[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[Issue]
[Pages 10509-10660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 10509]]
VOLUME 157--PART 8
SENATE--Thursday, July 7, 2011
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Tom Udall, a Senator from the State of New Mexico.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal God, the Earth belongs to You. At creation, You brought order
out of chaos and light out of darkness. We wait for You to renew our
strength, enabling us to mount up with wings as eagles.
Today reinforce our Senators with the constant assurance of Your
presence, renewing their energies and enlarging their vision. Lord,
give them hearts that find peace in the knowledge that they are
ultimately accountable to You alone. Redeem their failures, reward
their integrity, and crown their day with the benediction of Your
peace.
We pray in Your sovereign Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Tom Udall 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 assistant legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, July 7, 2011.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Tom Udall, a Senator from the State of New Mexico, to perform
the duties of the Chair.
Daniel K. Inouye,
President pro tempore.
Mr. UDALL thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following any leader remarks, the Senate
will resume the motion to proceed to S. 1323, which is a bill to
express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in the resulting
budget deficit, with the time until 10 a.m. equally divided and
controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 10 a.m.,
there will be a vote on the motion to invoke cloture to proceed to S.
1323.
____________________
BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider legislation
calling on millionaires and billionaires to contribute to this
country's effort to reduce our deficit. The poor, the middle class,
children, and seniors have already been asked to make sacrifices to
help get our fiscal house in order. This legislation would reaffirm the
Senate's commitment to ensuring the extremely wealthy are asked to make
similar sacrifices. This principle that all Americans should contribute
their fair share as we work together to reduce the deficit is so common
sense it should go without saying. Yet Republicans boast of their
opposition of having the very affluent not pay their fair share. This
is the simple, straightforward statement by my Republican colleagues.
Listen to this:
. . . any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should
require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a
more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort.
My Republican colleagues reject that. Democrats believe all
Americans, even those who can afford private jets and yachts, should
contribute to the collective effort to reduce the deficit. The question
is, Why aren't Republicans willing to do the same? They say it is
because they are looking out for the people. That claim is ridiculous.
This claim is without foundation, which is preposterous. Let's talk
about the millionaires and billionaires Republicans are determined to
protect above all else. Less than one-quarter of 1 percent of tax
returns filed in the United States each year belong to the people
making more than $1 million--25 percent of 1 percent, one-quarter
percent of 1 percent. These same people are the 1 percent of Americans
who control 50 percent of this country's wealth. We are speaking of the
Warren Buffetts of the world. Warren Buffett is my friend. I have great
respect and admiration for him, but he is extremely wealthy. What does
Warren Buffett, who is the second or third richest man in the world,
say about contributing his fair share? He welcomes it. In fact, Mr.
Buffett criticized the system in which his secretary gives a greater
share of her income to the government each year than a man worth more
than $50 billion. Here he says: ``If you're the luckiest 1 percent of
humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other
99 percent.''
That is what he said. That is what Warren Buffett said about
contributing his fair share.
Since the late 1970s, incomes for the lucky 1 percent of America have
risen by 281 percent. The last three decades have been very good to the
very wealthy. President George W. Bush called these people the haves
and have-mores. He also called them his base. Right now, the Republican
Party is putting what is good for this very small base ahead of what is
very good for this great Nation.
The legislation before us asks only this: that each American be part
of the solution rather than part of the problem. In poll after poll,
Americans have endorsed this principle. They have said they believe we
must address our deficit both by reducing spending and by
[[Page 10510]]
ending tax breaks to the wealthiest citizens and corporations. We have
heard them. Democrats have heard them. If Warren Buffett chooses to buy
a private jet or a whole fleet of them, that is OK, but the American
taxpayer should not give him a special tax break for buying his own jet
airplane.
Our country is facing a crisis. We face mounting debt brought on by a
decade of war and tax breaks for the wealthy. We face the prospect that
Republicans will force us to default on our financial obligations for
the first time in our Nation's history. Difficult choices must be made.
Together, we should consider cutting programs to help real people in
very real ways. Eliminating tax breaks for oil companies making record
profits, corporations that ship jobs overseas, and the owners of
private jets and yachts should be an easy part of this problem to
solve. Yet Republicans walked away from the negotiating table when a
solution was in sight because they said no to fairness. Democrats had
already agreed to trillions in difficult cuts in order to prevent a
default crisis and avert a worldwide depression. Then Republicans
walked away from the table to help the 1 percent of Americans fortunate
enough to not need any extra help.
How do Republicans explain that to their constituents back home? Very
carefully. Why? Because as middle-class families struggle to make ends
meet, my Republican colleagues are risking the financial future of this
country and the world for the sake of people who can afford private
jets and yachts. I cannot imagine that conversation. Asking
millionaires and billionaires to contribute to solving this Nation's
deficit crisis is not unreasonable. It is just plain common sense and
simple fairness.
We are going to have a vote in just 20 minutes or so, and probably
what my Republican colleagues will do is to vote to allow us to
proceed. That would be great if there was some sense that they agreed
with what we are trying to do; that is, that they want the millionaires
and billionaires to contribute their fair share. But as we know, the
rules will only allow us to move to the next step and actually be on
the bill. So when we get on the bill, I would tell everyone here, if we
can work on an agreement to have some fixed amendments and work on it,
I would be happy to do that. It is how we used to do things around
here.
But if this means a free-for-all and offering amendments on abortion
and war fighting and all this kind of stuff, we can't do that. We need
to devote these next few weeks to debate dealing with the deficit
problems we have in this country, and they are significant.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
BUDGET DEBATE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, later this morning, we will have a vote
whether to proceed to a nonbinding resolution on whether to raise taxes
at a time when 14 million Americans are out of work. I oppose the
resolution, but I will vote to move to it so we can finally have a real
debate about the economic crisis we face. That is what we were supposed
to be doing this week, and that is what we will do. This is an
important debate to have as discussions continue over at the White
House this morning in connection with the President's request to raise
the debt ceiling.
Americans want to know where their elected representatives stand on
these issues. Today we will have an opportunity to show them where we
stand on entitlement reform, where we stand on government spending,
where we stand on balancing the budget, where we stand on our
unsustainable deficits and debt.
For too long, Democrats have tried to evade these questions. It has
been 799 days since Democrats passed a budget. They have presented no
plan to reduce our debt. So today is an opportunity to offer real ideas
for addressing our debt and job crisis, to make our positions clear,
and, for our part, Republicans intend to offer more than a vague,
nonbinding resolution.
I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
SHARED SACRIFICE IN RESOLVING THE BUDGET DEFICIT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the
consideration of S. 1323, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 1323) to express the
sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the
budget deficit.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 10 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to
10 minutes each.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending is S. 1323, which is the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution. For those who follow the Senate, this is not a
law. It will not be a law, if passed. It is merely an expression of
sentiment by the Senate on an issue. It can be summarized very quickly
with the sense-of-the-Senate clause, which reads:
It is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce
the budget deficit should require that those earning
$1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful
contribution to the deficit reduction effort.
Why are we even talking about this? Wouldn't everyone in America
concede that everyone needs to make a sacrifice if we are going to make
this country stronger? Those who can make a greater sacrifice, those
who are well-off, with an income of $1 million or more each year,
should do a little more. Why is that such a bold and controversial
suggestion? Because, in fact, when we look at the actions taken by
Congress over the last 10 years, we have found a political sentiment,
primarily from the other side of the aisle--not exclusively,
primarily--which says we cannot ask sacrifice of the wealthiest people
in America.
I can tell those who are students of American history know when we
have had a challenge in this Nation, particularly during wars when our
very existence was being challenged, people stepped up from every
income level in America and said: I am willing to fight for this
country. I am willing to die for this country. I am willing to
sacrifice for this country. So why would this be a matter to be debated
on the floor of the Senate? Because, in fact, the policies of this
country over the last 10 years have said that the wealthiest among us
should be spared, time and again, from sacrifice when it comes to the
future of our Nation.
That is just plain wrong. Those who are fortunate enough to be well-
off, to have a strong income, to enjoy the blessings of liberty, to
live in what I feel is the greatest Nation on Earth should be prepared
to give back something.
I have spoken to some in our walk of life here in the Senate. We
spend time with those who are well-off who finance our campaigns. That
is a reality I am not happy with, but a reality. So many of them have
said, for goodness sake, Senator, why do you even hesitate to ask me
for more taxes? I am prepared to pay those taxes because I feel blessed
to live in this country.
So the idea of raising taxes on the wealthiest among us won't change
their lifestyle a bit but will help to solve some of our problems. If
we don't change the tax cuts that were put in under President George W.
Bush, people making $1 million-plus a year will get a $200,000 tax
break--a $200,000 tax break--every year. In order to pay for that tax
break, some other Americans
[[Page 10511]]
have to sacrifice. For example, it means about 33 seniors will have to
pay $600 more a year for Medicare under one proposal in the House
Republican budget so that we will generate enough money to give a tax
break to a person who is a millionaire. Thirty-three seniors will pay
$600 more a year so a millionaire can get a tax break. That is wrong.
It is just plain wrong.
I believe we need to ask for shared sacrifice, and that is what this
resolution says. Senator McConnell, who was here a few moments ago,
said this week:
It's about making Washington make tough choices. It's about
Washington taking the hit this time.
Well, the people who are taking the hit in America are not in
Washington, they are all across this country. It is low and middle-
income Americans who are taking a hit in the current economy. There are
still almost 14 million Americans out of work and those who are working
have seen the bulk of income growth go to the highest income
categories. We have the greatest income disparity in the history of the
United States since the Great Depression. Over the past 10 years, the
median family income has declined by more than $2,500. What that means,
whether it is New Mexico or Illinois, is that people who are working
hard, going to work every single day, making sacrifices, fall further
and further behind and live paycheck to paycheck. That is the reality
of life for hard-working, middle-income Americans.
