
life for us, said those who spoke at the service, negotiating the thin
blue line of freedom.
His comrades offered tributes and prayed in one voice the Policeman's
Prayer:
Lord I ask you for courage
Courage to face and conquer my own fears
Courage to take me where others will not go
I ask for strength
Strength of body to protect others
And strength of spirit to lead others
I ask for dedication
Dedication to my job to do it well
Dedication to my family to love them well
Dedication to my community to serve it well and keep it safe
Give me Lord, concern for others who trust me
And compassion for those who need me
And Lord through it all, Be beside me
In honored memory of Andrew S. Dunn, March 11, 1981--March 19, 2011.
Rest in Peace, good and faithful public servant.
____________________
HONORING SFC TAMMY AMARO FOR THIRTY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE
UNITED STATES ARMY
______
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my most sincere
congratulations and thanks to SFC Tammy Amaro, a constituent of mine,
who retired on January 1, 2011 after thirty years of service in the
United States Army. On behalf of the residents of Illinois' 3rd
District, I am grateful to have the opportunity to thank her for
devoting her career to the U.S. Army and the defense of our nation.
Recruited at the age of 17 by her future husband, then-PFC Frank
Amaro, on December 10, 1980, she immediately demonstrated her potential
and quickly advanced. Her two promotions during her first assignment in
the Adjutant General's office demonstrated her outstanding leadership
abilities. When she reached boot camp in the summer of 1981, she served
as Platoon Guide and was nominated and competed for Trainee of the
Cycle, a highly competitive title.
During SFC Amaro's career, she has collected many honors for
exceptional service. She received her first medal while serving at Fort
Benjamin Harrison; this honor was followed by ten other awards. Her
decorations, including the National Defense Service Ribbon and the
Armed Forces Reserve Medal, show a rare level of dedication to our
nation.
Shortly after returning from Advanced Individual Training at Fort
Benjamin Harrison, SFC Amaro was promoted to the rank of Sergeant on
November 1, 1982. She dedicated 13 years of service, eight active, in
the 86th ARCOM before being promoted to Staff Sergeant and transferring
to the 85th Training Division in Arlington Heights in 1993.
Not only has SFC Amaro been selfless in her service to this country,
she simultaneously managed the competing demands of motherhood. In
1996, she transferred away from active duty to the Individual Ready
Reserve so she could be home full time to care for her daughters
Christina, Catherine, and Jacqueline. She then returned to the Army
Reserves four years later to serve another ten years before retirement.
In that time, she served as the Senior Human Resource NCO for the 1st
Brigade, 85th Division at Fort Sheridan, and as the Operations NCO for
the Emergency Operations Center for the 416th Theater Engineer Command
in Darien, Illinois. On December 10, 2010, exactly thirty years from
her recruitment date, SFC Amaro completed her last day of
[[Page 4597]]
service, marking twenty years of active duty and ten years in the
reserves.
If SFC Amaro's military career were not enough of an achievement on
its own, she has been a devoted mother of three, engaged in her
community and children's schools, and remained an active parishioner at
St. Leonard's church in Berwyn, Illinois.
Please join me in thanking SFC Amaro for a career of service to the
United States and wishing her a long and happy retirement. She is truly
an inspiration and a great American. I am proud to have SFC Amaro as a
constituent and a fellow resident of the 3rd District.
____________________
IN HONOR OF JOHN M. GILLIS OF QUINCY, MA
______
HON. STEPHEN F. LYNCH
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of John M. Gillis, in
recognition of his outstanding contributions to his hometown of Quincy,
Massachusetts, and to commend him for over fifty years of dedicated
service to his community.
John was born on May 16, 1925, in Quincy, Massachusetts. He graduated
from Quincy High School in 1942, where he served as captain of his
football team. Subsequent to his graduation, John enlisted in the
United States Marine Corp. He served with distinction in the South
Pacific during World War II from 1943-1946. Upon completion of his
service, John enrolled at Northeastern University, graduating in 1951.
He served as captain of the 1950 Northeastern Football Team.
Upon graduation, John served as a Quincy firefighter, and then worked
in the office of the state auditor. He was appointed Assistant Quincy
City Clerk in 1957, and served until 1959. Additionally, John was the
Chairman of the Registrar of Voters in 1959. He then served as Quincy
City Clerk from 1959-1992. John was elected Norfolk County Commissioner
in 1992, a position he holds to this day.
John is also an active member of his community. He served as Clerk of
the Quincy City Council from 1959-1992; Chairman of the Licensing Board
from 1963-1992, and currently serves as Trustee at the Norfolk
Agricultural School, a position he has held since 1992. He is a member
of the Quincy High School Athletic Hall of Fame, and is Grand Knight at
the Ave Maria Knights of Columbus.
Known for his quick sense of humor and for his loyalty to his
friends, John has had the good fortune to be married to his wife,
Violet, for fifty-nine years. They are the proud parents of two
children and three grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House
today to join with the family, friends, and contemporaries of John M.
Gillis to thank him for his remarkable service to his hometown of
Quincy, Massachusetts, and to the United States of America.
____________________
HONORING POLTV, A NEW CHICAGO-BASED TELEVISION SERVICE FOR POLISH-
AMERICANS
______
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of PolTV, a
new television service that will broadcast live news, entertainment,
and sports programming straight from Poland into the homes of Poles
living in America and abroad. The service, provided by Chicago-based
Intercom Ventures LLC, will help connect Polish emigrant communities
throughout the world with their native Poland.
PolTV will be the first platform to feature programming from both
major Polish networks, TVN and TVP. The service will initially
broadcast 15 Polish channels, including TVN International, and will
offer over 20 channels within the first 60 days of launch. TVN
International provides news and entertainment designed for Poles living
abroad and features popular Polish films, TV shows, and documentaries.
As Intercom Ventures' third ethnic television product, PolTV follows
ShiqpTV, which provides programming for Albanians living abroad, and
BosnaTV, which provides the same service for Bosnian emigrants. PolTV's
innovative platform offers high definition television, video on demand,
and various internet applications.
Founders Drilon Qehaja and Tony Hoti are two American immigrants from
Kosovo who embody the American entrepreneurial spirit. Following the
Kosovo War, Qehaja started a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) long
distance phone company that enabled subscribers to connect with family
and friends, providing a much needed sense of normalcy in the war-torn
nation. At age 20, Hoti became the youngest financial advisor at the
firm AG Edwards in San Diego and, after graduating from Roosevelt
College in Chicago, opened a day spa in Chicago's Gold Coast at age 26.
The two teamed up to found Intercom Ventures in 2006.
I have faith that the smart, consumer-driven PolTV service will have
a unifying effect for the Polish-American community. By providing daily
news from news channels operating in Poland, PolTV will increase
Polish-Americans' access to personally relevant international news,
thereby helping them to cultivate strong cultural, familial and
community relationships. As a Polish-American and Co-Chair of the
Polish-American Caucus, I am very excited about the possibilities for
PolTV in the future.
Please join me in honoring Intercom Ventures for creating PolTV, a
responsible community-driven company for the Polish-American
population. I am confident that it will successfully provide excellent
services for immigrants for many years to come.
____________________
HAMMOND SPORTS HALL OF FAME 2011 INDUCTION BANQUET
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sincerity and admiration
that I offer congratulations to several of Hammond's most noteworthy
athletes, as well as to others who have contributed to the legacy of
Hammond's athletic programs. On Tuesday, March 8, 2011, the Hammond
Sports Hall of Fame honored eight new inductees at its annual Induction
Banquet, which was held at the Hammond Civic Center in Hammond,
Indiana. The Hammond Sports Hall of Fame was established in 1987 to
recognize and honor individuals for their significant contributions to
Hammond's distinguished sports legacy. These eight individuals are an
admirable group, composed of former athletes, coaches, and elected
officials who have excelled in their athletic pursuits or supported
Hammond sports and athletics in an extraordinary manner.
At this year's induction ceremony, the Hammond Sports Hall of Fame
recognized and honored the 2011 inductees. The individuals who have so
deservingly earned this high honor are: Thomas McDermott, Sr., Marty
Jakubowski, Frank Carroll, Tom Burns, Jeff Yelton, Carla Eskridge
Rogers, David M. Wilhelm, and Bill Atkins.
Hammond is very fortunate to have produced such a rich tradition of
excellence among its athletes, coaches, and supporters. In unique ways,
the Class of 2011 inductees have made extraordinary contributions and
have added to Hammond's rich sports heritage.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues
join me in congratulating these outstanding individuals. Along with the
current members of the Hammond Sports Hall of Fame, these new inductees
have made a significant contribution to the continued excellence of
Hammond athletics, and I am very proud to represent them in Washington,
DC.
____________________
IN REMEMBRANCE OF RALPH WARREN GOEHRING
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Ralph
Warren Goehring, a loving husband, father, grandfather and friend. Mr.
Goehring's strong passion for education and dedication to hard-work
benefited many in the community.
Mr. Goehring was raised in Pittsburgh, and graduated from Indiana
University of Pennsylvania and Penn State University. He served as a
Marine during World War II in the Pacific and was subsequently awarded
several medals for his brave service.
Mr. Goehring moved to Lorain in 1952 and became a social studies
teacher. He taught for 31 years at Lorain High School and Hawthorne Jr.
High School in Lorain. He was best
[[Page 4598]]
known for teaching a special course called ``Problems of Democracy.''
Throughout his career, he also served as a leader for the Lorain
Education Association.
As an educator and a strong proponent of labor rights, Mr. Goehring
led the fight for collective bargaining rights before Ohio passed laws
protecting those rights. When the school district fired all the
strikers, Goehring reassured his colleagues that the district could not
replace 900 workers. Sure enough, with Ralph Goering's strong
leadership and perseverance for justice, the workers won their jobs
back. As one friend recounted, Ralph ``felt that collective bargaining
made things better in Lorain for the students, teachers and district.''
After retiring, Ralph worked with the Internal Revenue Service in
Cleveland and he used the skills he learned there to help seniors with
their taxes in Lorain. He also served as a retiree executive member of
the North Eastern Ohio Education Association, where he worked as an
editor for their newsletters.
Mr. Goehring is survived by his wife, three children, two grandsons,
two step-granddaughters and five step-great-grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering Ralph
Warren Goehring, whose legacy of professionalism, service to the
community and determination for justice will forever stand as an
example of what it means to be a community leader.
____________________
HONORING MR. F. WARREN HUGHES FOR HIS SERVICE TO YANCEY COUNTY
______
HON. HEATH SHULER
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. F. Warren Hughes
for his 27 years of service to Yancey County.
After graduating law school, Mr. Hughes began his professional career
as an attorney before being appointed to fill the vacant position as
Clerk of Superior Court for Yancey County in 1984. Through his 27 years
of public service, he has successfully been elected each term and has
only been challenged once.
Mr. Hughes's office is highly regarded and is considered one of the
top clerk's offices in the State of North Carolina. For his work with
the N.C. Courts Commission, the N.C. Judicial Council, and as President
of the N.C. Clerks Association, his reputation is known throughout the
State. He is also distinguished as one the few clerks in the State who
is also an attorney.
His legacy in the Yancey County Community will not be forgotten. I am
grateful to have dedicated and hard working people like Mr. Hughes as
public servants in Western North Carolina.
I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the exceptional
career of Mr. F. Warren Hughes, Clerk of Superior Court for Yancey
County.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS NINTH
ANNUAL CIVIL RIGHTS BANQUET
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Ohio Chapter on the occasion of their
Ninth Annual Civil Rights Banquet entitled ``Carrying the Legacy:
Advancing with Confidence.''
CAIR is a nationwide, nonprofit organization whose mission is to
``enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil
liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote
justice and mutual understanding.'' For the past nine years, CAIR Ohio
has played an instrumental role in helping to bridge the divides
between Greater Cleveland's diverse communities. CAIR Ohio's Ninth
Annual Banquet will provide a platform for vibrant discourse led by
this year's distinguished speakers: Chip Pitts Esq., of Stanford Law
School, Oxford University and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and
Kareem Irfan, Esq. President of the Council of Religious Leaders of
Metropolitan Chicago. I commend these speakers for their efforts to
promote civil liberties and social justice.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the Council
on American-Islamic Relations Ohio Chapter for their eight years of
outstanding achievement. May their efforts to promote dialogue and
create a more inclusive world continue to endure.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO TRAVIS CREDIT UNION ON RECEIVING THE DESJARDINS
YOUTH FINANCIAL EDUCATION AWARD
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate
Travis Credit Union on receiving the Desjardins Youth Financial
Education Award earlier this month here in Washington, DC.
The Desjardins Youth Financial Education Award is given out by the
Credit Union National Association to recognize excellent work done by a
credit union to advance youth financial literacy. Especially given the
current state of the economy, it is critically important that our young
people learn the necessary skills to make wise financial decisions.
I am proud to say that Travis Credit Union, which is based in
Vacaville, California, in my congressional district, is a most
deserving recipient of this award. Travis Credit Union has worked with
a number of other groups in our community to establish the Money
Matters Program, which provides financial literacy education, custodial
bank accounts, and personal financial mentors for foster youth ages 15
to 17. After completion of the Money Matters classes, the youths open
Travis Credit Union savings accounts with a modest balance. This
important program is of great benefit to these young people as they
work to become successful, independent adults.
The Money Matters Program is just one of Travis Credit Union's many
efforts to provide financial education to our community and its young
people. The credit union has done an excellent job of ensuring that
members of our community receive the financial knowledge that they need
to make smart decisions and to avoid some of the pitfalls that have
caused so much hardship through the ongoing financial crisis.
I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Travis Credit Union
for receiving the Desjardins Youth Financial Education Award, and I
urge financial institutions across the country to look to Travis Credit
Union as an example.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE HOTZ CAFE
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hotz Cafe, which
after 92 years of service is closing their doors. The patrons and loyal
customers of this fine establishment will remember the service and
memories that the Hotz Cafe offered.