So those of us who come to the floor and say spare them--if you are
going to spare anyone from further taxation, give them a helping hand--
understand the reality of it so they can keep their heads above water,
barely. So many Americans live paycheck to paycheck. It is the only way
they survive, and that is the reality.
My colleague from Kentucky is right. In Washington we need to make
the tough choices and we need to face them with a sense of consensus
and compromise. An all-or-nothing approach to the budget isn't going to
work. In about an hour and 15 minutes, I am going to be honored to
represent, with Senator Reid, our majority leader, the Senate Democrats
in a meeting with President Obama. We will sit down in the Cabinet
Room, as I have before, and we will talk about what we are going to do
with this deficit crisis. I will say to the President and those
assembled that we have plenty to work with. It was 6 or 7 months ago
when the Bowles-Simpson commission, the President's commission on the
deficit, gave us a blueprint and said: Here is a way to reach $4.5
trillion of deficit reduction in a fair way: Put everything on the
table. Democrats, suck it up. Put entitlements on the table. Make sure
that at the end of the day, these are still programs that serve the
public, Social Security is still there making its promised payments.
Make sure Medicare covers the health care of elderly Americans. Do it
in a fiscally responsible way, but don't run away from it. Don't ignore
the problems we face.
Similarly, the Bowles-Simpson commission said to those on the other
side of the aisle: Be honest about revenue. We are facing the lowest
Federal revenue against our gross domestic product we have seen in 60
years. Is it any wonder we are in deficit? Fifteen percent of our gross
domestic product comes to the Federal Government revenue share and we
spend 25 percent. So the 10-percent difference is our deficit. It is
time to bring the spending down and the revenue up.
Critics will say we can't raise taxes in the midst of a recession.
Well, we need to be careful, I agree. Raising taxes in the wrong places
could hurt our recovery. Here are some places where it won't hurt, as
this resolution says, at the highest income categories. These Americans
can afford to pay a little more. They certainly don't need a tax break.
Secondly, take a look at the Tax Code. We have up to $1.2 trillion a
year in tax spending, tax earmarks, credits and deductions that the
special interest lobbyists put in the Tax Code. Many of them are
absolutely indefensible, and we can't afford them anymore. If we are
asking sacrifice across the board from America, we should ask sacrifice
from those who are benefiting from these tax loopholes and tax
benefits. We can do that. In fact, we may be able to do it if we follow
Bowles-Simpson and at the same time reduce the marginal tax rates for
all Americans. It can be done.
Let's take a hard look at the Tax Code and remember that 70 percent
of Americans do not itemize, which means they do not take advantage of
the Tax Code, except in a rare situation where they have a refundable
tax credit. These people are not using the Tax Code. Those who use it
are in higher income categories. They are using it, they are following
the law, and they are avoiding their taxes.
Warren Buffett had a great quote which we should remember while we
debate this. November 26, 2006:
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the
rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.
Warren Buffett is a man of few words and is listened to carefully
because of his wisdom in business and in life, and he hits the nail on
the head. He said to me and to many others--and publicly--it is
unconscionable that using our Tax Code today, he, Warren Buffett, pays
a lower marginal tax rate than the secretaries in his office. That is
absolutely wrong. Why should a hard-working person in a business, at a
lower level, pay a higher marginal tax rate than the person owning the
business, making millions of dollars each year? That is where the Tax
Code is wrong, and that is where we can change it, save money, use it
to reduce the deficit and reduce marginal income tax rates.
That is what this resolution is all about. It is nothing short of
amazing we are debating the question of whether those who make $1
million or more each year should pony up and contribute more when it
comes to deficit reduction.
The newspapers this morning talk about what may be included in any
final agreement. I don't know what will be included. I hope there is an
agreement. There is one thing I wish to make clear. I just left a
meeting with people who do forecasting--Standard & Poor's, Moody's,
Fitch, and the like. They talked about what is going to happen if we do
not extend the debt ceiling. Let me lay my cards on the table. The debt
ceiling vote every year is a political football. Those who are not in
the President's party don't want to vote for it. Why should they, and
go home and get slapped around for having voted to extend America's
debt. In years gone by, there have been times I didn't vote for it but,
in all honesty, I knew in the back of my mind it was going to pass.
Here is the reality: If we reach a stalemate on the debt ceiling now
because the President's party doesn't control the Congress--certainly
not the House and barely in the Senate--if we don't extend the debt
ceiling, what is going to happen is very obvious. The full faith and
credit of the United States is going to be called into question, and
that has never happened. We have never in our history failed to extend
the debt ceiling and to say we stand behind our debts and will make
good on payments. If there is any question about that, we know what
happens. It is the same thing that happens when a person defaults on
their home mortgage. It becomes increasingly difficult to ever get
another mortgage and if that person does, he or she faces higher
interest rates than ever. That is what America will face if we don't
extend the debt ceiling. So these people from these rating agencies
came to us and said it will be disastrous if you allow the debt ceiling
not to be extended on August 2. That is the reality of the world we
live in.
So I would say, as we go into these important and difficult
negotiations, as we move toward the moment when we are going to have, I
hope, an agreement, let's make it very clear to the world that the
United States understands its obligations, will pay its debts, and that
we won't face the dire consequences of the opposite being true. That is
the reality of what we face today.
I will say one last thing before I yield the floor.
As we structure this deficit rescue or deficit project, let's
remember two
[[Page 10512]]
things are essential. There are vulnerable people in the United States
of America who, through no fault of their own, struggle each day to
live. Some of them suffer from physical and mental disabilities. Some
of them have been poor their entire lives and come from poor families
and have a difficult time and limited education. Some of them are
elderly and in nursing homes. These people--the most vulnerable among
us--need a helping hand. We have never failed to do that in modern
times and we shouldn't in this time of trouble, time of deficit. We can
keep our word to the poor among us that we are going to stand by them
because we are caring people. We can do it by making certain the
Medicaid Program, which provides health insurance for one-third of the
children in America and which covers the medical costs of birth of more
than 40 percent of children in America and literally provides for
millions of seniors to be able to stay in nursing homes and in senior
settings, these are the things we need to take care of in the midst of
this deficit reduction.
I see my colleague from Tennessee on the Republican side has come to
the floor, and there is time available on his side. I didn't know if
anyone was coming. I am wrapping up, so I thank my colleague from
Tennessee.
I will wrap up by saying we can take care to make sure the safety net
is protected, and to make sure as well that we address all levels of
spending in our government--every one of them--to make certain that
whether it is the defense budget or the budget for programs not related
to defense or whether it is entitlement programs, all of these need to
be carefully scrutinized. We can cut spending in a responsible,
bipartisan way and show we can bring our deficit down, strengthen this
economy and, I think in the process, if we do it on a bipartisan basis,
we are going to launch an economic recovery that inures to the benefit
of all of us. If we don't and this ends up in finger pointing, I don't
know who will take the fall for it. No one does. But the best thing we
can do is to ignore the political aspect and deal with the reality of
the challenge we face.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from
Illinois said and I congratulate him not necessarily for the specifics
of what he said but for his general demeanor and attitude throughout
this entire discussion about the deficit and the debt. He has been one
of those Senators--there have been some on both sides of the aisle--who
have made some difficult choices and some difficult decisions and
recognizes that at a time when Washington is borrowing 40 cents of
every dollar we spend, we have a serious problem and we have to look at
our entire fiscal condition in order to solve the problem. The people
of this country expect us to do that. So Senator Durbin has, by his
willingness to make some hard decisions, set a pretty good example for
all of us in the Senate.
Today, my hope is the meeting the President has with our
congressional leaders of both sides succeeds, because if they succeed,
our country succeeds. The country expects us to do that. I hope they
think big. I hope they swing for the fences and get a result and bring
it back to us and let us consider it and hopefully enact it and get on
to other business. The debt is a major long-term problem, not just for
our grandchildren but for us today. We have a bigger issue facing us
which is the fact that we have had persistent unemployment in an
economy that is not growing, and that is hurting too many people. So
the sooner we swing for the fences and get a result and get our debt
under control and deal with it in a bipartisan way, the better for the
country and the quicker we will be able to get on to the larger
question of jobs.
Of course, economists have made clear to us getting the debt under
control has a lot to do with jobs. When our total debt is as high as it
is today--nearly 100 percent of our gross domestic product--that
probably costs us 1 million jobs a year. We can't solve all of that in
1 day or 1 month, but we can take a big step in the right direction,
and that is what our countrymen and women want us to do.
I am glad I was able to be here to hear part of the Senator's speech
and I am glad I have a chance to commend him for his leadership on this
vexing and important problem we need to deal with.
I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if it meets with the approval of the
Senator from Tennessee in leadership on the Republican side, I suggest
we yield back all time, and I ask unanimous consent to proceed to the
vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 93, S. 1323, a bill to express the
sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the
budget deficit.
Harry Reid, Richard J. Durbin, Charles E. Schumer, Frank
R. Lautenberg, Al Franken, John D. Rockefeller IV, Jack
Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Bernard
Sanders, John F. Kerry, Jeff Merkley, Debbie Stabenow,
Daniel K. Akaka, Daniel K. Inouye, Patrick J. Leahy,
Benjamin L. Cardin.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate
on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit, shall be brought
to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Montana (Mr.
Tester) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 74, nays 22, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]
YEAS--74
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--22
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Chambliss
Coburn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Lee
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rubio
Toomey
Wicker
NOT VOTING--4
Burr
Harkin
Leahy
Tester
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 74, the
nays are 22. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until
6 p.m. today on the motion to proceed be equally divided between the
two leaders or there designees; further, that at
[[Page 10513]]
2 p.m., Monday, July 11, the Senate resume consideration of the motion
to proceed to S. 1323, with the time until 5:30 equally divided between
the two leaders or their designees; that at 5:30 p.m. the Senate
proceed to vote on the adoption of the motion to proceed to S. 1323.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. There will be no more rollcall votes this week.
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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will, Mr. President.
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Texas, I am just wondering if a view
that she might have might be that we have been terribly overworked this
week. I understand we cancelled our Fourth of July recess in order to
get back here and get to work and do the people's business.
Is it correct that was the second vote that we have taken? One was an
instruction of the Sergeant at Arms, and this one, another highly
controversial issue that was taken up.
I guess my question to the Senator from Texas is, Has this week been
a worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Well, I will respond to the distinguished Senator
from Arizona that the resolution that was just passed was to go to a
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which, of course, has no force of law.
It is, indeed, our second vote this week.
I will say that there is one thing on the minds of the people today,
one thing on the minds of the people of America today, and it is, What
on Earth is Congress doing? What on Earth is the President doing? What
are they doing to address the looming debt crisis? And we were called
back in not to recess but so that we could do something meaningful.
When I saw the Senator from Arizona on the Senate floor, he was ready
to talk about our international situation and the commitments that we
are making certainly. Many people said: No, wait a minute. We have a
debt crisis, and we can't wait until August 2 to fulfill it.
So I would just respond to the Senator from Arizona and say, when do
the American people get the answer they deserve, which is that Congress
and the President are working together, and we are being productive,
and we have a budget resolution on the floor, and we are debating it
and we are talking about our differences on taxes and spending? I don't
think we can tax our way out of a recession. I don't think we can tax
our way out of the budget deficit.
I would just ask the Senator from Arizona if he thinks that we can
make meaningful progress staying in session and debating, and if, in
fact, that might be an option in the future.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. I see the distinguished majority leader waiting, so I
will make my comments brief. I know that his agenda is very busy.
I would just say to my friend from Texas that I understand a lot of
the inner mechanisms and hidden workings are going on behind the
scenes. But when I go back and tell my constituents that we cancelled a
week of recess and we had two votes--one to instruct the Sergeant at
Arms and the other on a sense-of-the Senate resolution--I would have
liked to have taken up other business that was rejected by Members on
this side because they wanted to focus on the deficit. But if we are
focusing on that, maybe we should have taken up some issues that
directly affect the deficit, such as ethanol subsidies, such as some of
the other tax breaks and loopholes and other issues that surround the
whole bankruptcy of this country.
I see the majority leader is waiting, so I will yield to my friend
from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would just ask unanimous consent that following the
majority leader I regain the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Texas will have the floor. I just have a
brief comment.
I have known my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, since 1982
when we were both elected to Congress. His record of public service
speaks for itself. But I would say to him, and to everyone within the
sound of my voice, we didn't vote on Libya, this important resolution
that had been worked on so hard by the distinguished Senator from
Arizona and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, because I
was told we wouldn't get any votes from the Republicans because they
wanted to focus on the deficit.
My friend also recognizes, as he said, that there is work going on
behind the scenes, and that is true. There has been a lot of work this
week that took place as a result of our being here that would not have
taken place but for the fact that we are in session.
We know a lot of the work we accomplish here is not with votes. One
reason we have not been having a lot of votes in recent months is
because we can't get things on the Senate floor. We have been stopped
by my Republican friends. There are meetings going on with the White
House and with the Speaker, a multitude of meetings there, meetings
going on between Members of the Senate and Democrats and Republicans in
the House of Representatives. So I would say to everyone here it is
good we were in session this week. I haven't heard a single person who
is not in Congress complain about our being here. It is important we
are here. As a result of that, we have been able to move down the road
much further on the problems we have with the debt than we would have
had we not been in session because there are all kinds of meetings
going on around town dealing with how we do this.
We had a meeting right behind us today that started at 9 where we had
the head of the Chamber of Commerce in. We had people from Moody's
Financial Services. They were here to tell us what they are doing to
focus on Republicans being able to help us get through this problem
dealing with the debt.
We have to do something about the staggering debt that faces us, and
what this resolution we voted on earlier today is all about is making
sure there is equal sacrifice in our country; that is, we know we are
going to have to make some cuts. We also recognize that we need to do
something about equalizing revenue, and that is what is going on.
While what we do in the Senate every week isn't like solving a math
problem--there is no perfection--that is the way the Founding Fathers
set up this great government of ours. So we are going to continue to
work in the next 4 weeks of this work period to solve some of the
Nation's problems.
No. 1 on the list is doing something about our staggering debt.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate what the majority leader
has said.
There is a lot going on, and there is the beginning, perhaps, of
coming together, hopefully, with the President and the leadership of
the House and the Senate. I just hope that we can establish why it is
that there is such a divide on how we accomplish the issue of raising
the debt ceiling with real reforms that will assure that we will not
have to raise the debt ceiling again; that we will cut deficits so the
debt will also be cut in this country. We cannot sustain the level of
debt we have now. It is the highest we have ever had in the history of
this country.
Mr. President, let's face it. We have two basic problems. We have
this looming $14 trillion debt that is about to hit
[[Page 10514]]
the ceiling, and we have to raise the ceiling. It would be
irresponsible to do that without significant reforms that will assure
that we are not going to hit it again. But the second problem we have
is 9.1 percent unemployment.
So it is not like we are in a vacuum and we can just start taxing our
small businesses, when small business has already had the looming hit
of the health care plan that was passed that is going to cause every
business in this country significant increases in their cost of doing
business.
So when people are out there saying: Why is unemployment still so
high? Why is hiring lagging? I think it is because businesses are
trying to prepare for this big hit they are going to get in 2014 when
the Obama health care plan takes full effect. They are trying to figure
out if they are going to pay more for insurance or if they are going to
take the fine and pay fines for every employee who doesn't have
insurance, which is going to cause chaos in this country. So they are
trying to decide.
On top of that, people on the other side of the aisle in Washington,
DC, keep talking about increasing taxes, and the President keeps
talking about increasing taxes. So no wonder our employers are not
saying: Oh, yes, let's just open the floodgates and bring people back
to work. They don't know what to expect.
We must generate economic growth, not stifle it. We need businesses
to feel confident in the future that they are going to be able to make
a profit on top of all the added costs of new taxes and health care
reform that is going to hit businesses the hardest.
So we don't have a tax problem in this country. We are not being
taxed too little. This government is spending too much. That is the
problem we are facing right now. That is why we have a $14 trillion
debt. We have a $1.6 trillion shortfall between spending and revenue
this year.
So I am reminded of what Ronald Reagan once said: We don't have a $1
trillion debt because we haven't taxed enough. We have a $1 trillion
debt because we spend too much.
Let's look at the spending side of the equation. We cannot continue
business as usual in Washington and fix this problem. When President
Obama was sworn into office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. It
was too much then. I think we all agree. Now it is $14.3 trillion. We
are weeks away from officially hitting that $14.3 trillion debt
ceiling.
We have had a monumental addition to the unprecedented number of
spending dollars that was the stimulus that passed in February of 2009.
Today, the President's Council of Economic Advisers said that 2.4
million jobs were created at a cost of $666 billion. That is about
three-quarters of the stimulus. That is a cost to taxpayers of $278,000
per job. That is just not reasonable. This is the kind of spending we
cannot continue in this country.
I think they say they want to increase taxes, and I hear the
President say we must increase taxes on the oil companies, increase
taxes on corporate jets. I think if we are fair and across-the-board
and we tax oil companies like we tax every business--sure. Let's even
the playing field. If we are going to take away the business deductions
every business gets in this country, then, sure, let's take them from
every business, including oil. But it is not going to help the deficit
because it is not enough to help the deficit.
They say they want to increase taxes in order to reduce the deficit,
but what they really want is to increase taxes to permanently increase
spending so the big government we have seen grow in the last 2 years,
2\1/2\ years will be permanent. That is why they want to increase
taxes.
I say there is a way to fix this. First of all, we could pass a
balanced budget amendment. A balanced budget amendment to the U.S.
Constitution would put us on a budget that we would have to meet like
most States in this Nation and every business and every family. We
would set the limits. I believe the appropriate limit would be that
total Federal expenditures would be limited to 18 percent of the gross
domestic product. Then Congress would also have to have caps on
spending--about the same, 18 percent of gross domestic product. This
would be a spending reform we could adopt that I believe the States
would also agree to ratify that would give us a trajectory that would
eliminate this deficit and the debt in this country, and we would be on
a fiscally responsible path.
Second, if we are going to do this, we have to look at entitlements.
That is the reality. We have a nearly bankrupt entitlement system that
is ongoing regardless of what the revenue coming in is. The debt limit
and the ongoing deficit reduction negotiations need to put entitlement
reform on the table. Until yesterday they had refused to do it, but now
it seems that perhaps some entitlement reform might be on the table.
For instance, one that I have introduced a bill to correct is the
Social Security system. Social Security will account for one-fifth of
all Federal spending this year. The time for reform is now, and we can
do it in a reasonable way.
The amount of Social Security benefits being paid out exceeds the
revenue the Social Security payroll is collecting, and we are starting
to draw down on the Social Security reserves. When the reserves run out
in 2036, Social Security will only be able to pay out 77 percent of the
benefits to current and future retirees. That is the law today. It
would force a 23-percent cut in benefits. That is the law today.
The Social Security Board of Trustees reported earlier this year that
one way to shore up Social Security's assets is to immediately and
permanently increase the combined payroll tax on employees and
employers from 12.4 to 14.5 percent--in other words, increase payroll
taxes by one-sixth during our jobless economic nonrecovery. I do not
think that is really feasible.
The trustees also noted that the shortfall could be eliminated by an
immediate 13.8 percent cut in core benefits retirees are getting right
now--an immediate $150-per-month cut in every Social Security benefit
check right now. That was what the Social Security trustees suggested
was a possibility. That is something I think we would unanimously, in
this Senate, reject. No one is going to cut benefits $150 per month
right now--nobody. Nobody would do it.