Hotz Cafe was founded on the corner of Starkweather Avenue and West
10th Street in 1919 by John Hotz Sr. John, a Russian immigrant, wished
to open the cafe to serve as a place of comfort, relaxation and
comradery for fellow immigrants and industrial workers. This
establishment quickly became a favorite of all the area's workers and
was also seen as a home away from home. When the Prohibition Era
commenced, the Hotz Cafe continued as a speakeasy and became well known
for its famous patrons, such as Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Elliot Ness and
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When the Great Depression struck, John Hotz
saw an opportunity to assist those who were less fortunate and
consistently gave out bread to those families who were downtrodden.
The dawn of the 50s ushered in a new era for the Hotz Cafe. John
Sr.'s sons, Andrew and Mike took control of their father's business.
Andrew strived to ensure that his father's legacy lived on. During this
era, the cafe remained a favored place of leisure among the working
class. In addition to their devotion to the cafe, the sons' family
began to expand. Andrew's wife Betty opened up a beauty salon in 1967
adjacent to the cafe and in 2003 Andrew's son John opened up a pizza
parlor in the location that formerly held his mother's beauty salon.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the legacy of
Hotz Cafe. For over 90 years, this establishment provided the Tremont
community with a welcoming and hospitable environment for the
community's enjoyment.
[[Page 4599]]
____________________
HONORING MS. BRIDGETTE DIXON THURMAN
______
HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
Proclamation:
Whereas, in the Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, there are
many individuals who are called to contribute to the needs of our
community through leadership and service; and
Whereas, Ms. Bridgette Dixon Thurman has answered that call by giving
of herself as an educator at Dunaire Elementary, and as a beloved
daughter, mother and friend; and
Whereas, Ms. Thurman has been chosen as the 2011 Teacher of the Year,
representing Dunaire Elementary school; and
Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents for
the betterment of our community and our nation through her tireless
works, motivational speeches and words of wisdom; and
Whereas, Ms. Thurman is a virtuous woman, a courageous woman and a
fearless leader who has shared her vision, talents and passion to help
ensure that our children, receive an education that is relevant not
only for today, but well into the future, as she truly understands that
our children are the future; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Bridgette Dixon
Thurman for her leadership and service for our District and in
recognition of this singular honor as 2011 Teacher of the Year at
Dunaire Elementary School;
Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
March 23, 2011 as Ms. Bridgette Dixon Thurman Day in the 4th
Congressional District.
Proclaimed, this 23rd day of March, 2011.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE PARMA PARK REFORMED CHURCH
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
Parma Park Reformed Church, also known as the ``Church in the Woods,''
which will be closing its doors following fifty years of ministry.
The congregation of Parma Park Reformed Church began in 1960. They
met in a local grade school until the Church in the Woods was
constructed in 1962. Since then, the congregation has been deeply
involved in the community. The church offered Bible studies, Alcoholics
Anonymous groups, and grief support groups. Community outreach projects
included a meal program called ``Pay it Forward'' and a program in
which the congregation's children sent gifts and correspondence to
military units in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Church in the Woods has
also been a popular location for private, intimate wedding ceremonies.
At the end of March, Parma Park Reform Church will host its final
service. The congregation intends to continue its services through
other nearby churches.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Parma Park
Reform Church. Its presence will be sorely missed; however, I have no
doubt that its mission will live on. We need only look to the words
written on every Sunday worship bulletin: ``Our Service has ended; our
Worship continues.''
____________________
WISHING OLIVER (OLLIE) SPERAW A HAPPY 90TH BIRTHDAY
______
HON. DANIEL E. LUNGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize and honor an old friend, Oliver (Ollie) Speraw, who on March
26, 2011 turned 90 years of age. Ollie has lived a life full of notable
accomplishments where he became a captain of industry and a humble
public servant.
Ollie grew up in Long Beach after moving there at a young age with
his family from Minnesota. As a young man Ollie worked in a number of
different trades and contributed to the early war effort, riveting P-
38s, before finally coming of age to enlist in the Army Air Corps and
serve during WW2. After returning home he entered the Real Estate
Business, starting Sparrow Reality, and became one of the original
pioneers of Century 21 Real Estate. Throughout his life, Ollie has been
actively involved in his home town of Long Beach and the surrounding
region, participating in multiple organizations such as the Long Beach
Jaycees, Oceanside Chamber of Commerce and the Oceanside Rotary. In
1954, he began his first position in civilian public service as a
member of the Long Beach Water Board, and served there until 1969.
Ollie was inspired by Ronald Reagan, California's Governor at the time,
and his message of an efficient, cost-cutting government. He
subsequently volunteered for one of the Governor's citizen committees.
Out of this inspiration, Ollie became more active in politics, which
led him to become a Board Member on the 31st Senate District Republican
Central Committee, of which I was also a member at the time. Ollie
moved on to win his first election in 1979, where he joined the
California State Senate and served there until 1984. While in the
Senate he gained a reputation as a protector of the taxpayer who sought
to make government leaner, effective and more efficient. Californians
who have a little red organ donor sticker on their Drivers Licenses can
be reminded daily of just a small piece of his legislative legacy.
Ollie served his country with honor in World War II, helped pioneer
one of the largest employers in the Real Estate industry and has
honorably served the people of California as one of their elected
officials. It has been my pleasure to know Ollie Speraw and more
importantly, to call him my friend. Please join me in wishing him a
happy 90th birthday.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF JAMES J. GNEW
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of James J.
Gnew, a praiseworthy individual who has devoted his life to upholding
the law and defending the lives and wellbeing of the citizens of
Cleveland.
James' service to others began early in his life. In 1966, James
joined the Army to serve his country in Vietnam. After leaving the
Army, he joined the Cleveland Police Department, extending his service
to the community at large. He was noted for his superb talents as an
officer of the law and in 1978 he was chosen to be a part of a high
risk tactical division which would eventually become the Cleveland SWAT
team.
His tenure as a valued member of the SWAT team is filled with
numerous achievements. Throughout his career he conducted over 400 high
risk operations. One such incident occurred on January 4th, 1984. James
led his team in successfully defusing a hostage scenario at Cleveland's
Hopkins International Airport. James handled the situation
exceptionally well. In recognition of his acts of heroism, he received
numerous awards including a Silver Star, 3 Medals of Heroism, a Medal
of Valor and the Ohio Tactical Officers Association Lifetime
Achievement award.
James is also a caring husband and father. He loves his wife Cheryl
dearly, and his three children are always in James' thoughts.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring James J. Gnew,
whose life and legacy will always be cherished by the Cleveland
community. James has been a diligent and vital asset to the Cleveland
community and he will always be honored and remembered by those he
serves.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. LANCE O. DIEHL
______
HON. LOU BARLETTA
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge Mr.
Lance O. Diehl of Millville being named the Columbia-Montour Council of
the Boy Scouts of America's 2011 Distinguished Citizen.
Mr. Diehl is a longtime resident of Northeastern Pennsylvania. He
graduated from Millville High School in 1984, and graduated Magna Cum
Laude from Bloomsburg University in 1988. In 1990, he earned his
Master's Degree in Business Administration from Lehigh University, and
in 1993, he graduated from the Stonier Graduate School of Banking. In
the past, Mr. Diehl has served on the boards of the Bloomsburg Chapter
of the American Red Cross, the United Way of Columbia County, and the
Columbia-Montour Business & Educational Partnership. Currently, Mr.
Diehl serves on the boards of the Millville
[[Page 4600]]
Mutual Insurance Company, the Millville Community Alliance, and the
Pennsylvania Bankers Association. He is vice chairman of the Columbia
Alliance for Economic Growth, and the president and CEO of First
Columbia Bank & Trust Co. and CCFNB Bancorp.
Mr. Diehl has always been dedicated to his community. In 1995, Mr.
Diehl was the co-chair of the Little Fishing Creek Swimming Pool
Renovations. In 1999, he was the co-chair of the Columbia County United
Way Campaign. Mr. Diehl has always enjoyed coaching the youth of our
community. He has held coaching positions with Millville Boys Varsity
Basketball, Millville Boys & Girls Junior High Basketball, Millville
Boys and Girls Elementary Basketball, Little League, and AYSO Soccer.
Mr. Diehl is an active member of Millville United Methodist Church,
serving on various committees and acting as a Sunday School teacher.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Diehl has been an active and dedicated member of our
community. He has taken a role as a humanitarian and mentor. His
service has helped many of his neighbors and guided many of our youth.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Mr.
Lance O. Diehl on being named the Columbia-Montour Council of the Boy
Scouts of America's 2011 Distinguished Citizen.
____________________
TOBACCO PRODUCTS SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
______
HON. VIRGINIA FOXX
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to call attention to a
significant conflict of interest within the Tobacco Products Scientific
Advisory Committee (TPSAC)--a conflict that can and should cast doubt
on its recent report to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regarding the effect of menthol cigarettes on the public health.
Last year, I submitted a statement for the Record referencing a
Boston Globe article entitled ``FDA Lax on Conflicts of Interest,'' and
I'm saddened to see that this problem continues to this day at the FDA.
Since the FDA announced the nine voting members of TPSAC, questions
have surfaced regarding financial and ethical conflicts of interest
among several of the members. Rather than investigate the alleged
conflicts and eliminate the shadow of doubt looming over the committee,
the FDA has stood idly by as these conflicts have festered and
threatened to undermine the very purpose TPSAC was formed to serve.
Several members appointed to TPSAC have substantial financial
interests at stake in the decisions rendered by the Committee. One
member is an active consultant to drug companies that manufacture
smoking cessation products. Another member stands to make money on a
patented new smoking cessation drug. Both of these members have also
testified against tobacco companies in several legal proceedings. The
conflicts could not be clearer.
Now, we find that TPSAC has, as many of the original skeptics
predicted, released a recommendation that, short of an outright ban,
nevertheless notes that ``removal of menthol cigarettes from the
marketplace would benefit the public health.'' Rather than accept
TPSAC's report as an unbiased call to action, we are faced with the
same controversy that should have been corrected more than a year ago.
The people deserve a government free from the appearance of
impropriety. They have entrusted the members of this Chamber, as well
as officials appointed within the Administration, to enforce the law
even-handedly and to engage in policy decisions unencumbered by
conflicts of interest, personal biases, or unethical predispositions.
The only solution is for FDA to reject the recommendation of TPSAC
and appoint new, unbiased members to the committee in order to carry
out the purpose of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
Act. The FDA owes the people a fair and untarnished recommendation on
this important issue and I call on the FDA to take appropriate measures
to remedy TPSAC's inane report and conclusions.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO GENERAL JAMES R. JOSEPH
______
HON. LOU BARLETTA
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and acknowledge
Major General James R. Joseph and congratulate him on his recent
promotion to Assistant Adjutant General--Army, Pennsylvania, National
Guard, Joint Force Headquarters, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Joseph, or ``Jimmy Joe,'' as I know him, enlisted as a soldier in
1971 to begin his military career. He graduated from basic training at
Fort Dix, New Jersey, and obtained his advanced individual training as
a military policeman at Fort Gordon, Georgia. General Joseph completed
a tour of duty in Vietnam, where he was assigned to the 716th Military
Police Battalion. He finished his active duty tour at Fort Polk,
Louisiana, with the 258th Military Police Company.
But General Joseph did not stop serving our country. He joined the
Pennsylvania Army National Guard in 1974 and was assigned to be a
combat engineer with Company C, 876th Engineer Battalion. Currently,
General Joseph serves as the primary advisor to the Adjutant General
for all joint logistics matters, including commodity and material
management, property and personnel movement, storage and distribution,
and defense movement coordination, including the acquisition and
sustainment of unique equipment used by National Guard units in
homeland defense, civil support, and counterdrug operations. He has
oversight of the Eastern Army Aviation Training Site, 166th Regional
Training Institute, and the Medical Battalion Training Site.
Mr. Speaker, General Joseph has dedicated his life to serving our
country. His family has made sacrifices as he committed himself to
protecting our freedom and keeping our citizens safe. His courage and
commitment is something to be greatly respected and honored. Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to congratulate my friend, ``Jimmy Joe,'' and I ask
my colleagues to stand with me in honoring Major General James R.
Joseph for his greatly deserved promotion to Assistant Adjutant General
of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 804
______
HON. BOB FILNER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, in September 2010, Operation Iraqi Freedom
was renamed Operation New Dawn.
To this effect, I introduced, H.R. 804, legislation that would ensure
that military service in Operation New Dawn continues to be considered
service in a theater of operations, for purposes of eligibility for
veterans' hospital and nursing home care and medical services through
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Our nation's brave men and women have fought together hand in hand in
the war against terror, and many of them are experiencing multiple and
extended deployments in support of Iraq and Afghanistan.
When they return home, we must make certain that veterans would not
be denied access to certain programs because of the way the law is
currently written.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
____________________
OVERREACHING ACTIONS OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
______
HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, while being later to the effort
than my good friend Congressman Ron Paul, many of you know that I have
long expressed concerns about the sometimes overreaching actions of
federal law enforcement, especially as they interact with American
citizens.
Most law enforcement officials in this country are highly ethical
with a strong desire to serve the effort to keep our country and our
communities safe. Unfortunately, as in any profession, there are some
people who do not uphold those standards.
Those concerns are a principal reason why the Bill of Rights was
passed. Those concerns should also hold a primary place in our thinking
as we vote on legislation.
This issue came closer to home for me as two constituents, one a U.S.
citizen, were arrested by federal law enforcement officials this month,
accused of violating a law that doesn't exist. My office attempted to
get information about their arrest. We were denied information about
which agency had arrested them, where they were being held, and the
charges against them.
All of the charges against them were dropped just eight days later
after a federal
[[Page 4601]]
judge reviewed the evidence and determined that no crime had been
committed. The cost to my constituents was in the tens of thousands of
dollars. They are still being threatened with the forfeiture of
property.