If we are going to address this, I have proposed a plan. Senator Kyl
and I introduced S. 1213, the Defend and Save Social Security Act.
First, everyone knows we are living longer than when the Social
Security Act passed. We have a higher quality of life. People want to
work longer in most areas. So why not gradually raise the retirement
age without impacting those who are about to retire?
Under my bill, anyone who is 58 years of age or older will see no
change by the gradual increase of the retirement age. For everyone
else, starting in 2016 the normal and early retirement age would
increase by 3 months a year, so the normal retirement age would reach
67 by 2019, 68 by 2023, and 69 at 2027, and it stops there. Early
retirement would be gradual--3 months a year, increased to 63 by 2019
and 64 by 2023, and it would stop.
Currently, Social Security recipients receive an annual cost-of-
living adjustment, a COLA. Under my plan, the COLA would be computed as
it is in current law but reduced 1 percent. So the average rate of
inflation and COLA has been 2.2 percent every year of an increase. So
if we have a 2.2-percent rate of inflation COLA, it would be a 1.2-
percent increase in Social Security benefits. What I am saying is that
a 1-percent decrease in the COLA is just a 1-percent decrease in the
increase.
You would have the gradual raising of the age that would be much more
in line with our actuarial table and the reality today, where people
are living much longer, and you would also have a slight decrease in
the increase in Social Security benefits according to inflation. If we
have rampant inflation, then you would have the COLA, just 1 percent
less. So if it is 2.2 percent inflation, then you would get a 1.2-
percent COLA. Doing that saves the Social Security system, and it
closes the 75-year gap. It does not raise taxes on anyone, and it does
not cut a core benefit for anyone. That is the way we could fix Social
Security right now.
What would that do for our deficit? Here is what it would do. It
would
[[Page 10515]]
achieve a $416 billion reduction over the next 10 years of our deficit
and a $7.2 trillion savings by 2085. That means we are on the track.
That means that over the next 75 years Social Security will be solid
and secure without a tax increase on anyone and without a cut in core
benefits to anyone, and no one who is 58 years of age or older will be
affected by the adjustment in the retirement age.
We have a chance to do some things. I have gone out and said: Here is
a proposal. My colleague, Senator Corker, has proposed a limit, a cap
on spending that is a reasonable limit. Other colleagues--Senator Lee,
Senator Paul, and Senator Toomey have suggested other ways to cut
spending across the board, just a level goal. They are not cutting
specific things, but they are cutting the discretionary spending at
reasonable levels. Many Republicans are offering ways to cut back on
spending. My colleague, Senator Cornyn from Texas, has put forward a
cap on spending and a balanced budget amendment. There are proposals
out there that are responsible ways to deal with this deficit that
include entitlements and discretionary spending both.
It is time for the President of the United States to sit down at the
table and understand that tax increases for kind of a photo-op PR are
not going to fill the void. The public relations of cutting back on
corporate jet benefits, whatever they are--I don't know what they are;
I don't have one--but I think we would probably all agree, if you can
afford a corporate jet or a private jet, fine. Whatever the President
wants to do, we will do it, and it will do nothing to help the deficit.
So why don't we do the meaningful things, which is make meaningful cuts
in discretionary spending. Let's attack what everybody knows is the
case; that is, Social Security is going bankrupt as we speak. If
Congress and the President will speak responsibly about it, we can put
that on a glidepath that is within the reasonable actuarial table
estimate so that people will work longer, and very gradually increase
it--starting in 2016, ending in 2027 at 69. That is gradual.
We cannot procrastinate. We cannot wait. We cannot hope the crisis
will pass. And we cannot delay the inevitable. This is the Senate. We
were elected to make the tough choices. It is time for us to do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from
Pennsylvania is recognized.
Trade with South Korea
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Senate's
upcoming trade agenda and its impact on Pennsylvania workers and
Pennsylvania jobs.
Like so many of our States, Pennsylvania has always played a
critically important role in America's manufacturing and commercial
heritage. The coal and waterways of our State helped make the
Commonwealth legendary for steelmaking and helped turn the United
States into an industrial powerhouse. During its heyday, 60 percent of
the domestic steel production in the United States came from
Pennsylvania.
During World War II, almost one-third of the Nation's steel came from
Pennsylvania, which was a full 20 percent of global production at the
time. The then-Governor of Pennsylvania, Arthur James, put it this way:
``Pennsylvania was truly the arsenal of democracy and the arsenal of
America.''
Given its dominance in the steel industry, it is no surprise that the
Commonwealth was sixth in the Nation in total war production during the
Second World War, leading in shipbuilding and munitions production.
More money was spent to expand production capacity in Pennsylvania than
in any other State during the war.
We know at the time it did not stop there. It did not stop at the end
of the war. After the war was over, these manufacturing facilities were
used to make American products and fuel the growth of a thriving middle
class.
Today, so many of these plants have gone away, due in part to our
failed trade policies. Over the last 30 years, we have seen trade
deficits soar, currency manipulation go unchecked, lavish subsidies by
foreign governments go ignored, and exploitation of workers in other
countries overlooked. That is why I am very concerned that today the
Finance Committee is moving forward the pending agreements with South
Korea, Colombia, and Panama. For the last several weeks, the Presiding
Officer, Senator Brown, and I have persistently asked the tough,
critical questions about the impact of these agreements before they are
considered. A review of the impact of past trade agreements offers very
little comfort. In 1994, Congress passed the North American Free Trade
Agreement. We know it as NAFTA. Since NAFTA's passage, U.S. Trade
policies have steadily chipped away at Pennsylvania's manufacturing
base.
It is a critical sector for our State and so many others. According
to a recent study--and the chart on my left depicts it--from the
Industrial Resource Centers, from 1997 to 2010, just 13 years,
manufacturing went from 16.4 percent of our gross State product to 12.1
percent, a remarkable drop in just 13 years. What does that mean for
the total number of jobs? In total, Pennsylvania lost nearly 300,000
manufacturing jobs. You can see it from the chart, starting in 1997,
the drop to 12.1 percent in just those 13 years--300,000 jobs in 13
years.
Despite these alarming numbers and statistics, advocates for the
trade deals, including the pending agreement with South Korea, promised
significant economic benefits from exploding export potential to job
creation. Proponents argue a significant net positive from these
agreements every time they are considered. In reality, instead of
creating opportunities for Pennsylvania, our trade policies did little
more than offshore good-paying jobs, while giving our trading partners
unlimited access to our markets.
So we must take the time now to ask the tough questions.
Specifically, as a Senator from Pennsylvania, I must ask three basic
questions about any trade deal. No. 1, will the agreement protect
current Pennsylvania jobs and create new jobs in Pennsylvania and
across America? No. 2, will the agreement help create a level playing
field for American businesses and workers? No. 3, does the agreement
provide new opportunities for American manufacturers to export?
I will focus on the South Korean Free Trade Agreement in the context
of each question. First, will the agreement protect and create jobs in
Pennsylvania and across the Nation? In these uncertain times, job
creation must be our top priority. In Pennsylvania, the manufacturing
sector is critical. Manufacturing remains the Commonwealth's largest
source of good-paying jobs, with chemical primary metal products,
fabricated metal products, food products, and machinery making up the
top five manufacturing sectors supporting Pennsylvania families. These
benefits extend beyond individual manufacturing businesses in our
State--in fact, the economic benefits of a strong manufacturing sector
experienced throughout Pennsylvania's economy. According to research
commissioned by the Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Centers, every $1
increase in demand for products manufactured in our State leads to an
increase in growth value of $2.52 across all industries. So one buck in
activity can lead to $2.52 in value.
The manufacturing jobs that are created support middle-income
families, and the creation of those jobs and the support they provided
for those families in 2008 meant the following: The average annual
compensation of a worker in the manufacturing sector was over $65,000.
The average pay for the rest of the workforce was $10,000 less. Each
good-paying job in this country allows for more money to flow back into
the economy. Given the importance of manufacturing jobs in
Pennsylvania, we must ask ourselves: Will the Korea trade agreement
create jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector? I believe it will
not create a substantial number of new jobs in this critical sector.
Looking back over the last 20 years, trade-related job expansion has
been an unfulfilled promise for Pennsylvania and the Nation. We need to
look no further than NAFTA. In 1993, when the
[[Page 10516]]
agreement was signed, NAFTA promised to deliver hundreds of thousands
of jobs across the United States. Leading economists at the time
projected NAFTA would bring 170,000 new jobs in the near term alone.
These gains were not realized. Instead, since NAFTA was signed into law
through 2002, 525,094 workers were certified as displaced under NAFTA,
according to the Department of Labor. I am sure that number has grown
since that 2002 data point. Furthermore, when NAFTA was negotiated,
leaders suggested that American exports would expand greatly to meet
the new-found demands of the open Mexican market with all its new
customers. The opposite has occurred.
In 1993, the United States had a small trade surplus. We had a
surplus with Mexico. According to the official Census Bureau
statistics, by 2010, 17 years later, we were running a trade deficit
with Mexico of $66.4 billion. So a surplus in trade with Mexico became
a huge deficit. Trade with Canada also saw a widening trade deficit
from $10 billion in 1993 to $28 billion in 2010. So there a deficit got
bigger; whereas, in the case of Mexico, it went from a surplus to a
massive deficit of $66 billion. The impact of these policies is plainly
seen in employment data. Pennsylvania has seen a dramatic decline in
manufacturing employment since NAFTA was implemented, losing a total of
over 300,000 jobs. With this rosy prediction of NAFTA in mind, a close
look at the government's projections of the South Korea agreement
should be viewed with great skepticism. While the International Trade
Commission predicts our bilateral trade with Korea will improve, the
total U.S. trade deficit is predicted to get larger. While proponents
of the agreement argue U.S. exports to Korea will increase, they are
neglecting to tell the whole truth. Companies will simply shift from
exporting to Korea, to creating current customers in other places,
rather than increasing total exports.
The second question I ask is, Will this agreement help create a level
playing field after enactment? I believe this agreement, South Korea
agreement, will fail to create a level playing field for our workers
and our companies. Modern trade agreements do more than cut tariffs.
These agreements contain hundreds of provisions that make substantial
changes to nontrade policies, and the Korea agreement is no exception.
According to the group Public Citizen, these nontrade provisions limit
the authority granted to elected representatives of the American people
over product and food safety, financial regulations, health care and
energy regulations, patent terms, and even our tax dollars that can be
spent by the government. The agreement allows Korean exporters to take
investment disputes out of courts and into unaccountable and secretive
international tribunals through a process known as investor-to-state
dispute system that is similar to NAFTA.
Additionally, the investment chapters were signed prior to the
current financial crisis back in 2007. These specific chapters include
rules that prohibit either country from imposing firewalls between the
sorts of financial services one firm may offer to limit the spread of
risk, for example. Important protections put in place after the
financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 could potentially be challenged under
the pending agreement. Even more troubling is the issue of Korea's
currency. South Korean currency manipulation remains an unaddressed
problem. As we have seen in China, an intentionally weakened currency
leads to a fundamentally unbalanced trade relationship and brutal
conditions for U.S. companies. In a June 17 report, the Economic Policy
Institute calculated that if Asian currencies were strengthened to
appropriate market-determined levels, if that were done, U.S. gross
domestic product would increase by as much as $285.7 billion or 1.9
percent, creating up to 2.25 million U.S. jobs; that is, if Asian
currencies were strengthened to those appropriate levels.
Unfortunately, as with other NAFTA-style free-trade agreements, this
South Korea agreement is silent on currency. This is unacceptable
because South Korea devalued their currency twice, once in 1988, once
in 1998. Both interventions devalued their currency by 50 percent or
more. South Korea was one of the first countries cited as a currency
manipulator by the Treasury Department in 1988. South Korea continues
their long history of manipulating their currency. In fact, the most
recent Treasury report to Congress on international economic and
exchange rate policies, from May 27, 2011, noted that South Korea
intervened ``heavily'' in its currency market during the financial
crisis and has continued uninterrupted since. Treasury urged South
Korea to ``adopt a greater degree of exchange rate flexibility and less
intervention.'' Currency policy has played a central role in China's
mercantilist trade policies and has cost the United States thousands of
jobs. We should not be cutting tariffs for the country, with South
Korea's heavy history on currency manipulation, without language to
deal with protecting us in a competitive environment in the
devaluations that they have undertaken before.
Additionally, several groups raised the possibility that the
agreement could be used to weaken U.S. trade laws. The free trade
agreement creates a bilateral commission on trade laws. While our Trade
Representative argues that this will not change any existing U.S. trade
laws, this avenue could be used by advocates of weaker enforcement in
the future.
Finally, I turn to the last question. Does the agreement provide new
opportunities for Pennsylvania manufacturers to export their goods?
Similar to NAFTA, the benefits of the South Korea deal have been, in my
judgment, overstated, while the risks have been largely ignored. Rather
than opening a new market for Pennsylvania farmers and manufacturers, I
am concerned that the benefits to the United States are minimal, at
best. There are specific reasons this deal fails to deliver for
Pennsylvania exporters. First, most of the benefits are based on an
overly optimistic projection for agriculture. These projections,
compiled by supporters of the agreement, assume that a cut in tariffs
will immediately equal a growth in market share.
We know from past experience that Asian markets, including South
Korea, have come up with a host of unjustified nontariff restrictions
to keep U.S. beef out of their country. These barriers to free trade
are likely to limit export potential and are largely unaddressed in the
agreement. There are other troubling clauses dealing with the beef
industry. The South Korea agreement will allow American beef packagers
to use Canadian or Mexican cattle and then export the packaged Mexican
or Canadian beef as ``American'' beef. This policy, while great for
beef packagers, undercuts the U.S. ranchers. Given our difficulties in
gaining a foothold in these markets, we should rely solely on U.S.
cattle, which we know are safe.
Second, one of Pennsylvania's most important sectors--dairy--the
competing European Union Free Trade Agreement with South Korea could
inhibit our ability to compete in the South Korean market. The text of
the European Union agreement specifies that certain types of cheese,
including mozzarella, must come from specific regions. As a result,
European exporters could challenge U.S. producers selling cheese in
South Korea as ``mozzarella'' or ``parmesan.'' In this sense, the
Europeans have negotiated a better agreement, giving European companies
an advantage over American companies.
Another problem with the agreement is which goods qualify for the
``Made in South Korea'' designation--the sticker, so to speak--and are
allowed to, therefore, enter the United States duty free. Under the
rules of origin in annex 6-A of the agreement, 65 percent of the value
of many goods, including automobiles shipped duty free to the United
States can come from South Korea and still be considered ``Made in
South Korea.''
This standard is lower than the European Union agreement. The
European Union agreement has a 55-percent content standard where
content can be foreign and, once again, places our companies at a
comparative disadvantage in
[[Page 10517]]
international competition. Just as the chart depicts, 35 percent Korea
plus 65 percent China will equal ``Made in Korea.'' I don't think that
is what the American people bargain for when they expect us to get
trade policies right. In a sense, this opens the door--a back door--for
products primarily made in places such as North Korea or China to enter
the United States of America duty free. That is wrong. It should be
changed. We should not broker an agreement that has that in it.
Let me conclude with the three questions I started with. First, will
the agreement create a substantial number of new jobs? I am concerned
it will not. In previous agreements such as NAFTA, if they are any
indication, the U.S.-Korea agreement will lead to job losses,
especially in the critical manufacturing sector.
Second, will the agreement help create a level playing field? It will
not. The agreement fails to address critical issues such as currency
manipulation that have already hurt American businesses and cost us
jobs.
Third, does the agreement provide new opportunities for American
manufacturers to export? Proponents have overstated the benefits.
Certainly industries and firms are likely to benefit, while many others
will not. What is clear is that in its failure to address nontariff
barriers to trade, the agreement leaves American firms unprotected and
on a playing field that is not level.
Instead of moving ahead with a broken model, we need to focus on the
bigger picture--formulating a strategy that helps American
manufacturers, that leads to job creation to help middle-income
families, helping us create the jobs of the future.
To make real sustained progress, Washington needs to have a plan, a
strategy. We must develop and commit ourselves to a national
manufacturing strategy that includes job-creating trade policies as
well.
Recently I convened a roundtable in Pennsylvania with leaders of
several southwestern Pennsylvania companies at the Universal Electric
Corporation in Canonsburg, Washington County, to listen to their ideas
and bring them to Washington, DC, to keep a focus on supporting
manufacturing. I heard a number of common themes. First of all, we
should develop a national strategy, as I mentioned, for manufacturing.
Second, we should make the R&D tax credit permanent. Third, we should
crack down--really crack down--on China's currency manipulation and
other unfair trade policies so that Pennsylvania companies and their
workers have at least a fair shot. Legislation I recently introduced
gives us those tools to hold countries accountable for manipulating
currencies.
We also need to extend trade adjustment assistance to help workers
who have lost their jobs to overseas unfair foreign competition so they
can build new skills and find new employment.
Finally, we need to invest in science, technology, engineering, and
math, the so-called STEM discipline, which we know will create many
jobs in the future.
Manufacturing is the heart and soul of Pennsylvania and our Nation's
economy. Our future depends on developing policies that help our
workers and our businesses compete in the global production of goods.
Our workers and our businesses can outcompete anyone in the world--any
country in the world. We just need to give them a fair shot. We need to
give them a strategy. These agreements don't do that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President I would observe the current Presiding
Officer has had the misfortune of being in the chair whenever I am
coming down to speak, so I appreciate his patience.
Today, congressional leaders are meeting with the President of the
United States to discuss what can be done to reduce the Nation's out-
of-control deficit, to deal with our unsustainable debt, to get America
back to work and help grow our economy. I congratulate the President
for convening this meeting, which will probably be one of the last
chances we will have to deal with this deadline of August 2 to deal
with the debt limit--a situation wherein we have maxed out our Nation's
credit card. Forty-three cents out of every dollar the Federal
Government spends today is borrowed money, making the deficit worse and
not better and making the debt worse and not better. This is the chance
to kick the habit of out-of-control spending here in Washington.
I appreciate the fact the President has moved from his initial
position wherein he advocated for Congress to simply raise the debt
limit without putting Washington and Congress on a spending diet. I
appreciate the fact he has moved in his position. I read today in the
daily newspapers that he is putting a lot of things, including Social
Security reform, on the table, together with other entitlements. I hope
this represents a change of position, a change of attitude, and the
President and our negotiators will seize this opportunity to do the
kind of grand bargain that will put America back on to a more solid
fiscal path. Every child born in the United States today--while being
one of the luckiest people in the world being born in the United States
of America, but at the same time being burdened--every child born today
will be burdened with $46,000 for their share of the national debt.
That is simply wrong and we all know it.
Unfortunately, there has been a lot of discussion about the White
House and some of our Democratic colleagues wanting to raise taxes as
part of this grand bargain. Indeed, I think that is the notion behind
this sense-of-the-Senate resolution the majority leader has introduced,
which is targeted at millionaires and billionaires. The sense-of-the-
Senate resolution the majority leader wants us to vote on says it is
the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit
should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a
more meaningful contribution to deficit reduction.
Unfortunately, this is not real legislation. This won't change
anything. This is a sense of the Senate. This is a resolution, which I
think is a missed opportunity to actually deal with the issue rather
than pretend as though we are treating it seriously.
When the White House proposes that working families and small
businesses, among others, suffer a $400 billion tax increase over the
next 10 years, it strikes me that in one sense this is like a diet
where a person says, I am going to give up dessert. I am not going to
eat dessert. But then that person binges on the buffet. In other words,
it is not real. It is not going to work.