Now compare the plight of this American citizen with millions of
people who have crossed into this country illegally. They proudly
attend rallies and speak on television, openly proclaiming that they
are in this country in defiance of our laws. Many do not pay taxes
while many others are receiving monetary benefits from the government.
It is reprehensible that our federal law enforcement would falsely
and recklessly arrest one of our own citizens who owns a small
business, pays taxes, and employs other Americans, while allowing
lawbreakers from other countries to openly flaunt their violation of
our laws. American citizens are not being served when the priorities of
the federal government are so twisted.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 805
______
HON. BOB FILNER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, there are not many of us who have not heard
of the horrific battleground stories experienced by our young men and
women who have served in Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring
Freedom. These stories reveal a gruesome and difficult war in which
servicemembers often sustain long lasting emotional and physical
injuries. Of these injuries, none is more deafening than the
amputations undergone by servicemembers as a direct result of the
widespread use of roadside bombs otherwise known as improvised
explosive devices (IEDs).
This class of injury, which has spiked significantly since the onset
of the Operation New Dawn, requires special consideration within the
Department of Veterans Affairs. After returning home, these individuals
must embark upon extensive rehabilitation and special treatment to
receive a shot at living a normal life, and this is why I have
introduced H.R. 805.
H.R. 805 instructs the VA to actively inform veterans and educate
employees at each VA prosthetics and orthotics clinic of the Injured
and Amputee Veterans' Bill of Rights. In addition, this bill requires
the VA to monitor and resolve complaints from injured and amputee
veterans alleging mistreatment.
I believe that this bill will do much to protect the rights of our
injured and amputee veterans, as well as bolster the consistency of
prosthetic and orthotic care throughout the VA health system.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TODD ROKITA
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 193, I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________
TAIWAN WOULD BE A CONSTRUCTIVE MEMBER OF THE UNFCCC
______
HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan is one of the
most geologically sensitive regions of the world and they are keenly
aware of their vulnerability to the various threats of accelerating
global environmental change.
Taiwan recognizes that the climate system is a shared resource whose
stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. For these reasons, Taiwan would be
a constructive member of the global organizations of the United Nations
(UN) through its Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As a
member of UNFCCC, Taiwan will be able to contribute their skills and
experiences to the world community such as gathering and sharing
information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies and best
practices, providing financial and technological support to developing
countries and preparing for adaptations to the impacts of climate
change.
Since 2008, Taiwan's new administration has proactively engaged in
many UN activities. In 2009, UN member states for the first time
accepted Taiwan as an official observer for the World Health Assembly.
The UN should further consider Taiwan's inclusion in the United
Nations' environmental conventions and activities.
____________________
END VETERAN HOMELESSNESS
______
HON. BOB FILNER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, research tells us that veterans are over
represented in the homeless population. VA is the largest single
provider of homeless services reaching about 25 percent of that
population.
VA operates a wide variety of homeless veterans programs designed to
provide outreach, supportive services, health care as well as
counseling and treatment for mental health and substance use disorders.
They rely heavily on their partnerships with the community and faith
based organizations to provide these services.
Many of VA's homeless population:
Have had a serious psychiatric problem defined as psychosis, mood
disorder or PTSD.
Were dependent on alcohol and/or drugs.
Were dually diagnosed with serious psychiatric and substance abuse
problems.
Have suffered from a serious medical problem.
The number of homeless women veterans is rising.
Prior to becoming homeless, a large number of veterans at risk have
struggled with PTSD or have addictions acquired during, or worsened by,
their military service. These conditions can interrupt their ability to
keep a job, establish savings, and in some cases, maintain family
harmony.
Veterans' family, social, and professional networks may have been
broken due to extensive mobility while in service or lengthy periods
away from their hometowns and their civilian jobs. These problems are
directly traceable to their experience in military service or to their
return to civilian society without having had appropriate transitional
supports.
VA reports that approximately 1,500 homeless veterans are from
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation New Dawn. This is a growing
population. It took roughly a decade for the lives of Vietnam veterans
to unravel to the point that they started showing up among the
homeless.
Concern has been expressed by many that such an early showing of more
recent veterans in the homeless population does not bode well. It is
also believed that the intense repeated deployments leave newer
veterans particularly vulnerable.
We know the Department of Veterans Affairs has many programs to
address currently homeless veterans, and they do a great job. However,
the most important piece to ending homelessness among the Nation's
veteran population is to prevent it in the first place.
It is unacceptable that even one of our veterans sleep on the streets
or in shelters after risking their lives on behalf of this country.
My legislation, H.R. 806, will go a long way in strengthening our
efforts to ultimately end homelessness.
This bill increases funding to successful programs for homeless
veterans; requires each VA medical center that provides supporting
housing services to provide housing counselors; requires housing
counselors to conduct landlord research; strengthens permanent housing
programs, and pays special interest to the needs of homeless women
veterans and homeless veterans with children.
The time to act is now. We cannot afford to let history repeat
itself.
I urge your support of this important legislation.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ELIZABETH TAYLOR
______
HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Elizabeth Taylor last
week, America, and the world, lost much more than a great movie
actress, more than a celebrated legend and cherished celebrity, and
more than a woman of enduring beauty and appeal.
[[Page 4602]]
We lost a champion fighter for the survival and dignity of those with
HIV/AIDS.
Of many causes which Elizabeth Taylor embraced, such as her support
for the State of Israel and the Jewish people, it was her great courage
and selfless commitment that defined her work to support every effort
to find a cure for HIV/AIDS, and to protect the rights of every person
living with HIV/AIDS.
We forget how long and hard the struggle has been--precisely because
of the heroic progress that has been made, medically and socially, in
treating and living with HIV/AIDS. It's hard to remember, but in the
early 1980s, people knew very little about AIDS. The nation went on a
publicity roller-coaster, going from complacency to panic and back
again.
She was among a handful of people in those early days of the epidemic
who managed to get us to the right level of urgency. One, obviously,
was Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. Another was Tony Fauci at NIH.
But many people got their most memorable information from an
unexpected source--Elizabeth Taylor. Beginning with her concern for her
friends who were sick, she became an ambassador for people living with
AIDS, for their doctors, and for AIDS research. When the Reagan White
House was refusing even to acknowledge that tens of thousands of
Americans were sick and dying, she went public.
To those who would shun our fellow citizens with HIV/AIDS, Elizabeth
Taylor literally embraced them--showing us how to respond to a terrible
illness that exacted a relentless toll on millions.
And so it was Elizabeth Taylor who called us to account every day, as
individuals and as a society, for the humanity of those with HIV/AIDS.
Working with Dr. Mathilde Krim, Elizabeth Taylor championed the
American Foundation for AIDS Research, a group that advocated for AIDS
research and found funding for research that no one else was
financing--functions it serves to this day.
To her enduring credit, Ms. Taylor leveraged her unique celebrity to
speak truth to power, going to the media, the Administration, and
Congress to urge ongoing attention and funding to the epidemic.
She testified before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
of the House Commerce Committee about the need for research,
prevention, education and treatment and about the Congress'
responsibilities to find funds for them. Her efforts helped seal public
support for the 1990 Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency
(CARE) Act.
She was a movie star. But she used her star power to do something
that scientists, doctors, and public health officials could not have
accomplished on their own. She made the nation stop, look, listen, and
understand what was at stake for those with HIV/AIDS and for us as a
society.
In this way, Elizabeth Taylor helped motivate us to start doing
needed work.
For that we owe her more than movie-star fame. She may be remembered
most for her screen roles. But it was her living role as a healer for
which we owe Elizabeth Taylor a debt of profound gratitude--for lives
improved and lives saved, for advances in treatment and prevention, and
for the hope of one day finding a cure for HIV/AIDS.
____________________
SENATOR BARBARA MIKULSKI'S VISION
______
HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud those who are leading
America toward equality and equity for all people--and, especially, to
commend Maryland's Senior Senator, Barbara Mikulski.
As a father, my greatest hope is for the continued social progress
that will allow my daughters to achieve the full measure of their
dreams. That is why, during Women's History Month each year, I am
thinking more about our future than about our past.
Recently, President Obama, also the father of two daughters,
expressed the same perspective.
``While enormous progress has been made,'' he observed, ``there is
still work to be done before women achieve true parity.''
His observation is backed up by ``kitchen table'' economics. When
women are not treated fairly, their families suffer as a result.
One would think that the concept of equal pay for equal work is so
American that it would already be a ``done deal'' in this country. Yet,
we know that equal pay is not yet a reality.
Family hardships result from the harsh reality that women, on
average, make just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in
comparable jobs (just 69 cents if you are an African American woman--
and 59 cents if you are a Latina woman).
Last week, Senator Mikulski was afforded another opportunity to
remind everyone of this still-to-be-achieved civil rights goal as we
participated in an event honoring Lilly Ledbetter, the woman whose
Supreme Court equal opportunity case led to the ``Lilly Ledbetter Fair
Pay Act of 2009.''
As she was applauding Ms. Ledbetter for the courage and determination
she had shown fighting for fair pay, I had the opportunity to reflect
on Barbara Mikulski's vision for America--and upon all that she has
achieved in public life.
Maryland's senior Senator is a remarkable human being--and a person I
am honored to call my friend.
When I first entered the Congress after a Special Election in 1996,
Barbara was there for me, helping us to get our office up and running
as quickly as possible so no one in Maryland's 7th Congressional
District would lack representation.
I have never forgotten that kindness. It was a practical
demonstration of the same human compassion that Barbara Mikulski has
offered to tens of thousands of Marylanders over the years.
It is why she has become a national leader--and why her colleagues in
the Senate have supported her work and leadership on two of its most
prestigious committees: Appropriations and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
We all have an interest in women and their families receiving fair
pay for the work that they perform. Maryland's Senior Senator was one
of the essential leaders in our efforts to enact the Affordable Care
Act, as well as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Yet, despite the national prominence that she has achieved, ``Senator
Barb'' has never lost that candor, honesty and strength that are so
typical of the Highlandtown of her youth.
In her family's grocery store, she learned the challenges faced by
working families. Then, as a social worker, she perfected the skills
that she needed to become an effective leader in our cause.
Today, I doubt whether there is a single person in our home State of
Maryland who does not know what Senator Mikulski stands for. Her
progressive values are solid and clear. We know that she is going to
fight for all of us every single day.
Less well known, however, is Barbara Mikulski's lifetime vision of
bringing all of America's working families together in support of
progressive change. It is a dream that ties together her roots in
Highlandtown with my own South and West Baltimore heritage:
``Unfortunately, because of old prejudices and new fears,'' she
observed back in 1970, ``anger is generated [within European ethnic
communities] against other minority groups rather than those who have
power. What is needed is an alliance of white and black, white collar,
blue collar and no collar based upon mutual need, interdependence and
respect--an alliance to develop the strategy for new kinds of community
organization and political participation.''
All Americans are better off for our progress toward achieving
Barbara Mikulski's dream--and the movement toward a better America that
her dream sustains.
____________________
LIZBETH BLANCO-RAMOS
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Lizbeth Blanco-Ramos for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Lizbeth Blanco-Ramos is a 12th grader at
Warren Tech North and received this award because her determination and
hard work have allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Lizbeth Blanco-Ramos is exemplary of
the type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential students at all levels strive to make the
most of their education and develop a work ethic which will guide them
for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Lizbeth Blanco-Ramos for
winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I
have no doubt she will exhibit the same dedication and character in all
her future accomplishments.
[[Page 4603]]
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House Floor during
rollcall votes on H. Con. Res. 28 and H.R. 1076. Had I been present, I
would have voted against both of these bills.
____________________
HONORING MR. JONATHAN SMALLS
______
HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
proclamation:
Whereas, a tenacious man from Frogmore, South Carolina utilizes his
gifts, talents and wisdom everyday to insure that veterans and their
families are provided resources in the state of Georgia; and
Whereas, Mr. Jonathan Smalls is a renowned leader not only for his
hometown of Frogmore, South Carolina, but as a husband, father and
community leader in DeKalb County, Georgia; and
Whereas, Mr. Jonathan Smalls served our Country honorably for Twenty-
eight (28) years in the U.S. Army as an Army Ranger, retiring as a
Command Sergeant Major, he is a man of honor and a strong advocate of
justice, education and family; and
Whereas, this model citizen has shared his time and talents for the
betterment of his community and his nation through his tireless works,
words of encouragement and inspiration that have and continues to be a
beacon of light to those in need; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Jonathan Smalls for his
outstanding leadership and service to the citizens in the state of
Georgia, his community temperament is to be acknowledged and his
commitment to the citizens throughout the state continues to touch the
lives of citizens in our District;
Now Therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
March 20, 2011 as Jonathan Smalls Day in the 4th Congressional
District.
Proclaimed, this 20th day of March, 2011.
____________________
KAYLA KOVAL
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Kayla Koval for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors
for Youth award. Kayla Koval is a 7th grader at Drake Middle School and
received this award because her determination and hard work have
allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Kayla Koval is exemplary of the type
of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It
is essential students at all levels strive to make the most of their
education and develop a work ethic which will guide them for the rest
of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Kayla Koval for winning the
Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt
she will exhibit the same dedication and character in all her future
accomplishments.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE CAREER AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF SUSAN BENDER
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek Congressional
recognition of the exceptional achievements and outstanding career of
Susan Bender. Over the course of her almost 40-year professional career
with Jewish Community Centers (JCC) in New York City and Long Island,
Susan worked tirelessly to ensure that families and individuals living
in New York City and Long Island had access to mental-health and
social-service programs. She has not only been an innovative leader and
unyielding advocate for individuals with disabilities, but also a
dedicated leader in her community.
After graduating from Brooklyn College with a degree in speech
pathology, Susan began working at JCCs with distinction. She started
her career at the Staten Island Jewish Community Center as the Director
of Early Childhood Development. In 1988, she moved to be the Executive
Director at the Young Men's-Young Women's Hebrew Association in
Westchester, New York. Then, in 1992, Susan became the Executive
Director of the Sid Jacobson Jewish Community Center in East Hills, New
York, in my congressional district.
Under Susan's enthusiastic direction, Sid Jacobson has flourished.
The Center dramatically expanded its facility in East Hills and also
added the Bernice Jacobson Day School and Camp in Old Westbury, New
York. Susan developed the Center's noted innovative programs for
autistic children, single parents, and the bereaved. She helped found a
first-of-its-kind program for adults with early-onset Alzheimer's and
their families.
Today, the Center has a staff of over 250, an annual budget of $12
million, and offers an extensive catalog of dynamic programs for people
of all ages and abilities. The success of the Center is a direct
testament to the strength of Susan's leadership and her dedication to
providing community members with the best possible services.
In addition to her work at Sid Jacobson, Susan has applied her energy
and vision in a variety of leadership roles in the national JCC
movement. She served as a member of the Jewish Community Center
Association's board of directors, was president of the Association of
Jewish Center Professionals (AJCP) for the Eastern Region, and, in
2002, was named the national president of the AJCP.
Mr. Speaker, this year Susan Bender will retire having contributed
immeasurably to her community. I am proud to recognize Susan and I ask
my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her lifetime of tremendous
work for others.
____________________
KAYLEEN LAWTON
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Kayleen Lawton for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors
for Youth award. Kayleen Lawton is an 8th grader at North Arvada Middle
School and received this award because her determination and hard work
have allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Kayleen Lawton is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential students at all levels strive to make the
most of their education and develop a work ethic which will guide them
for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Kayleen Lawton for winning the
Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt
she will exhibit the same dedication and character in all her future
accomplishments.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF RUSSELL R. CHARD FROM THE HOLLYWOOD FIRE
DEPARTMENT
______
HON. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
retirement of Russell R. Chard from the Hollywood Fire Department.
Mr. Chard has more than 30 years of distinguished service working on
behalf of Hollywood, Florida's fire fighters, paramedics and local
safety community. For the last 20 years, Mr. Chard served as President
of Local 1375, overseeing the welfare of its membership, fighting for
the professional standards and ensuring the safe working conditions
that are befitting of the service of these men and women.
Known as a coalition builder, President Chard served a critical role
as liaison to all associated areas for the Local, as well as outside
groups such as the AFL-CIO, Florida Professional Firefighters and
Paramedics, International Association of Fire Fighters, and Maritime
Trade Council. This commitment to the betterment of the community was
second only to his dedication to his brothers and sisters in the Union.
He was a powerful role
[[Page 4604]]
model and mentor for many new recruits over 20 years, always
emphasizing the unique bond that all fire fighters share.
In 1980, Mr. Chard was first appointed to the negotiation committee
for Hollywood Professional Fire Fighters Local 1375, where he was
quickly recognized for his grit and passion. He was quickly elected as
a Trustee and has served Local 1375 ever since. His legacy of fierce
advocacy, candor and friendship will not soon be forgotten or lost.
I am proud today to honor President Chard's distinguished career and
leadership in the South Florida community and wish him and his family
well on their future endeavors.
____________________
LAWRENCE SALAZAR
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Lawrence Salazar for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Lawrence Salazar is a 9th grader at
Jefferson Senior High and received this award because his determination
and hard work have allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Lawrence Salazar is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential students at all levels strive to make the
most of their education and develop a work ethic which will guide them
for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Lawrence Salazar for winning
the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no
doubt he will exhibit the same dedication and character in all his
future accomplishments.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO THE LIFE OF ROBERT ``BOB'' PRICE
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a man whose
passion, devotion, and leadership exemplify the meaning of public
service. Robert ``Bob'' Price passed away on Wednesday, February 9,
2011 after a valiant battle with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. He was
79. Bob was a well respected leader, mentor, and community advocate. He
lived his life with a tenacious commitment to his family and to his
community and is certainly most deserving of this honor.
Bob Price was born in 1932 in Abilene, Kansas. He came to
Bakersfield, California in 1937, graduated from Bakersfield High School
in 1949 and went on to proudly serve our great country in the United
States Army. After his military service, Bob returned home to
Bakersfield, California, where he began his 32-year career with the
Bakersfield Police Department. Beginning as a motorcycle officer, he
tenaciously worked his way through the ranks until he achieved the rank
of Bakersfield Chief of Police, a position he would remain in for 15
years. Admired by his fellow officers, Bob Price always remembered what
it was like to be an officer on the beat, and he himself often
described his own management style as ``management by walking around''.
Though he officially retired from public safety service, his yearning
for public service remained and in 1992, Bob Price successfully ran for
Mayor of Bakersfield where he completed two terms in that office.
In his spare time, Bob enjoyed the simple things in life such as
playing handball, playing golf, or spending time with his family. In
2009, after noticing wall-to-wall crowding in the lobby of the
Bakersfield Police Department, Bob used his enthusiastic attitude and
started a program that recruited retired police officers, clerks, and
technicians to help the system work more efficiently and effectively
for the Bakersfield community. That program is still thriving today.
Bob Price was a man of great principle and integrity; serving as
interim director of the Bakersfield Association of Retarded Citizens
(BARC). He lived his life to encourage and elevate others, but he also
held others accountable. His commitment to friends, family, and
community will be remembered by all that knew him. It is with great
pride that I honor him for all that he did on behalf of the City of
Bakersfield and for California.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Bob Price, a
man who lived a righteous life. His leadership and spirit leave a
lasting imprint on all those who knew him.
____________________
LYDIA AGEDE
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Lydia Agede for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors
for Youth award. Lydia Agede is a 12th grader at Standley Lake High
School and received this award because her determination and hard work
have allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Lydia Agede is exemplary of the type
of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It
is essential students at all levels strive to make the most of their
education and develop a work ethic which will guide them for the rest
of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Lydia Agede for winning the
Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt
she will exhibit the same dedication and character in all her future
accomplishments.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NEW YORK COLLEGE OF
PODIATRIC MEDICINE (NYCPM)
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 100th
anniversary of the New York College of Podiatric Medicine, which was
founded by Dr. Maurice J. Lewi in 1911 within my Congressional
District. Chiropody was a craft that existed up to 1885, when men and
women learned through training the skill to alleviate pain and
discomfort for those afflicted with minor foot ailments. The New York
State legislature awarded chiropodists the right to organize and to
determine the fitness of individuals who were interested in practicing
chiropody in 1905.
This historic legislation paved the path for the founding of the New
York School of Chiropody. Dr. Maurice J. Lewi, who during that time was
serving as Secretary to the New York State Board of Examiners, was an
effective advocate and educator in the field of Chiropody, and became
the school's first President.
Dr. Lewi created and organized the curriculum and drafted the
legislation governing the practice of chiropody. He was most effective
in advancing the specialized profession of podiatry through evidence-
based science, research and strategic partnerships.
Since its founding, the New York College of Podiatric Medicine has
been an active source of education, training and research in the field
of podiatric medicine, and has emerged as a leader and facilitator in
creating and establishing multi-dimensional programs in podiatric
medicine. Its impact has been guided and nurtured by its current
president, Louis L. Levine, and its board of trustees.
In recent years, NYCPM has expanded into the international
educational arena with twice-yearly programs for podologists from
Spain; a program at Foot Center of New York for podiatry students from
Canada, and an affiliation with their school in Quebec.
NYCM also has an externship at the Sheba Medical Center at Tel
Hashomer. The College also features prominent guest speakers from
around the world. NYCPM has reached out to its surrounding community,
offering foot screenings at numerous neighborhood health fairs,
including the American Diabetes Association's annual Diabetes Expo and
the Central Harlem Health Revival.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the New York
College of Podiatric Medicine and its affiliate, The Foot Center of New
York. I would also like to congratulate Louis L. Levine, President and
Chief Executive Officer; Stanley Mandel, Chairman; the Board of
Trustees; and the NYCPM staff as leaders in enhancing the level of
acceptance, understanding, and knowledge regarding podiatric medical
education and training, podiatric technology development and podiatric
research throughout the world.
[[Page 4605]]
____________________
KATHRYNN MERRILLS
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Kathrynn Merrills for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Kathrynn Merrills is a 7th grader at
Oberon Middle School and received this award because her determination
and hard work have allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Kathrynn Merrills is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential students at all levels strive to make the
most of their education and develop a work ethic which will guide them
for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Kathrynn Merrills for winning
the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no
doubt she will exhibit the same dedication and character in all her
future accomplishments.
____________________
HAWKINS FAMILY REUNION DAY
______
HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
proclamation:
Whereas, over One hundred forty nine years ago, Ms. Hattie Hawkins in
the state of South Carolina has blessed us with descendants that have
helped to shape our nation; and
Whereas, the Hawkins Family has produced many well respected citizens
and three of the matriarchs of the family Ms. Addie Rankin Hawkins, Ms.
Virginia Hawkins Clarke and Ms. Florence Amanda Hawkins Wilson are
pillars of strength for these families; and
Whereas, in our beloved Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, we
are honored to have many members of the Hawkins family, including Mr.
Norm Fikes one of our most beloved citizens in our District who resides
in Stone Mountain, Georgia; and
Whereas, family is one of the most honored and cherished institutions
in the world, we take pride in knowing that families such as the
Hawkins family have set aside this time to fellowship with each other,
honor one another and to pass along history to each other by meeting at
this year's family reunion in Atlanta, Georgia; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Hawkins family in our
District;
Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
Saturday, July 12, 2008 as Hawkins Family Reunion Day in the 4th
Congressional District.
Proclaimed, this 12th day of July, 2008.
____________________
KAYLA TREJO
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Kayla Trejo for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors
for Youth award. Kayla Trejo is a 12th grader at Jefferson Senior High
and received this award because her determination and hard work have
allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Kayla Trejo is exemplary of the type
of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It
is essential students at all levels strive to make the most of their
education and develop a work ethic which will guide them for the rest
of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Kayla Trejo for winning the
Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt
she will exhibit the same dedication and character in all her future
accomplishments.
____________________
HONORING HERB KANE
______
HON. MIKE QUIGLEY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing, but also
honor the distinguished career of Herb Kawainui Kane. For more than 80
years, Mr. Kane exhibited a love for the arts and a passion for
Hawaiian culture that has been an inspiration for his people.
After leaving the Navy, Herb attended school in Illinois, where he
would go on to earn his Masters degree from the University of Chicago.
Herb went on to become a successful graphic artist in Chicago, before
moving to Hawaii. There he would continue his career as an artist, and
go on to become both a noted historian and an author. He went through
life exemplifying hard work and dedication in his craft and culture.
Throughout his career, Herb received praise and admiration for his
works as an artist, historian, and author. Herb's paintings have graced
such locations as the Hawaii State Foundation on Culture and the Arts
and the National Park Service. In 2009, Herb helped design a
commemorative stamp for the U.S. Postal Service, celebrating 50 years
of Hawaii statehood. He has also been selected as a Living Treasure of
Hawaii for his work as a historian and has received an award for
excellence from The Hawaii Book Publishers Association for his writing.
Herb's crowning achievement was his recreation of Polynesian canoes
that were used by his ancestors. These canoes have been used to travel
from Hawaii to various islands including, Tahiti, New Zealand, Easter
Island, Tonga, The Marquesas Islands, The Cook Islands, Micronesia and
Japan; of which the voyage to Japan totaled over 110,000 miles of
navigation without modern equipment.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Herb Kane
and his numerous accomplishments. His life and career has inspired many
and will continue to influence generations to come.
____________________
LANCE ORTIZ
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Lance Ortiz for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors
for Youth award. Lance Ortiz is a 12th grader at Jefferson Senior High
and received this award because his determination and hard work have
allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Lance Ortiz is exemplary of the type
of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It
is essential students at all levels strive to make the most of their
education and develop a work ethic which will guide them for the rest
of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Lance Ortiz for winning the
Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt
he will exhibit the same dedication and character in all his future
accomplishments.
____________________
HONORING MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY--WEST PLAINS MEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM
______
HON. JO ANN EMERSON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to congratulate the Missouri
State University--West Plains Men's Basketball team for playing their
best season in Grizzly athletic history. The Grizzlies won the Region
16 regular season competition with a perfect 10-0 record. The team then
proceeded to win the NJCAA Postseason Tournament and the NJCAA District
4 Championship.
The Grizzlies played in the spotlight of the NJCAA as they ranked #1
in the National Poll for five consecutive weeks. Coach Yancey Walker
demonstrated outstanding leadership while serving as the head
basketball coach for the past three years. This year he was publicly
recognized when he was selected as NJCAA Region 16 Coach of the Year
and NJCAA District 4 Coach of the Year.
This outstanding season would not have been possible without the
support of fans and campus leaders such as Chancellor Drew Bennett who
works diligently to show his support of these student-athletes both on
the court and in the classroom. The coaches and players of the MSU-WP
team exemplify the highest virtues of the community: teamwork, loyalty,
sportsmanship, and dedication.
Once again, congratulations Grizzlies, we are very proud of you. We
look forward to
[[Page 4606]]
cheering you on through another great season next year.
____________________
LORENZO TOLENTINO
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Lorenzo Tolentino for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service
Ambassadors for Youth award. Lorenzo Tolentino is an 8th grader at
Creighton Middle School and received this award because his
determination and hard work have allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Lorenzo Tolentino is exemplary of the
type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and
perseverance. It is essential students at all levels strive to make the
most of their education and develop a work ethic which will guide them
for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Lorenzo Tolentino for winning
the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no
doubt he will exhibit the same dedication and character in all his
future accomplishments.
____________________
HONORING MR. BILL SAMUELS, JR.
______
HON. ED WHITFIELD
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bill
Samuels for his extraordinary career with Maker's Mark. Mr. Samuels is
retiring from his position as President of Maker's Mark, the world's
oldest operating bourbon distillery. As the seventh generation
distiller in his family, bourbon was a part of Bill's life from the
beginning, and just as his own father made Maker's Mark a unique
product, Bill made the world famous brand his own through innovative
marketing and large scale production with home-grown Kentucky flavor.