To put this in perspective, the Federal Government is currently
borrowing $4 billion every day this year. So actually raising taxes in
this amount--while this only amounts to 10 days of what Washington
spends--raising taxes by $400 billion over 10 years, as we can see,
won't make a serious dent in the deficit and the debt, and they are
very serious job-killing proposals as well. It strikes me as common
sense to say if we want more jobs, we make it easier to create jobs. If
we want less jobs, we make it harder to create jobs by raising taxes,
by excessive regulation, and other obstacles to job creation. The irony
is that I am not confident our friends on the other side who propose
tax increases as part of this grand bargain actually want to use that
increased revenue to pay down the deficit and the debt. To the
contrary, I fear what they want to do is continue spending at the
current levels. So it is kind of a shell game, saying we are going to
cut $2 trillion but we are going to raise taxes by $2 trillion. What
does that mean? Unless that $2 trillion in additional revenue is used
to pay down the debt, it means it is a wash and government and
Washington continue business as usual. I don't think the American
people want us to continue doing business as usual. I think they want
us to listen to them and to mend our ways.
Let me give a context for how nonserious some of the proposals are,
including out of the President of the United States. All of a sudden he
focused last week on this depreciation schedule for corporate jets.
Depreciation is a normal part of the Tax Code
[[Page 10518]]
which says if one uses something in a business, one can basically write
it down over time. It won't surprise us to find that if a person did
that, if a person did what the President said--eliminate depreciation
of corporate jets--it would generate about $3 billion in revenue to the
Federal Treasury over 10 years--$3 billion over 10 years. But to get a
sense of what a minuscule contribution that would make to solving the
problem, consider what our annual deficit is. This is in 1 year. This
is what $1.5 trillion looks like. It has 12 zeroes; a 1, a 5, and 11
zeroes after the 5. That is our annual deficit.
The President says to solve this annual deficit, we need to raise $3
billion in additional revenue from corporate jet owners. Obviously, it
is a drop in the bucket. But it is even worse when we look at the debt.
The deficit, of course, is the difference between what the Federal
Government brings in and what it spends. Right now it is spending about
$1.5 trillion more each year than it brings in, in revenue. That is the
deficit. But the accumulation of those deficits represents the debt.
This is how much red ink our Federal Government is spending--or where
we find ourselves--and that is $14 trillion. This is the number the
President wants us to raise--$14 trillion. That is like the max on a
credit card. If a person is spending too much money, that person bumps
up against the credit card limit. The President, in essence, rather
than cutting back on spending and making sure we are paying our bills
we already owe, wants to raise it so the Federal Government can spend
more money.
As I mentioned, this $14 trillion in debt boils down to $46,000 for
every man, woman, and child in the country. So when the President gives
a press conference--and I can't remember how many times he mentions
chartered jets--but he talks about $3 billion in revenue over 10 years,
it is a drop in the bucket when dealing with a 1-year deficit, or a
deficit each year, currently of $1.5 trillion, or a $14 trillion debt.
So the fact is we cannot get there from here, even if we did what the
President said. It is not serious. It is not honest. It is not candid
in terms of what we need to do to get our country back on a solid
fiscal pathway.
So let's talk about Federal tax reform. There has been a lot of
discussion about that, where we want to take the Tax Code with all of
its multiple provisions and get it on the table and take a look at it
to make sure it is, in my view, flatter, fairer, and simpler. But right
now, the fact of that according to the Committee on Joint Taxation, 51
percent--that is a majority of American households--paid no income tax
in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nada. No income tax was paid by 51 percent of the
households in America in 2009. Actually, to show how out of whack
things have gotten, 30 percent of American households actually made
money from the tax system by way of refundable tax credits, the earned
income tax credit, among others. So 51 percent of American households
paid no income tax in 2009, but 30 percent actually made money under
the current system. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the top
10 percent of wage earners in America paid 70 percent of total income
taxes. The top 5 percent of income earners in America paid nearly 60
percent of income taxes, and the top 1 percent paid 38 percent of
income taxes.
So what is the President talking about and what is the majority
leader trying to--what point are they trying to make when they suggest
we pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying that millionaires
should ``make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction
effort''? What is their point? Is their point that we ought to raise
taxes on people who are already paying taxes? Is their point that we
should expand the pool of people who do not pay any income tax or
should we perhaps expand the pool of people who actually benefit from
cash transfers, payments as a result of a refundable tax credit?
Well, I think it is pretty obvious we need tax reform. I am skeptical
that we have time between now and Secretary Geithner's stated deadline
of August 2 to do what we need to do and to repair and fix our broken
tax system. But I think this helps put in context the frankly cynical
suggestion that somehow we could solve the problem if we just go after
the fat cats and the corporate jet owners. If we just make the
millionaires and billionaires pay more money, it will all be all right.
Well, I think the American people are smarter than that. When
confronted with the facts, I think they can readily conclude and will
readily conclude that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. We do
not need a bunch of smoke and mirrors and phony arguments about class
warfare. That is not going to solve the problem. We need to solve the
problem.
Well, let's look at the President's economic record. I know there
have been some press reports about that the President said we are
making a comeback. I think he called this summer ``the summer of
recovery,'' if I am not mistaken. But, in fact, we know the President's
policies are actually making things worse.
All you need to do is look at the number of people who are unemployed
in America. There were 12 million people unemployed on his inauguration
day. Now it is almost 14 million. Almost 2 million more Americans are
unemployed. Is that making things better? No. It is making things
worse. And we know there are a lot of people who are taking minimum-
wage jobs and other jobs not up to their full potential because they
want to provide for their families, so we call those people
underemployed. That would make that number even higher. When the
President was inaugurated in January of 2009, the unemployment rate was
7.8 percent. Today, it is 9.1 percent. That is a 17-percent increase.
In other words, unemployment is worse today than it was when the
President was sworn in.
Gas prices. We all know what has happened to gas prices. They have
gone through the roof. People are having to deny themselves other
discretionary expenditures because they simply have to have the
gasoline to be able to drive to work, drive the kids to school, or take
care of their daily business. The fact is, when the President was sworn
in, gasoline prices were $1.85. Well, wouldn't it be great if gas
prices were $1.85 today? Instead, they average $3.58. That is almost a
100-percent increase in gasoline prices since President Obama put his
hand on the Bible and was sworn in as President of the United States.
It is a 94-percent increase.
Then we were talking about the Federal debt. The Federal debt when
the President was sworn in--some people will tell you: Oh, it is all
about President Bush and fighting two wars that were not paid for. It
is about the Bush tax cuts and other things. Well, I agree there is
bipartisan blame when it comes to our national debt, but we ought to
link arms and work together to try to solve the problem rather than
continue to make it worse. The Federal debt when President Obama was
sworn in was $10.6 trillion. Today, it is $14.3 trillion. It is 35
percent worse. The debt has gone up by 35 percent since President Obama
was sworn in.
I mentioned this factor earlier. As shown on this chart, this is what
every American citizen owes in terms of their share of the national
debt. When President Obama was sworn in, it was $34,000. Today, it is
46,000. So, congratulations, everyone within the sound of my voice owes
$11,000 more to the national debt since President Obama became
President of the United States.
Then there is health insurance. We have had a lot of debate about
health insurance costs. We were told that if we just passed this giant
health care bill, health insurance costs would go down, we would fix
problems, and we would make sure more people had access to health care.
Well, since President Obama became President, health insurance premiums
have gone up by 19 percent--19 percent. Did he make it better or did he
make it worse?
Well, we need to unburden the economy from higher taxes, excessive
regulation, and all the sorts of obstacles that get in the way of small
businesses--the primary job-creating engine in our economy--doing what
they do best; that is, growing the economy, creating jobs. If our
friends across the aisle want more tax revenue, well, the best way to
get more revenue is to get
[[Page 10519]]
more Americans back to work so they pay taxes rather than remain
unemployed, losing their homes because they cannot pay their mortgages.
That is how we ought to increase revenue, not by raising rates, not by
some of these silly class-warfare arguments that seem to target
unpopular sectors of the economy.
And, yes, we need to increase exports to create more jobs. We can do
that by ratifying the outstanding trade agreements without adding
unnecessary spending to them.
And, yes, when it comes to energy policy, the high price of
gasoline--which has gone up 94 percent since President Obama became
President of the United States--we can open more domestic energy
reserves, more American natural resources, rather than continue to have
to import it from places abroad that are not necessarily our friends or
which may be in political turmoil or even war, such as Libya. So if we
had a rational national energy policy where the EPA, rather than
looking for excuses to deny us access to things such as the natural gas
discoveries we have found in Texas and around the country--if we had a
way to take advantage of and did, in fact, take advantage of more
domestic energy production, it could help us put more Americans back to
work and help us reduce our dependency on energy from abroad and help
bring down this price to one that does not break the backs of the
average working families.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a correction. My staff told me I
undercounted $14 trillion. I asked ahead of time, but we actually got
the number wrong. The number I have on the chart is actually three
zeros too few. So just to make sure the record is correct, that is 12
zeros after the ``14.'' That reflects our national debt. I would like
to say I made the mistake and it was actually lower, but it actually is
much higher, which I think reinforces my point.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, while the Senator is still here, I
recall--Senator Cornyn is a member of the Budget Committee and
knowledgeable about these issues--that we have had one budget actually
presented to the Senate, and that was the President's budget. It was
scored by the Congressional Budget Office, which shows that under the
President's budget, the debt of the United States would increase by $13
trillion in 10 years.
I do not know if the Senator is aware, but I would ask him is he
aware of how much additional revenue would come to the government if
the President's proposal on corporate jet taxation were to be imposed,
and would that make a difference in the $13,000 trillion that would be
added to the debt in the next 10 years?