When he took over the helm of Maker's Mark 35 years ago, Bill used
unmatched and unprecedented creativity to reinvent the way the world
understood and appreciated bourbon. He paired a family recipe with a
marketing campaign that brought out a little bit of Kentucky in people
across the world. Bill left no event, newsmaker, or story off his list
of characteristic jokes, and his knack for simple one-liners lured
patrons to Maker's Mark through thousands of unforgettable
advertisements. The world responded to Bill's humor in a big way--by
buying all the bourbon he could make and elevating Maker's Mark to a
worldwide symbol of excellence.
Like the ads that graced pages across the world, Bill's instructions
for production of his family's legacy were simple and clear--``don't
screw it up.'' One of the few things Bill made no joke about during his
tenure was that no amount of success could compromise the taste of each
and every drop of bourbon.
Bill's world renowned success and innovative marketing techniques
never lost sight of the home grown taste of Kentucky in each family-
made bottle. The distillery in Kentucky remains the only spirits
related National Historical Landmark in the world, and a tradition that
Kentucky is proud to share. Under Bill's careful watch, no bottle of
Maker's Mark traveled across the globe without bringing a piece of
Kentucky pride with it.
During his 44 years long career with the family company, Mr. Samuels
brought a piece of history and a piece of Kentucky to households, bars,
and restaurants around the world. I congratulate my friend, Bill
Samuels, on his extraordinary success throughout his time with Maker's
Mark. Thank you, Bill, and best wishes for you in your next endeavors.
____________________
EIGHT IN TEN APPREHENDED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS NOT PROSECUTED
______
HON. LAMAR SMITH
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, according to recent figures
calculated by my Texas colleague John Culberson, an illegal immigrant
apprehended by Border Patrol agents during the last fiscal year had an
eight in ten chance of never being prosecuted.
Specifically, in Fiscal Year 2010, nearly 450,000 illegal immigrants
were apprehended by the Border Patrol. Of this amount, only about
73,000 were prosecuted, roughly 16 percent. This means that 84 percent
of illegal immigrants taken into custody were never prosecuted!
And while the Obama administration claims the border is more secure
than ever, a recent Government Accountability Office report found that
efforts by Border Patrol to stop illegal crossings were ``poor.'' In
fact, it is estimated that there are three successful illegal crossings
for every one thwarted. That means more than a million illegal
immigrants enter the U.S. each year.
The border is never going to be secure until we enforce all of our
immigration laws and turn off the jobs magnet that encourages illegal
immigration. Allowing millions to evade our laws is unfair and hurts
American workers and taxpayers.
____________________
RECOGNIZING MARCH AS NATIONAL KIDNEY MONTH
______
HON. ADAM SMITH
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize March
as National Kidney Month. This is an ideal time to renew the commitment
to take action to stop kidney disease.
National Kidney Month observes the significance of kidney health and
allows us to educate each other on methods of prevention, treatments,
and potential cures for kidney disease. More than 26 million Americans
have chronic kidney disease. Minority patients and communities
including Hispanic, African-American, and Native-American populations
are at an increased risk at developing the disease. While the rate of
those affected by kidney disease is increasing, many individuals with
kidney ailments go undiagnosed. Most people forego visiting a doctor
until symptoms are severe and damages to the kidneys are irreparable.
Kidney disease can be fatal to those who do not identify the symptoms
of kidney failure. Every year, thousands die prematurely of
cardiovascular problems linked to kidney disease where death could have
been prevented in many cases.
In addition to the health effects of kidney disease, kidney failure
can also be costly. Currently, less than one percent of all Medicare
beneficiaries have some form of renal disease, yet the disease consumes
nearly seven percent of the annual Medicare budget.
Prevention is the best approach at dealing with kidney disease. The
most common risk factors are high blood pressure and diabetes, which
can be controlled by diet, exercise, taking prescribed medication, and
regular visits to a health care professional. National Kidney Month
serves as an important reminder for individuals, especially minorities
as well as those with hypertension and diabetes, to get their kidneys
checked regularly.
In my district, the non-profit Northwest Kidney Centers provides
testing opportunities at community events and provides important
education to the public about kidney health and renal disease
prevention.
Kidney disease is common, harmful, but treatable, especially if
caught in time. Let's continue to work to stop kidney disease, save
Medicare dollars, and save lives while doing it.
____________________
MALOREY BOPP
______
HON. ED PERLMUTTER
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Malorey Bopp for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors
for Youth award. Malorey Bopp is an 8th grader at Arvada K-8 and
received this award because her determination and hard work have
allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Malorey Bopp is exemplary of the type
of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It
is essential students at all levels strive to make the most of their
education and develop a work ethic which will guide them for the rest
of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Malorey Bopp for winning the
Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt
she will exhibit the same dedication and character in all her future
accomplishments.
[[Page 4607]]
____________________
HONORING FALLEN MIAMI-DADE OFFICERS ROGER CASTILLO AND AMANDA HAWORTH
______
HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the sacrifices
of Officer Roger Castillo and Officer Amanda Haworth of the Miami-Dade
Police Department, who lost their lives in the line of duty.
My prayers and our community's gratitude go to the families and loved
ones of these two brave Americans.
I submit this poem in remembrance of Officers Castillo and Haworth,
penned by Albert Caswell of the Capitol Guide Service.
Blue Angels
Blue.. ..
Blue Angels. . . .
Blue Angels, in flight. . . .
New Angels, up in Heaven. . ., have arrived on this very
night. . . .
All there, for us in the darkest days of night!
Who for all of us, so wore that badge of honor. . . . oh so
very bright!
Blue Angels, on earth. . . . and now up in Heaven all in
flight!
As all of those wrongs they did so right!
Who to all of our lives, so brought their light!
Living day to day, night to night!
Right on that edge of death, as did they. . . . as they did
so fight!
All out there on that thin blue line, but at the very height!
At the very height of courage and faith, To Serve and
Protect!
As their most heroic Shield of Blue, for our lives did so
bless!
All, with families. . . living so very close!
Quiet heroes, who knew. . . . that each moment upon this
earth...
But together, was but a gift. . . . but which meant the very
most!
As why they so cherished life, as they would toast!
As why with tear in eye, we stand here on this very night!
As we look back on them now, we must now so boast!
Such a gallant, woman and man!
Who for all of us, against the face of evil they so stood. .
. . would so stand!
And away from danger they never ran, turning evil into good.
. . . time and time again!
Moments, are all we have. . . here upon this earth!
Do we make a difference, all in our life's worth?
What have we left behind, when we are gone?
What will live on, as ever live so on?
Who have we shielded, who have we saved?
All in our most brief lives as so portrayed!
And tonight as you lay your head down to sleep. . . .
Across Miami, but comes a gentle rain to so keep. . . .
Are but our Lord's tears up in Heaven, coming from his heart
now so very deep!
As it's for your selfless sacrifice Amanda and Roger, and
your families he now so weeps!
And to those five sons, whose pain now so lies so very deep.
. . .
They are with you, as you awake and as you sleep!
Watching over you and us to keep!
And remember, that it was your happiness that they would
seek. . . .
So bless them, and bless their memory. . . . by living a
great life to be!
And they will live on in your hearts, for all the world to
see!
Until, that fine day up in Heaven. . . these Blue Angels and
you, will all so meet!
Blue. . . .
Blue Angels, watch over me!
____________________
CELEBRATING THE LIFE OF STANLEY J. ``BUD'' GRANT FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT
FRIENDS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GLAUCOMA CAUCUS FOUNDATION, INC.
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride, admiration
and sadness as we in the United States House of Representatives pay
tribute to our dear friend and Buddy, Stanley J.``Bud'' Grant. We join
with the many family members, friends and colleagues at Saint Mary's
Roman Catholic Church in Manhasset, New York to celebrate the life of
Stanley J. ``Bud'' Grant who passed away Saturday morning, March 26,
2011, after a short illness.
My wife Alma and I want to extend our most sincere and heartfelt
sympathy to Richard, Suzanne, Robert, Thomas, Joanne, Steven and the
entire Grant family as we honor the memory and the legacy of your dear
beloved father, grandfather, great-grandfather and uncle and all the
wonderful times you shared together as a family.
Stanley J., affectionately known as Bud, was born and raised in
Brooklyn, New York and served our nation in the Pacific theater during
World War II with valor in the United States Marine Corps. He graduated
from St. Francis College and attended Fordham University and the New
York University School of Public Administration. Bud lived in
Douglaston for over 40 years with his late wife, Suzanne Gobel
Stabnick, and raised six children who all attended local schools. Bud
was very active in the community, particularly with the Saint
Anastasia's Roman Catholic Church parish where he was long-standing
member of the Holy Name Society and the Knights of Columbus.
The New York Congressional Delegation worked very closely with Bud in
his efforts as a representative of the Medical Society of the State of
New York and other important medical associations. Bud established a
special interest in Health Care, Health Administration and Health
Economics; and also served on the Board of Directors of Wagner College
and New York Hospital Division of Queens.
As we entered into a new millennium in the year 2000, Bud Grant
inspired me to lead a group of my Congressional colleagues, which
included Ed Towns, Mike Oxley, Mark Foley, and Donna Christensen to
create and co-found the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus. This
organization would be dedicated to helping all Americans prevent the
scourge of glaucoma and other eye diseases. Through Bud's advocacy and
enthusiasm, we were quickly joined by more than two dozen other Members
of Congress.
After the Glaucoma Caucus was established, Bud formed the Friends of
the Congressional Glaucoma Caucus Foundation, a federally funded, non-
profit foundation which screens disadvantaged populations for glaucoma
and other eye diseases across the United States. Under his leadership
as President, the Foundation provided the first Mobile Eye Screening
Unit.
Since that historic day, the Friends of the Congressional Glaucoma
Caucus Foundation has performed over 300,000 total screenings; has made
over 40,000 referrals; has identified over 50,000 other eye diseases;
and has routinely followed up with over 200,000 patients. Through Bud's
efforts, the foundation's Student Sight Saver Program had partnered
with many of our elite universities, colleges and Ivy League schools
throughout the nation. I am so proud of the foundation's work with our
federally funded health clinics and the screenings that take place at
our neighborhood health fairs.
Bud Grant was a true New Yorker who tirelessly fought to bring health
care to the underserved and stem the tide of all eye diseases in every
major way. We are a grateful nation for the life of my Buddy, Stanley
J. ``Bud'' Grant.
____________________
CONGRATULATING LIFE-SAVER SHAUN ANDERSON OF DIVERSITY IN AQUATICS
______
HON. CHAKA FATTAH
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate a
young man of remarkable achievement. Shaun Anderson is co-founder and
President of Diversity in Aquatics Inc., a visionary network that works
to save lives through global efforts to reduce the incidence of
drowning.
But that's not all. Shaun is a consultant to USA Swimming, a college
faculty member, a former coach as well as a collegiate swimmer and
track team member at his alma mater, Pennsylvania State University. He
began swimming competitively at age four.
Citing these accomplishments and more, Penn State has named him one
of 12 alumni under the age of 35 to receive the 2011 Penn State
University Alumni Achievement Award. He will be honored on April 8.
Let me tell my colleagues a little more about this amazing young man.
His brainchild, Diversity in Aquatics, boasts members across a
worldwide spectrum including Olympians, coaches, elected officials and
educators. The organization is literally a life saver. It helps spread
the word about water safety through advocacy, educational programs, and
action, holding regional water safety clinics, and connecting
individuals and groups through their website.
I was pleased to provide a welcoming video for the Diversity in
Aquatics Network, which has been active in support of swimming and
[[Page 4608]]
water safety in Philadelphia's communities of color. The Network has
spotlighted the work of Jim Ellis, who developed Philadelphia's first
all-African American swimming team and was the subject of the biopic
``Pride.''
In 2009, USA Swimming named Shaun a diversity consultant, giving him
responsibility for developing programs for under-served communities
throughout the country. He has become a global spokesperson on the
issue of diversity in swimming and aquatic safety. For example, he was
interviewed and appeared in a Newsweek article in September 2010 about
efforts to lower the rate of drowning among African American children.
Shaun Anderson devotes himself to a vital but often overlooked cause.
It is a sad fact that worldwide, 388,000 people a year--an average of
more than 1,000 a day--are known to perish by drowning, although this
data may dramatically understate the problem. In our nation and
overseas, a disproportionate number of drowning victims, and victims of
non-fatal injuries from submersion, are children from communities of
color and from low-income backgrounds. The reasons are many, but the
``cure'' is obvious: teach youngsters how to swim, use safety
techniques and respect the perils of water.
I. pursuit of this goal, Shaun Anderson has assisted with clinics in
Brazil, the British Virgin Islands, the Philippines and elsewhere. Most
recently he helped the Bahamian Ministry of Education and International
Olympic Committee in implementing a nationwide learn to swim program
for the Bahamas.
Anderson also serves as a faculty member in the Department of Health,
Physical Education and Exercise Science at Norfolk State University. At
Penn State he was a varsity athlete in two sports: three years on the
track team and a four-year member of the swim team. In addition to his
degree in Kinesiology from Penn State, he holds an M.B.A. from
California State University--Long Beach.
It is no wonder that Shaun Anderson has been widely recognized and
honored for his ``diversity'' of achievements. He is a multi-tasking
role model and advocate who carries a life-saving message and the
imperative of diversity into regions and disciplines never before
imagined. Across our nation, young people of all races and communities
are healthier, better swimmers--and very much afloat in life--thanks to
a talented, tireless young man named Shaun Anderson.
____________________
HONORING THE SMOKY MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL MUSTANGS MEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM
ON THEIR OUTSTANDING SEASON
______
HON. HEATH SHULER
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Smoky Mountain
High School Mustangs 2010-2011 Men's Basketball Team.
Through their hard work and dedication, the Mustangs had an
undefeated regular season. They held the longest single season winning
streak in North Carolina for all 4 classifications in the 2010-2011
season. They went on to finish as the WNCAC Regular Season and
Tournament Champions. The Mustangs finished the year as the NCHSAA
sectional runner-up with an impressive 26-1 record. These awards are
especially notable considering North Carolina is considered a
powerhouse for high school basketball.
Five players were recognized for their individual accomplishments by
being named All-Conference. They include Will Carpenter, Micah Carter,
Tanner Cogdill, Mark Thompson, and Jackson Simmons. Jackson Simmons
also went on to be named the Conference Player of the Year for his
extraordinary play during the season. The team's recognition did not
stop with just the players. Head coach Jimmy Cleaveland was named
Conference Coach of the Year.
As a former student athlete in Western North Carolina, I understand
the commitment it takes to compete at such a high level. I ask my
colleagues to join me today in recognizing the many accomplishments by
the Smoky Mountain High School Mustangs 2010-2011 Men's Basketball
Team.
____________________
FLOWER MOUND HIGH SCHOOL CHOIR
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Flower Mound
High School Choir. In 1999 the high school opened with the hope of
becoming ``A World Class School Educating Tomorrow's Leaders.'' Since
then, Newsweek Magazine named it one of the ``Top 1000 Best Public High
Schools'' in the U.S., based on AP scores. Of the school's many
accomplishments, none resonate quite like the Flower Mound High School
Choir.
The Flower Mound High School Choir regularly enjoys success at
University Interscholastic League competitions as well as private
competitions. Over time they have earned a slew of ``Sweepstakes''
awards as well as ``Best of Class'' and ``Grand Champion'' awards from
all over the country. Students have also had the honor of performing
throughout Europe, both at the Vatican and the Salzburg Cathedral. And
just last week they were here in Washington D.C. to perform at the WWII
Memorial. In their song choice, they sought to honor our nation's
veterans.
It is heartening to know that this burgeoning generation continues to
hold our veterans in such high regard. I want to thank the Flower Mound
High School Choir for coming to our nation's capitol to honor our
veterans.
____________________
HONORING ALEXANDER CHRISTIAN NASON
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize
Alexander Christian Nason. Alexander is a very special young man who
has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by
taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 376, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Alexander has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Alexander has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community. Most notably, Alexander
has earned the rank of Firebuilder in the Tribe of Mic-O-Say and the
position of Senior Patrol Leader in his troop. Alexander has also
contributed to his community through his Eagle Scout project. Alexander
planned and supervised the construction of a storage closet for Liberty
United Methodist Church in Liberty, Missouri.
Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Alexander
Christian Nason for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America
and for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of
Eagle Scout.
____________________
RECOGNIZING PENSACOLA STATE COLLEGE WOMEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM AS STATE
CHAMPIONS
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
Pensacola State College Women's Basketball Team on their recent victory
as Champions of the 40th Florida Community College Activities
Association Women's Basketball Tournament.
In 2010, the Pensacola State College Lady Pirates suffered a
difficult defeat in the final seconds of the state semifinal game;
however, under the leadership of Coach Chanda Rigby, PSC's players were
able to use this defeat as motivation for their 2011 season. The Lady
Pirates entered into the season with high expectations and ranked 14th
nationally in the preseason National Junior College Athletic
Association Women's Basketball Poll.
After an impressive early season run, including a victory over the
5th ranked team in the Nation, the Lady Pirates soared to the ranks of
3rd in the Nation on November 17. The following week the Lady Pirates
continued to rise in the rankings, moving all the way to the number 1
slot. The Lady Pirates did not let the pressure of being the top ranked
team affect their performance, and they finished the regular season
with a perfect record, 29-0, never relinquishing their place atop the
polls.
Victories in their first two games of the Florida state championship
set up a fourth meeting with nationally ranked Northwest Florida State
College. The previous three meetings between these teams were highly
competitive, with two of those three outcomes decided in overtime. The
championship game was an equally competitive affair. Ultimately,
however, the Lady Pirates' season-long goal was fulfilled, as they cut
down the nets, improving to 32-0 and moving on to the National Junior
College Athletic Association's national tournament, where they finished
their season with
[[Page 4609]]
a victory in the consolation game and the number 3 national ranking.
On behalf of the United States Congress, I congratulate the Pensacola
State College Lady Pirates for their outstanding accomplishments. My
wife Vicki joins me in offering our best wishes to the players,
coaches, faculty and staff at Pensacola State College for their
continued success.
____________________
SOUTHWEST GUILFORD GIRLS WIN IT ALL-
______
HON. HOWARD COBLE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the girls'
basketball team of Southwest Guilford High School, located in the Sixth
District of North Carolina, for winning their first 4-A state
championship since 1985. The Southwest Cowgirls defeated their
opponent, Raleigh Millbrook, in convincing fashion by a nine point
margin with the final score of 44-35.
Southwest Guilford scored the first seven points and never
relinquished the lead throughout the contest. ``This is a very surreal
moment,'' Southwest senior Shannon Buchanan told the (Greensboro) News
& Record, ``We've all worked since forever. This is what you dream of
when you're a little kid, and now this is finally here.''
The Southwest Guilford Cowgirls finished the season with a 30-2
record and an undefeated 12-0 record in their conference. The win
marked their second consecutive season as Regular Season Conference
Champions and Conference Tournament Champions. With 9 points and 14
rebounds, senior Shannon Buchanan earned 4-A All Conference, News &
Record 2nd Team, and All District 2nd Team accolades. Junior Zena
Lovette had 14 points and 7 rebounds and was named 4-A Piedmont Triad
Player of the Year, State Regional Tournament Most Valuable Player,
State Championship Most Outstanding Player, and to the News & Record
1st Team as well as the All-District 1st Team. Another junior, Jessica
``JP'' Pone had 13 points and 3 rebounds and was named the game's Kay
Yow Most Valuable Player and was also named to the 4-A All Conference
Team. Head Coach Jessica Bryan was named District Coach of the Year,
the News & Record Coach of the Year, and to top it all, she was named
as the Associated Press 2010-11 girls high school basketball coach for
all of North Carolina.
The Cowgirls were led by seniors Shannon Buchanan and Brittany
Connor, along with Jasmine Pinnix, Briana Burgins, Duncan Hackney,
Kennedy Porter, Shanel Lawrence, Aja Mott, Zena Lovette, Jessica Pone,
Jessica Bridges, Jenea Rogers and Ayana Rivers. Of course, they could
not have achieved the state championship without outstanding coaching
led by Head Coach Jessica Bryan and Assistant Coaches Samuel D. Warren
I, Tashocka Belk and Nick Scarborough.
Also deserving mention are Quierra Lovette (Scorekeeper), Jasmine
Rogers (Statistician), JaNiya Williams (Statistician), Alexis Couch
(Water), and Shay Barr-Poole (Film).
Congratulations are also warranted for all of those who supported the
girls' basketball program at Southwest Guilford High School including
Principal Alan Parker, Assistant Principals Enid Barnum, Joseph Johnson
and Michael Hettenbach as well as Athletic Director Brindon Christman.
Again, on behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North
Carolina, we congratulate the Southwest Guilford High School girls'
basketball team, along with the faculty, staff and students for their
championship season.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE WINTER PARK HIGH SCHOOL WILDCATS BOYS BASKETBALL
TEAM
______
HON. DANIEL WEBSTER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the 2010-2011 Wildcat boys
Basketball team of Winter Park High School, the reigning state
champions from Central Florida.
Long before the first whistle blew in the regular season, the
Wildcats aspired to the highest standard with their mantra, ``Make
History.'' As the reigning 6A State Champions, the boys were determined
to exceed all expectations and become the first team from Central
Florida to win back-to-back state titles. Recognized by USA Today as
one of the top four teams in the country, these scholar-athletes
persevered through a daunting schedule of nationally ranked opponents,
with courageously fought losses and inspiring victories, to gain their
fourth birth in five years to the Florida state Final Four. Facing
their cross town rival in the final game of the state championship for
the second consecutive year, the Wildcats were victorious; ending the
season with a 28-5 record.
I am happy to recognize the contribution of coaches and players to
the Wildcats' historic season. Assistant coaches Eric Faber, David
Jacobin, David Stock, and Tom Beard and their longtime head coach David
Bailey, offered wisdom and careful instruction to develop the team's
innate talent. The starting lineup, all seniors, all going onto college
next year, includes Brett Comer, Alex Swanson, and Austin Keel. The
Captains, James Ferrell, recipient of the Coaches Achievement award,
and Austin Rivers, future Duke University athlete and ESPN #1 ranked
player in the nation, also deserve recognition here today. I wish only
the best for these young men, as they apply their dedication and work
ethic towards even higher pursuits.
As the seniors graduate and move on from Winter Park High, they will
pass the mantle of leadership along to the younger players whose
consistent effort proved invaluable all season long. Brian Klusman,
Perry Klusman, Michael Merlano, Billydee Williams, Josh Williams,
Malcom Laws and Kyle Brown, will provide the direction and experience
to guide the Wildcats team next year.
In conclusion, I wish the Wildcats success in the upcoming ESPN Rise
National High School Invitational. I know that whatever the final
score, these players have performed with excellence for a truly
extraordinary season.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO NEBRASKA'S WOMEN AIRFORCE SERVICE PILOTS
______
HON. ADRIAN SMITH
of nebraska
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of 19 women
who were inducted into the Nebraska Aviation Hall of Fame on January
27, 2011. These women served as Women Airforce Service Pilots, or
WASPs, during World War II.
From 1942-1944, more than 1,100 women left behind their homes and
jobs for once-in-a-lifetime opportunity--to serve as civilian pilots
for the U.S. Army Air Forces. As the first women to fly military
aircraft during World War II, WASPs towed aerial gunnery targets,
transported personnel and cargo, and ferried airplanes to training
fields and embarkation points. At the height of the war, WASPs flew
more than 60 million miles which freed male pilots for combat and
played a critical role in our victory.
The Nebraskans who served as WASPs were: Dorothy L. Bancroft,
Lincoln; Mary B. Beecham, Omaha; Lois V. Boien, Omaha; Lois A. Bristol,
Bayard; Grace ``Betty'' E. Clements, Elmwood; Mary A. Jershin, Omaha;
Eileen ``Ikey'' A. Kealy, Omaha; Marybelle J. Lyall, Hastings; Esther
L. Mueller, Thayer; Roberta E. Mundt, Berea; Margaret ``Peggy'' L.
Nispel, Lincoln; Millicent A. Peterson, Chappell; Alice L. Riss, Omaha;
Evelyn G. Sharp, Ord; B. Kristin Swan, Minden; Helen A. Turner, Cairo;
Isabel E. Tynon, Peru; Jane E. Waite, Scottsbluff; and Mary E.
Williamson, Omaha.
I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the distinguished
service of Nebraska's Women Airforce Service Pilots to our nation.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JIM JORDAN
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House Floor during
five rollcall votes taken on Thursday, March 17.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcalls 189, 190,
and 192, and ``no'' on rollcalls 191 and 193.
[[Page 4610]]
____________________
HONORING THE SERVICE OF HIS EXCELLENCY LE CONG PHUNG, AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
______
HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA
of american samoa
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
distinguished service of my good friend, His Excellency Le Cong Phung,
who in October 2007 was appointed by President Nguyen Minh Triet as
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam to the United States of America.
Prior to his appointment, the Honorable Le Cong Phung served as the
First Deputy Foreign Minister, the second-highest ranking official in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during which time he assisted the
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister regarding Vietnam's foreign
policy.
From 2001-2004, he served as Deputy Foreign Minister and as the
Assistant Foreign Minister from 1999-2000. During his 39-year career,
Ambassador Le Cong Phung served in foreign posts in England, China, and
Indonesia. He was also Vietnam's Ambassador to Thailand.
While in Washington, Ambassador Phung became a key figure in
strengthening the U.S.-Vietnam partnership. At the Ambassador's
request, it was my privilege to join him, former President Bill
Clinton, Senator John Kerry, Senator John McCain and Assistant
Secretary of State Kurt Campbell in offering keynote remarks on July
14, 2010 as Vietnam celebrated 15 years of diplomatic relations with
the United States.
With the support of Ambassador Phung and in my capacity as the newly
elected Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific and the Global Environment, I returned to Vietnam in 2007 for
the first time in 40 years, having previously served at the height of
the Tet Offensive in 1967. The visit changed me.
On May 15, 2008, in close cooperation with Ambassador Phung, I held a
Subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Our Forgotten Responsibility? What Can
We Do to Help Victims of Agent Orange?'' This was the first time in the
history of the U.S. Congress that a hearing had been held on Agent
Orange which included our Vietnamese counterparts as witnesses. Two
more hearings followed on June 4, 2009 and July 15, 2010, paving the
way for renewed commitment on the part of the U.S. to clean up the mess
it left behind.
I am proud of Ambassador Phung and what we have accomplished
together. Ambassador Phung has made an indelible mark on furthering
U.S.-Vietnam relations and is to be commended for his exemplary service
for and on behalf of the government of Vietnam. I am also appreciative
of all he has done to promote religious freedom.
On a personal note, I will miss Ambassador Phung, and I extend to
him, his wife, Nguyen Thi Nhan, and their two sons my highest regards
and well wishes in all their future endeavors.
____________________
RECOGNIZING COACH NATALIE RANDOLPH
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives
to join me in recognizing Coach Natalie Randolph, the first female boys
varsity head football coach at Calvin Coolidge Senior High School in
Washington, DC, where she also teaches.
As we commemorate Women's History Month this year, I want to
celebrate the coach for becoming the first permanent female boys
varsity head football coach in the District of Columbia and the only
current female boys varsity head football coach in the nation.
Natalie Randolph, a native Washingtonian, is not only a football
coach, she also is a superb athlete. Coach Randolph made her mark with
the DC Divas of the Independent Women's Football League. After playing
five seasons there, she became an assistant boys varsity football coach
at H.D. Woodson Senior High School in the District for two seasons.
In her youth, Natalie nurtured her athletic skills in track and field
at Sidwell Friends School and later at the University of Virginia. Her
love of football grew after her father first introduced her in high
school to women football players.