Mr. CORNYN. Well, Mr. President, responding to my friend from
Alabama, the number, I am advised, is roughly $3 billion in additional
revenue to the Treasury, and that would be over 10 years. But, as you
can see, it is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the deficit for 1
year, which is $1.5 trillion, and the national debt of $14 trillion.
I apologize, I am not used to dealing with numbers that big, which
demonstrates that these numbers really have kind of lost their meaning
here. I remember Everett Dirksen being quoted as saying: A million
here, a million there, and pretty soon you are talking about real
money.
The fact is we are not talking about millions, we are not talking
about billions, we are talking about trillions. I think most people's
minds have a very difficult time conceiving of how big a number that
is.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to enter
into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. If Senator Cornyn could join us, we would be pleased.
Mr. President, the debt situation we are in today is the most serious
our Nation has ever faced. A lot of people do not understand it and do
not understand how serious it is. Even after World War II, we had
growth. We had the baby boomers just coming of age, we had more young
people and fewer older people, and the situation was more positive than
it is today, even though we had debt after the war. That is just a
fact.
I have tried to look at the creation of a budget that would balance
in 10 years, bring us into balance in 10 years. It is hard to do. It
absolutely can be done. It takes some real effort, but it can be done.
We can do it, and we have to do it. But President Obama, during his
years as President, is on track to have four consecutive trillion-
dollar deficits--the highest deficit we have had previously was the
$450 billion deficit that President Bush had. We have had $1.2 trillion
and $1.3 trillion.
This September 30, when the fiscal year ends, it is estimated to be
$1.5 trillion for 2011. We take in $2.2 trillion, we are spending $3.7
trillion, and 40 cents of every dollar we spend this year is borrowed.
It is an unsustainable course.
President Obama appointed a deficit commission. He appointed Erskine
Bowles, a former Chief of Staff of President Clinton, as co-chair. He
also chose Alan Simpson, a former Republican Senator. They submitted a
statement to the Budget Committee that this country faces the most
predictable economic crisis in its history. We have to act, they told
us.
They were asked when could this crisis happen. Mr. Bowles said it
could happen within 2 years--not for our children and grandchildren; he
said 2 years, maybe a little sooner or maybe a little later. Alan
Simpson popped up and said he thought it could be 1 year; in other
words, some sort of economic crisis like we had in 2007 and 2008 or
something that could put our economy in a tailspin. It is that serious.
The debt trajectory path we are on is unsustainable.
Tomorrow, I have to say, will mark the 800th day this Senate has not
had a budget. We are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend,
and we have gone this long without a budget. There is no plan,
apparently, to present one. The chairman of the Budget Committee, on
which I am ranking Republican, tells us he has one, and he talked to
his colleagues and they have agreed on it. But it remains secret.
The Congressional Budget Act explicitly says we should have a budget
by April 15. It says the committee should report a budget resolution on
April 1. Well, we have not had a markup. Apparently, there is no plan
to have one. We are just going to wait and see if secret negotiations
can produce something. That is not acceptable at a time in which the
debt is the primary threat to the health, security, and welfare of our
Nation, and there is no doubt about it.
Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the
greatest threat to our national security is our debt. Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton made a very similar statement. They are exactly
right. There is no dispute about it.
We have had nothing on the floor of the Senate except a resolution
saying we should tax the rich--a sense of the Senate, that has no
power, no binding authority, no numbers, not how much we are going to
attack the rich.
We are in serious condition. I think the American people, if they
understood how little has been done in this body this year on the most
important issue facing this country, would be even more dissatisfied
with the U.S. Congress than they are--more dissatisfied at least with
the Senate. I knew the Senator from Missouri before, who is not new to
Congress. He was a Republican whip in the House of Representatives. The
House has passed a budget this year--an honest budget that changes the
debt trajectory of America in a solid way, and it would
[[Page 10520]]
put us on a new path for prosperity. Everybody doesn't have to agree
with everything in it, but they met their responsibility by April 15.
It is great to be here with Senator Blunt. We are so pleased to have
him in the Senate. I ask him if he would share his thoughts at this
time about this situation.
Mr. BLUNT. I will. I also asked the Senator about his view of this
budget situation. The Presiding Officer and I were secretaries of state
together some time ago and have known each other a long time. I am glad
to have him in the chair as we have this discussion.
I don't think the House, until the last Congress, ever failed to pass
a budget. I am not sure the Senate didn't always pass a budget until
the last Congress, though there were times when the House and Senate
could not agree. But at least each side had a plan.
There is an old adage that when you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
It sure looks to me that is the trajectory we are on now. Members are
more and more talking about maybe we will have another continuing
resolution this year. That will be the appropriations process because
we have no plan. Of course, as the Senator pointed out, as a person who
knows as much about the budget process as anybody in Washington, we
passed the April 1 deadline, then we passed a May 1 date, and then a
June 1 date, and now we passed the July 1 date. We are up to that 800th
day since the Senate passed a plan or had a plan of any kind. We are
waiting for a plan to move forward with the work of just funding the
government. Clearly, that is not acceptable.
We see the economy continuing to wait for some signs of certainty
from the Federal Government, certainty about where our budget is going
to be, certainty about our tax structure, certainty about regulations
and utility bills. We are just not seeing that happen. In fact, things
are getting progressively worse and worse. Gas prices have almost
doubled now in the last 30 months. Unemployment is up 17 percent. In
fact, there is no statistic I know of that is better than it was in
January of 2009.
Has the Senate, in the past, until the last 3 years--has there ever
been a time when the Senate didn't even attempt to have a budget?
Mr. SESSIONS. To my knowledge, at no time since I have been here did
the Senate not attempt to pass a budget. In the last 2 years, even when
our Democratic colleagues had 60 votes--the largest majority in recent
memory in the Senate--they only attempted to bring a budget to the
floor once. Last year a budget did go to committee. It was marked up by
Senator Conrad. It came to the floor, but the majority leader decided
not to bring it up. This year, it seems that Senator Conrad was told
not to have a markup, not to even produce a budget in committee.
It seems to me to indicate a lack of willingness to lead because--
would the Senator not agree?--a budget sets the priorities,
demonstrates the vision for the future of the country and what we
should spend, what we should tax, and how much debt we can afford to
run up. Those are fundamental responsibilities. How would he evaluate
the fact that tomorrow we are 800 days without a budget? What does that
say about the leadership we have seen in the Senate?
Mr. BLUNT. It shows we have been 800 days without a budget, and
basically 800 days without any structure or process of how we spend the
people's money. It has been 800 days since the last time we could come
up with an appropriations process, so maybe they will suggest we will
modify that a little bit and move forward. But that clearly is not good
enough. In that 800 days, as the Senator pointed out, we have gone to
where we are--we have added 35 percent in a little over 800 days, in
2\1/2\ years, to the Federal deficit.
This is not defending anybody else's effort to make the revenue and
the expenditures of the Federal Government balance, but we can't
continue to spend more than we have. If we don't have a plan, a
blueprint, or if we don't have a budget like families have to have--if
we don't have a budget at the very least, and we are managing our
money, we write checks until the money runs out, and we can't do much
more than that.
We are at a point now that we are spending $3.7 trillion or $3.8
trillion and collecting $2.2 trillion. I am like Senator Cornyn on this
topic--by the way, everybody else is too, including the Secretary of
the Treasury. Nobody knows how much money this is, but we all know if
someone is making $22,000 a year and spending $37,000 a year, and they
have already borrowed more money than anybody should have ever lent
them, they can't continue to do that.
There has to be a point where they say: We are going to have to get
real. We are making $22,000, so we better start spending no more than
$22,000, and that includes paying off the money that we have already
borrowed when we were spending $37,000.
There are so many zeros and numbers that if any of us really
understood how much money we are talking about and how long it will
take to pay it back, we would all be more scared than we are.
Certainly, the people we work for would be more scared than they are
because we are doing irresponsible things, and as irresponsible as any
of those things is not having a plan.
In all those years the Senator spent on the Budget Committee and his
leadership there now, he knows if we don't have a plan--the
appropriations process doesn't move forward unless we agree first how
much money we are going to spend in that process. So, eventually, we
just go back and say: Let's go back to last year and modify slightly
the terrible job we did last year, and let's borrow that much more
money again.
That is not acceptable.
Mr. SESSIONS. Before the Senator shares his thoughts about the
appropriations process from his extensive experience in the leadership
of the Congress, just briefly, I want to make sure the American people
and our colleagues know what happened.
I see our newly elected colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Ron
Johnson. He won election, you could say, in an upset--a popular, big
victory. He campaigned all over his State and talked about the issues
we are talking about today.
As a new Member of the Senate, I would love to hear Senator Johnson's
comments about where he thinks we are today.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. First of all, I thank the Senator for his
leadership. He has been talking loudly and clearly about the fact that
we should not have recessed this week. I know President Obama tried to
claim credit for that. It is because of the Senator's leadership and
the members of the Republican conference in the Senate who said: No, we
are bankrupting America and we need to stay here and start debating
this issue.
Unfortunately, that is not what we have been doing this week. It is
sad. One word I have used all the time now that I have come to
Washington is ``unbelievable.'' It is simply unbelievable that tomorrow
will mark 800 days that we haven't passed a budget.
My background is in business for the last 34 years. I have had to
produce budgets on time. I have had people produce budgets for me on
time. In business--even a small business--it is inconceivable that if
you tell a colleague to make sure to have the budget on your desk by
April 15 that it wouldn't be there; 99.9 percent of those accountants
and controllers would have a budget on time, on April 15.
We are dealing with the United States of America. We are talking
about our financial future, the fate of America. The Democrats in the
Senate have failed to meet that obligation for 2 years in a row. That
is simply unbelievable, and it is so incredibly irresponsible. Really,
I think the Senate has been guilty of willful neglect. The phrase I
have used is that the Senate has been ``fiddling'' while America is
going broke. That is sad.