Natalie began her professional career as an educator, after receiving
a Bachelor of Arts degree in Environmental Science and a Master's
degree in Education from the University of Virginia. She first taught
at H.D. Woodson and currently teaches Environmental Science and Biology
at Calvin Coolidge.
Calvin Coolidge's winning record of 6-4 in Coach Randolph's debut
season vindicated the decision to make her head coach. At the same
time, the new coach required mandatory study halls and SAT prep courses
to improve the team's academic performance. Coach Randolph is committed
to winning, both inside and outside the classroom.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in
honoring Natalie Randolph for her accomplishments as a teacher who
encourages strong academic achievement, as a world-class athlete, and
as the first permanent female boys varsity head football coach in the
District of Columbia. May we wish Coach Randolph and the Calvin
Coolidge Senior High School Colts the best on the upcoming season, both
on and off the field.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE FIFTH ANNUAL CESAR CHAVEZ MARCH
______
HON. DALE E. KILDEE
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 24th
anniversary of the naming of Chavez Drive and the fifth annual Cesar
Chavez March in my hometown of Flint, Michigan. A celebration and
fundraiser for the United Farm Workers members was held on March 26th
to coincide with what would have been the late Cesar Chavez's 84th
birthday.
Born on a family farm, March 31, 1927, Cesar Chavez witnessed
firsthand the suffering of migrant workers. When the family lost the
farm during the Great Depression, Cesar toiled in the fields following
crops across the Southwest. After serving in the U.S. Navy during World
War II he returned to farm work and began his lifelong commitment to
justice for migrant workers.
During the 1960s Cesar Chavez, in reaction to the conditions he
witnessed in the fields, became a union activist. Adopting the
techniques of industrial unions like the UAW, Cesar fought against
agribusiness and unfair laws that forbade farm workers from organizing.
A nationwide boycott of table grapes and a 25-day hunger strike brought
the United Farm Workers international attention. His leadership and
personal commitment forced agribusiness to sign the first union
contract with the United Farm Workers. He labored to improve the health
and safety of the workers. He fought successfully to end the use of
harmful chemicals like DDT and benefited not only the workers but the
consumers as well.
When Cesar Chavez died in 1993, over 40,000 people attended his
funeral. In a show of respect for the man who had changed so many
lives, our nation posthumously awarded him the Presidential Medal of
Freedom.
Mr. Speaker, Flint Michigan was the first community in our nation to
honor this great humanitarian by naming a street after Cesar Chavez. I
ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the memory of
Cesar Chavez and his legacy to the American people.
____________________
IN HONOR OF DONNA PAINTER
______
HON. JOE BARTON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Donna Painter
for her dedication and contributions to nephrology nursing and kidney
patients in Texas and across the country.
Donna is one of my constituents from Corsicana, Texas and she served
as President of the American Nephrology Nurses' Association (ANNA) in
2010 and 2011.
Donna earned her Masters of Science in Health Care Administration
from Texas Women's University in Dallas, Texas. She is a Registered
Nurse and a Certified Nephrology Nurse.
Donna has worked for Fresenius Medical Care in various positions
since 1983. Over the course of her career, she has served as a staff
nurse, a charge nurse, Home Training Coordinator, Director of Nursing,
and Clinic Manager. She has also been Regional Quality Manager, and
Director of Training and Organizational Development for Fresenius' West
Business Unit. Currently, in addition to serving as President of ANNA,
Donna is the Regional
[[Page 4611]]
Vice President for Fresenius' East Texas Region.
Donna has been an active member of ANNA for more than 20 years--
serving in a variety of leadership roles. As ANNA President, she has
implemented a broad range of initiatives that will continue to improve
care for patients whose lives depend on dialysis and other kidney
replacement treatments. In particular, she has helped to ensure that
ANNA will play a significant role in the nation-wide proliferation of
quality improvements and policy in kidney care.
ANNA is one of the largest and most prestigious nursing associations
in America. The organization is the recognized leader in nephrology
nursing practice, education, research, and advocacy. ANNA's members are
registered nurses and health care professionals that care for patients
of all ages who are experiencing, or are at risk for, kidney disease.
Please join me in commending Donna Painter for her years of service
to ANNA and the patients she cares for in Texas. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
____________________
GIRLS OF STEEL ROBOTICS TEAM
______
HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Girls of
Steel robotics team on winning the Rookie All-Star Award at the 2011
Pittsburgh Regional F.I.R.S.T. Robotics Competition held on March 12th
and 13th.
Because of their hard work and impressive performance, the team has
been invited to compete at the F.I.R.S.T. Championship in St. Louis in
April. The championship is the final and largest competition of the
robotics season and features teams from across the world.
F.I.R.S.T., which stands for ``For Inspiration and Recognition of
Science and Technology,'' is an organization dedicated to introducing
our youth to the world of science and technology. This year alone,
approximately 250,000 students are gaining practical, team-based
engineering experiences by participating in F.I.R.S.T.
As a co-chair of the Congressional Robotics Caucus, I think
competitions such as these are outstanding tools for getting students
interested in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. I
believe our nation's future economic growth and prosperity depends upon
getting young people interested and engaged in scientific pursuits, and
I want to commend organizations like F.I.R.S.T. for the important work
they do in that regard.
The Girls of Steel team is made up of 24 young women from high
schools in and around the Pittsburgh area. In their first year of
competition, and using a robot they designed and built in only six
weeks, the girls went up against 39 other teams from across the United
States and Canada. In this regional competition, teams were challenged
to construct robots that could place tubes on elevated pegs. After
finishing this first part of the task, the robots were required to
deploy smaller robots capable of climbing to the top of a 10-foot pole.
Upon reaching the top, the ``minibots'' would set off sensors to signal
completion of the task. The Girls of Steel performed well in the
qualification round, and their success continued throughout the seeding
and elimination rounds of the competition.
In recognition of their hard work, intelligence, and teamwork, I want
to mention each of these inspiring young ladies by name. They are Grace
Handler, Calista Frederick-Jaskiewicz, Hallie Goldstein, Nila Ravi,
Elizabeth Kysel, Rachel Lischy, Olivia Parks, Bryce Volk, Jaden Barney,
Maya Chandrasekaran, Julia DiPietro, Campbell Konrad, Rachel Round,
Jordyn Zechender, Naoka Gunawardena, Dakota Calvert, Jeannette Melanie
Young, Tayler Wright, Kathryn Hendrickson, Pragna Mannam, Anna Maria
Sicenica, Dahee Kim, Zhimi Ding, and Xinchao Li.
I also want to express my appreciation to the Carnegie Mellon
University Field Robotics Center, which has mentored the Girls of
Steel. As a result of their efforts, more young women are gaining real-
world technological experiences which will certainly aid them in the
future.
I wish the Girls of Steel the best of luck as they head to St. Louis
to compete this April, and I hope for their continual success.
____________________
STATEMENT OF PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JAMES B. RENACCI
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, although present and on the House floor
during the legislative day of March 16, 2011, my ``no'' vote for
Rollcall vote No. 186 did not register. Had my vote correctly
registered, the Record would display a vote of ``no.''
____________________
RECOGNIZING MR. LEE E. RHYANT UPON HIS RETIREMENT
______
HON. PHIL GINGREY
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate a
decade of achievement by an important business leader in our community,
Mr. Lee E. Rhyant.
Mr. Rhyant has spent over ten years serving as the Executive Vice
President and General Manager of the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company facility in Marietta, Georgia. He successfully led a staff of
8,000 with his clear vision and his ability proved to be great as he
built a strong association with the U.S. Air Force and industry leaders
in Cobb County and throughout the metro Atlanta region.
He's been recognized for his leadership with numerous honors and
awards. He was named one of Georgia's 100 Most Influential People,
Executive of the Year by the National Management Association, Citizen
of the Year by the Cobb Chamber of Commerce and the Marietta Daily
Journal, and Man of Influence by the Atlanta Business League.
Mr. Rhyant has taken his success and used it to give back to his
community and the 11th District of Georgia. He has served on numerous
local and national boards, chaired many major philanthropic events, and
has shared his knowledge and experience with youth leadership forums,
local schools, and even universities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
accomplishments of this outstanding citizen and community leader, Mr.
Lee Rhyant, and wish him the best of luck as he retires and starts a
new chapter.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 10TH PASTORAL APPRECIATION OF BISHOP CLARENCE E.
STEWART, JR.
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a
very special Alabamian today, Bishop Clarence E. Stewart, Jr.
Bishop Stewart has served as pastor of Ambassadors for Christ
Ministries in Montgomery, Alabama, since 2002. Over the past decade,
the church has grown tremendously and he's also created a successful
television and radio ministry.
Bishop Stewart received his education in Montgomery County, Alabama
and continued his studies at Alabama State University. He is the son of
Clarence E. Stewart, Sr. and Annie Ruth Gilmore, and is father to three
daughters, Jennifer, Shay, and Joia, and one son, Clarence III (Tre').
I am proud to honor the 10th Pastoral Appreciation of Bishop Clarence
E. Stewart, Jr., and applaud him for his ministries in Montgomery.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. BILL JOHNSON
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 186, I recall
voting on the entire series in this voting session. I was standing with
Rep. Renacci (OH-16), and we both voted the entire series. We both used
the same voting machine, and he was also flagged as a missed vote.
I would have voted ``no.''
____________________
RECOGNIZING TEDDY OSBORN ON HIS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF EARNING 129 BOY
SCOUTS OF AMERICA BADGES
______
HON. STEVE STIVERS
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Teddy Osborn of
Grove City, Ohio
[[Page 4612]]
for making Boy Scouting history in Ohio. Teddy, a highly decorated
Eagle Scout, is an active member of Ohio's largest Boy Scout troop,
Troop 200, chartered out of Northwest Methodist Church in Columbus.
Today I would like to commend Teddy for earning the maximum number of
Boy Scouts of America badges--all 129. While accumulating the mandated
number of 21 merit badges can be tough; earning all 129 badges is not
only going above and beyond, but is an outstanding accomplishment.
An 18-year-old senior at Columbus Bishop Ready High School, Teddy
attained what less than one percent of all Boy Scouts annually achieve
when he earned his 100th merit badge. In earning all 129 merit badges,
Teddy is the first boy scout in Ohio's 100 years of scouting history to
earn all available merit badges.
On behalf of the citizens of Ohio's 15th Congressional District, I
congratulate Teddy Osborn on this historic scouting accomplishment.
____________________
REMEMBERING ROBERT CHAUNCEY MYERS
califor
nia___
HON. TOM McCLINTOCK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of
Robert Myers of Roseville, California.
Robert was born in Ohio in 1937 and as a young child moved with his
family to Los Angeles where he was raised. At age 17, Robert enlisted
in the United States Air Force and after completing his training as an
aircraft mechanic, deployed overseas to Europe. Robert's post was the
front lines of the Cold War, where he was charged with guarding and
maintaining strategic nuclear assets. Robert left the service in 1962
rising to the position of Crew Chief to USAF General Bernard Schriever,
who oversaw the U.S. strategic missile program and over 40% of the Air
Force budget. After leaving the armed forces, Robert continued a career
of service to his community as a firefighter with the Torrance Fire
Department in Torrance, California, a post he held to his retirement in
1993.
Following his long career of public service, Robert and his wife,
Gwen, moved to Sun City in Roseville, California. It is doubtless that
by the time Robert moved to Roseville he had already provided more
service to this country than could reasonably be expected, both through
his service in the United States Air Force and the Torrance Fire
Department, but he wasn't finished yet. While living in Sun City,
Robert became one of the founders of the Tea Party group there: leading
book clubs, discussions and activities devoted to educating citizens
and advocating for the founding principles of our country. Mr. Speaker,
it is the patriotism of men like Robert that will ultimately lead to
the salvation of our country from our current trials, and I believe
that his contributions to this fight at home are every bit as valuable
and important as the years he spent guarding nuclear weapons at the
height of the Cold War.
Robert is survived by his wife, Gwen, his four children: Christine,
Steven, Richard and Elizabeth; and his three grandchildren: Alice,
Oscar and Sophia. The quality of Robert's dedicated life of service is
only matched by the remarkable family he supported and raised as a
loving husband, father and grandfather.
Mr. Speaker, patriots such as Robert Myers have ensured the safety
and success of our union from its earliest days to the present time,
and I have no doubt that his life has served to further that cause. It
is with a grateful and humbled heart that I rise today to honor his
memory and thank him for his many years of service.
____________________
RECOGNIZING LINDSAY CZARNIAK
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives
to join me in recognizing Lindsay Czarniak for her outstanding work in
sports broadcasting as an anchor and reporter for NBC Washington. This
month we are celebrating Women's History Month in the District of
Columbia by honoring Lindsay Czarniak, whose excellence in a field
dominated by men has made her a favorite on television here.
Lindsay, who was born in Pennsylvania and raised in Northern
Virginia, is seen by her viewers as a quintessential Washingtonian
because of her credibility and effectiveness in connecting with
residents while reporting on our teams for NBC4 sports. After serving
as co-host of the George Michael Sports Machine, Lindsay struck out on
her own on NBC4 with her signature show, Lunch with Lindsay. She has
interviewed many great sports figures, including Art Monk, Sugar Ray
Leonard, and James Brown. Lindsay also has covered the 2008 Summer
Olympics in Beijing, China, as well as NASCAR races as a pit reporter
on TNT.
This year, our celebration of Women's History Month will honor not
only Lindsay Czarniak, but also another female groundbreaker, Natalie
Randolph, the only current female boys high school varsity head
football coach in the nation. Lindsay also has generously agreed to
participate in an assembly, where she will interview Natalie Randolph,
a member of the D.C. Divas, a woman's professional football team, and a
member of the Calvin Coolidge Senior High School football team
concerning Coach Randolph's football and coaching career.
Lindsay Czarniak is an inspiration to young girls, to women, and to
all Americans who support equal opportunity on the basis of ability and
hard work. The excellence of her work in the male-dominated sports
world makes all who are fortunate to see her on television understand
that nothing is beyond a woman's capability, and that no field, sports
or otherwise, is off limits to women.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in
honoring Lindsay Czarniak, as a trailblazing example of excellence in
her profession.
____________________
BAHRAIN, IRAN AND THE GCC
______
HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA
of american samoa
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the threat
posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran to Bahrain, a U.S. ally and a
member of a group of U.S. allies, The Gulf Cooperation Council or the
GCC.
Bahrain is a small country with a free economy and a government that
is friendly to the United States. It plays host to the Fifth Fleet of
the United States Navy, which patrols the waters of the Persian Gulf
and protects world shipping there. Bahrain has been declared a major
non-NATO ally by the United States Government, and has established a
Free Trade Agreement with us to facilitate better relations between our
countries.
But today, Bahrain is under attack, in a proxy war between Iran on
one side, and the entire GCC and their allies in the United States and
Europe on the other. As the demonstrations sweep through the Middle
East demanding democracy, Iran has seen its opportunity to fish in
troubled waters by stirring up long-time resentments among Bahrain's
majority Shi'a population.
Not that the Shi'a protests are without merit, or are completely
foreign imports: to the contrary, they have real complaints that the
Bahraini government will have to address, and has committed to address.
But Iran, which has long been probing Bahraini defenses and stress-
testing the social system, believes that its chance has finally come to
achieve one of its cherished foreign policy goals: the weakening of the
GCC by picking off one member state at a time.
Iran has long desired to export its so-called Islamic revolution, and
to expand its influence in the rest of the Islamic world. The preamble
to the Iranian Constitution states that their armed forces, ``. . .
will be responsible . . . for fulfilling the ideological mission of
jihad in God's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God's law
throughout the world.'' Iraq and Bahrain, Lebanon, Afghanistan and
parts of Pakistan, all have come in for special attention because of
their substantial populations of Shi'ite Muslims. In fact, those who
committed several terrorist acts during the 1980s in GCC countries
proudly claimed allegiance to and sponsorship by Iran, leading Bahrain
to break diplomatic relations with Iran in protest.
Iran has long used its military and intelligence assets to
destabilize neighboring countries. And it aims to destabilize the
entire GCC, and peel its member states away from the United States and
the West, starting with Bahrain. A perfect example is what has been
happening in Bahrain since last year--long before the current protests
started. In the run-up to last year's elections, Bahrain disrupted a
terrorist plot to instigate a violent overthrow of the government.
Although some of those arrested may have been caught unfairly in a wide
net, others were shown to be complicit in subversive and violent plots
against the state.
Another example of Iranian pressure before the February outbreak of
protests is the constant burning of tires and setting of fires, almost
every night, at various points in Bahrain.
[[Page 4613]]
The youth involved claimed that they only were trying to make a point,
and to protest their political marginalization. But the government
recognized that the fires targeted power lines and communications
towers more often than not, and suspected that the real aim may have
been not only to weaken infrastructure, but also to test response times
of security and emergency personnel. This would be roughly equivalent
to `probing' attacks such as sending fake bombs through air cargo, to
see whether and how security forces reacted.
These tactics are consistent with a continued pattern that we have
seen from the Islamic Republic, in Lebanon for example, of using
unwitting young people, inciting them to extremist sentiments and
radical action, to inflame popular opinion. They convince youth to
rebel, and get themselves arrested; then their families and friends
rise up to defend them, and security forces fear them and overreact,
and this instigates a pattern of resentment and fear on both sides that
seems--and becomes--autonomous to the participants themselves.
This is how a terrorist threat ends up shutting down an entire
society: the tactic is to provoke, provoke, and provoke the rulers of
society, until they react harshly in fear or anger, and then to provoke
the people to rise up when the rulers impose harsh measures. Iran
already had been engaged in these activities in Bahrain for some time,
when the people of Tunisia and Egypt rose up against corruption and
repression. They had their networks already established, and had only
to stoke the flames of resentment they had been slowly fanning over the
previous years.
With the security forces already strained to the breaking point--in
resources and in nerves--it was no great surprise that they snapped.
The resulting violence and loss of life was execrable, and it is a mark
of honor to the Crown Prince that he stepped in so quickly to take
control and instantly to offer reconciliation to the protesters.
International observers breathed a sigh of relief, and felt as if
Bahrain had dodged a bullet, and was ready to begin cooling off.
In order to make it clear to the protesters that he was serious about
negotiations, so that they would not dismiss the offer as window
dressing, the Crown Prince specifically named every issue the
protesters have named. For example, giving the parliament full
authority--one of the first demands of the demonstrators--and ensuring
that the government represents the will of the people. His plan
addressed setting up new procedures for contracting that will be
transparent and include outside audits, to reduce opportunities for
corruption by increasing overall transparency.
He even brought up specific matters of law that may seem obscure, but
that result in disparate impacts on the two major communities in
Bahrain, the Sunni and the Shi'a. For example, the Crown Prince
promised to work with the opposition to determine fair ways to draw the
lines of voting districts because critics have charged that the current
districts dilute Shi'a voting power.
The Crown Prince described all these measures as ways to achieve the
overall goal, which is to reduce sectarian tension, and ``bring an end
to envy and division among [the] population.'' When these overtures
were first offered, the protesters initially stopped demonstrating.
Many of us believed that a crisis had been averted, and that reason and
good judgment would prevail. But within a couple of days, the protests
were renewed, and the opposition derided the offer as not serious, and
refused to participate. The protests increased in their intensity, and
swept into the financial district. According to BBC reporting, young
Shi'a protesters began to set up illegal and intimidating checkpoints
in key places around the country, ``paralyzing business and choking off
the economy.''
The government acted to relieve the overstressed security forces by
invoking the mutual self-defense provisions of the GCC charter. This
treaty provided for the establishment of a multinational force called
``Peninsula Shield,'' with headquarters in Saudi Arabia, which would be
available to help any member state defend critical infrastructure
against the threat of attack. 2,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and the
U.A.E. arrived on the 14th of March and were immediately deployed to
protect threatened infrastructure.
The foreign troops were not brought in to confront protesters, in
spite of immediate claims to the contrary from opposition sources. In
fact, with the Peninsula Shield troops guarding the infrastructure, the
Bahraini troops can devote more time and resources to crowd control,
and avoid committing violence sparked by fear or desperation.
In reaction to the arrival of the foreign troops, the Prime Minister
of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, issued a bizarre threat to his neighbor,
warning the Bahrainis not to seek help from their allies. At the same
time, the protests took an even uglier turn, with demonstrators no
longer calling for democratic reform, but for the complete removal and
even death of the entire al Khalifa family.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask why the demonstrators returned to
protesting again, even after all their demands were agreed to. What
lies behind this stubborn refusal to accept their long-stated goals? Is
there some other goal, some hidden agenda, behind the protests? Is
there indeed an influence from abroad, from Iran, which is fueling
these protests and fanning the flames? There is no doubt that the Shi'a
population of Bahrain has legitimate grievances, and I am pleased that
the government of Bahrain has agreed to address them. There is no doubt
that many in the crowds of protesters are loyal, patriotic citizens of
Bahrain who are sincere in their desire for reform. We should support
those desires, and we should be pleased any time we see a nation that
is asking for a greater voice for the public in running their political
affairs. Democracy entails a great responsibility, and it should be
pleasing to every American to see other peoples that are willing to
accept that awesome responsibility.
But we cannot be pleased at the prospect of anarchy, or worse, of the
violent overthrow of an allied, peaceful government by the worst kind
of seditious infiltration from a foreign enemy. We cannot sit idly by
while a country--whose founding document calls for spreading its
revolution--uses its influence to undermine a peaceful neighbor and an
entire alliance.
Iran wants to dominate Bahrain for many reasons. Among them are that
Bahrain has a Shi'a majority population, and the Iranian regime has
appointed itself the international guardian of Shi'a rights. Another
cause for Iran's animus is, of course, the presence of the U.S. Fifth
Fleet. Using its base in Bahrain, the U.S. Navy can not only patrol the
waters of the Arabian Gulf and protect the international shipping
lanes; it also is well-positioned to conduct surveillance missions, and
even potentially to send missile strikes into Iranian territory with
only seconds' warning, should that ever become necessary.
Furthermore, Iran's aim is not just to dominate Bahrain: it is to
destroy the GCC alliance. Since its inception in 1981, the GCC has been
a thorn in Iran's side. It has bound together previously fractured (and
sometimes competing and even divided) countries into a strong
partnership, with a united economic market and foreign policy. It has
shown itself an ally of the United States, and an effective bulwark
against the encroachment by Iran on the foreign relations and even
military policy of its member states. If Iran succeeds in splitting off
even one member state from the GCC, the alliance will crumble and
disappear as its member states are picked off one at a time.
Bahrain is also a great prize to be taken by a greedy despot. As the
Bahrainis have worked very hard to diversify their economic base, they
have discovered that creating an inviting legal and regulatory
framework can attract an inordinate amount of foreign direct
investment--disproportionate to their size, or the original size of
their economy. They have succeeded in making their country a banking
haven, especially for the increasing number of institutions and high
net-worth individuals who want to invest without paying or receiving
interest, or otherwise want to comply with Islamic rules of investing
and finance. Anyone who controlled that sector would have power greater
than the size of the country would seem to predict. Bahrain's Free
Trade Agreement with the United States has doubled our bilateral trade
volume since it was signed in 2006, again increasing the value of the
national GDP.
Finally, Bahrain and its leaders have incurred the wrath of the
leadership of the Islamic Republic by doing the unforgivable (and, in
many circles, unthinkable). They have reached out to Iran's arch-enemy,
the only country Iran hates more than it hates America: the nation of
Israel. In an unprecedented opinion editorial article, published in the
Washington Post July 16, 2009, Crown Prince Salman bin Hamid Al Khalifa
called for direct communication with the people of Israel, and for a
new approach that treats peace as a process, not an event.
Mr. Speaker, later that same year, the Bahraini Foreign Minister
echoed the sentiments of the Crown Prince, in a formal address to the
United Nations General Assembly. This served to emphasize that the
proposal was an official government position, not a private initiative
from a senior member of the royal family.
Iran, like other nations once characterized as `rogue states', has a
vested interest in extending and exacerbating the friction between
Palestinians and Israelis, and in fact has
[[Page 4614]]
called for the extermination of Jews worldwide. Ahmedinejad cannot
countenance an outreach by his neighbor to a nation he hates so
completely.
Why does Ahmedinejad hate Bahrain? It is easy to see. Bahrain is a
member of the GCC. It is the host of the hated U.S. 5th fleet. It is
rated the 10th most free economy in the world by the Heritage
Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. It is politically free, where
women are educated at state expense, can dress as they please and are
not bound by law to dependence on male relatives; where there are
Christian, Jewish, and female Members of Parliament; and where the
royal family has maintained peace and stability for over 300 years. In
short, it is, and stands for, everything that Ahmedinejad has sworn to
destroy.
Mr. Speaker, it is in the interest of the United States to see that
Bahrain continues to be a haven of peace and prosperity in a troubled
neighborhood. It is in our interest to support the integrity of the
GCC, and to provide diplomatic and political support for GCC and
Bahraini initiatives. It is in our interest to support a government
that has provided freedom and opportunity for women; freedom for its
citizens; tolerance for religious minorities; economic freedom, growth
and prosperity; and a peaceful haven for the region. It is in our
interest to support a government that has reached out to call for peace
with Israel, to put an end to the vicious cycle of anger and despair
that has characterized the Arab-Israeli relationship for far too many
decades.
For all these reasons, it is important to the United States to help
its Bahraini allies in their time of need, to withstand the threat and
the increased pressure from Iran. We support the reform agenda laid out
by the Crown Prince, and call on all parties to show calm and to meet
together around the negotiating table. We call on the Bahraini
government to demand restraint from its security forces, to avoid at
all costs any repeat of the bloodshed we have seen. We call on the
demonstrators to sit down and negotiate their differences, and find a
way to achieve the progress that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time for one of our most important
allies. The U.S. Congress should do all in our power to show our
support, to encourage peaceful negotiations that will preserve the
stability of the country, the continuation of the ruling polity, and
the achievement of the aspirations of all the people of Bahrain.
____________________
HONORING THE 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HUMBOLDT ARTS COUNCIL OF HUMBOLDT
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
______
HON. MIKE THOMPSON
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition
of the 45th anniversary of the Humboldt Arts Council in Humboldt
County, California.
Since 1966, the members of the Humboldt Arts Council (HAC) have been
dedicated to promoting Humboldt County's rich artistic heritage.
Incorporated as a nonprofit corporation in 1971, HAC is the County's
largest multidisciplinary arts organization. The HAC serves as a
community leader to provide opportunities for artists of all ages,
including the development of art education and partnerships, as well as
ensuring accessibility of the arts through innovative and multicultural
programs.
Beginning in 1996, the Humboldt Arts Council began a successful
capital campaign for renovation of the Carnegie Library Building, a
historic symbol of community pride and local culture, into a regional
art museum and art center. On January 1, 2000, the community ushered in
the new millennium by celebrating the grand opening of the Morris
Graves Museum of Art. Embarking on its new ``Century of Service'' to
the community, the Museum was enthusiastically welcomed and has since
been the leading contemporary arts exhibition and performance facility
in the area.
On the first Saturday of each month, thousands of visitors are
welcomed to the Morris Graves Museum of Art and its seven galleries to
celebrate local artists during Eureka's Arts Alive. This includes a
Courtyard Sculpture Garden, classroom facilities, an Arts Resource
Center, a Performance Rotunda, and more.
The Humboldt Arts Council will be celebrating its 45th year of
advancing the arts in Humboldt County on April 6, 2011.
Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we honor the
Humboldt Arts Council on the occasion of its 45th anniversary of
continuing the rich legacy of the arts on California's North Coast.