As the Senator pointed out as well, what does the financial future of
America rest on? Some secret talks--talks between a few individuals
going out behind closed doors far from the view of the American public
rather than in an
[[Page 10521]]
orderly process where a plan is presented that can be viewed by the
American public, that can be debated openly the way our Founders
envisioned on the floor of this Senate, this historic floor; instead of
using the process that we should have been using, what is going to
happen? Are we going to have a result, a negotiated settlement drop in
our laps a couple days before this deadline date? Is that what is going
to happen? Is that really how the financial fate of America is going to
be decided?
I personally find that process disgusting. That is why I stood last
Tuesday on the floor of the Senate and said unless we start seriously
addressing this problem, the bankrupting of America, in the open, in
the bright light of day, I was going to begin to object. I was going to
begin to withhold my consent.
I was heartened by the support I got from my Republican colleagues
because, let's face it, we understand how urgent the situation is. We
understand how dire our financial situation is. We are willing to sit
down and work with anybody who will seriously address the fact that we
are driving America toward bankruptcy. But we need a willing partner,
and up to this point in time I haven't seen one.
The fact that the only plan we have seen is the President's budget,
4.25 inches thick, 2,400 pages long--how many thousands of manhours did
that document take to produce? It was so unserious it would have added
more than $12 trillion to our Nation's debt in the next 10 years. It
would have continued the bankrupting of America. It would have made us
go broke. It was so unserious, it failed in the Senate by a vote of 0-
97. Not one Democratic Senator found that bill serious enough to give
it a vote. That is the only plan I have seen.
I woke up this morning to a couple of news reports, and there was
more detail about what the administration might plan to do fed to
reporters than fed to a Member of Congress.
I am sorry to be so blunt about this, but that is a disgusting
process. The American people deserve far better. I guess today what I
am standing here saying is, I want to see a plan, and I want to see a
budget, and I want to see it to give us enough time so we can actually
analyze it and debate it and pass the real structural reforms so that
we can actually solve this problem. I am calling on the President and I
am calling on the Democrats in this Senate to produce that plan so we
can have an open debate on it. That is kind of how I am thinking.
Mr. BLUNT. I would like to say to both Senator Sessions and Senator
Johnson, who were primary leaders in this idea that we shouldn't go
home, that Republicans shouldn't vote to adjourn, that you were going
to object to things that didn't relate to the business we need to do,
and, of course, that is right.
As Senator Johnson was talking, I was thinking the other deadline,
the other April 15 deadline, every American had better comply with that
one. It is in the law just like the one that we are supposed to comply
with.
What if everybody in America decided they were going to miss their
legal deadline as well? OK, we are not going to have a budget, and we
are not going to pay our taxes. Of course, they would be in trouble.
The Senate is not in trouble, but the country is in trouble because the
Senate is not doing its job. Neither the House nor the Senate did their
jobs in the last Congress, for the first time ever. So that is how we
go now into 3 years of no budget, 3 years since we had a working
document that we should have to work with. That is important.
What did we do this week? The disappointment to all three of us is we
said we wanted to stay this week and deal with these issues, and what
did we deal with? We started out by trying to deal with a Libya
resolution that apparently wasn't important enough to deal with last
Thursday when we were going to take a week to be working in our States,
but we will debate the Libya resolution. Then when people on the
Republican side said they thought we ought to be debating the reason we
were supposed to stay, we still didn't do that. We have this amendment
that I think was supposed to be a sense of the Senate, and is a sense
of the Senate that millionaires aren't paying enough taxes.
We all understand the politics of that, just like we understand the
politics of no accelerated depreciation for business airplanes.
Whenever that was done, it was done to try to create more American jobs
quicker by a little more demand. I think how that works is that plane
is depreciated in 5 years instead of 7 to encourage people to go ahead
and buy a plane and keep people who make planes at work. But what is
that $3 billion over 10 years? We are borrowing $4 billion today, and
we try to have this debate as if it is about $3 billion over 10 years.
We are borrowing $4 billion today, and we want to have this false
debate about who is not paying their share.
We are spending too much money is the problem. The problem is not
that we are not taxing enough. We are spending almost 25 percent of the
capacity of the country to produce goods and services. Until the
beginning of 2009, for 40 years the average was 20.6; $1 out of $5 was
going to the Federal Government, not $1 out of $4.
I was asked by some reporters yesterday: Why is this so different
than other times when the debt limit has been increased? You mentioned
one of them earlier. One of the differences is we have added 35 percent
to the debt in about 30 months--35 percent to the debt in 30 months.
Another one is the Federal Government is suffocating the economy by
spending too much money. There is no money left for people to borrow
and take a risk and create a job and create an opportunity for somebody
else.
On the millionaire tax, 1 percent of all the taxpayers pay 38 percent
of all the taxes now. Maybe we ought to get to where 1 or 2 percent
just pay all the taxes. We already have 47 percent of the individuals
in the country paying no income tax.
By the way, you value what you pay for. If you don't pay any income
tax, you don't care about the income tax as much as if you did. So
there aren't as many people out there fighting excessive taxation
because they have less of a stake in it. But 1 percent of the people in
the country already pay 38 percent of the income taxes, and 10 percent
pay 70 percent. Maybe we just ought to let that 10 percent pay 100
percent. I guess that would get all the millionaires and billionaires.
And, oh, I remember the tax. Do you remember the millionaires' tax,
but only like 155 people would pay or something? It was the alternative
minimum tax; 155 people were going to pay that millionaire tax, and now
some huge percentage of all Americans pay it because, eventually, once
we start down this path, everybody is impacted by higher tax rates.
The frustration of being here and not doing anything all week--we had
one vote to compel the Members who didn't come, to come to the Senate,
and another vote was cloture on a bill that doesn't matter. The
frustration of your leadership and then that result is pretty
incredible to me.
But thanks to both Senators for insisting for weeks before last week
that we should stay and have a discussion, a debate, a vote on the
things that matter. I am sorry that we didn't have that, particularly
based on the intensity on the part of both Senators of insisting that
we have that kind of debate this week, and we didn't have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I would like to pick up on Senator Blunt's
point about just how unserious this week has been.
Just in comparison to business, about 5 years ago I bought a business
out of bankruptcy. I watched those business owners over the course of 2
or 3 years struggle to make a go of that business. You would not
believe the number of hours those people, those hard-working Americans
put in to save that business. It didn't work. They went into
reorganization under the bankruptcy laws. I bought that business out of
bankruptcy. I saw how incredibly hard my team worked to make that
business survive, and it did survive. These are individuals putting in
[[Page 10522]]
16, 17, 18, 20 hours a day to make a product, to build a good life for
themselves and their families, to provide employment, jobs.
This is the American spirit. That is the entrepreneurial spirit. That
is what Americans do day in and day out, whether they own a business or
whether they contribute their effort: their labor to make their
business successful, the one they work for successful. That is what
Americans do.
What has this President done? What has this Congress done? What has
this Senate done?
In the last 6 months since I have been here, we passed six laws, six
bills that have become law. Three of those had to do with the
continuing resolutions of last year's business: funding the government
for this year. Those were laws that should have been passed 1 year ago,
but it was left over for us to do that.
We had two bills to extend the PATRIOT Act. If we take a look at how
that was even done, it was last minute, rush-rush, very little time for
debate. We couldn't even get amendments in there.
Then, of course, the other one is we kind of cleaned up a little bit
a little part of the health care law that dealt with 1099s, which would
have been a nightmare. It would have cost billions of dollars to comply
with and not brought in any revenue. So we finally got that off the
books, thankfully.
The other bills we have debated, we spent 16 weeks debating three
bills. The total dollar amount of those bills is $20 billion. That is
about \1/2\ percent of what this Federal Government will spend this
year. So we have spent 16 weeks debating \1/2\ percent of our $3.6-
trillion-a-year budget. That, in my mind, is the definition of being
not serious.
Of course, we have said it has been 799--tomorrow it will be 800--
days since we actually passed a budget. This week we spent 15 hours of
debate. We call it a sense-of-the-Senate resolution? It should be
called the nonsense of the Senate. That is what has been occurring this
week, and it is a tragedy. It is a tragedy.
But, again, that is why I stood up and started to object. I will
continue to do that until we actually start getting serious, until we
actually see a plan, a budget that we can start debating.
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, let me just note that we had a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution on the floor, and we had a cloture vote on it that I
think everybody voted to go to the bill. That is what the leader wanted
to do. We go to the bill. But it is really nothing because if it passes
it has no impact and makes no change whatsoever. It basically says we
should tax the rich more.
Well, we can debate these issues, but I will just note that the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, which is
an organization for the development of world businesses has concluded
that the United States has the most progressive tax system in the
world. We always thought the Europeans were more hostile to wealth and
more socialistic than we were, but that is their analysis.
As Senator Blunt said, how much more do we want them to pay? Maybe
they should pay more. Let's debate it and let's talk about it. But that
is not going to fix our problems.
Senator Johnson was a successful businessman, an accountant. I have
seen his work. I am so glad he is on the Budget Committee. I guess he
and Senator Enzi are the only accountants around here, and we are glad
the Senator is here. I have seen his work.
He actually adds up numbers and makes spending charts. He showed me
one this morning, trying to figure out a way to change America.
But my first question is--the Senator was a successful businessman
and he had never been a politician before, so why did the Senator run?
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Well, the reason I ran is because we are
bankrupting the Nation. I love America. We love America. When I watch
what is happening, and when I saw how broken Washington was, when I saw
them pass the health care law, from my standpoint that was the straw
that broke the camel's back.
Our first child, my daughter Carey, was born with a very serious
congenital heart defect. Dedicated doctors and surgeons saved her life
the first day. Then 8 months later, when her heart was the size of a
plum, another dedicated surgical team of dedicated professionals
totally reconstructed the upper chamber of her heart. Her heart
operates backwards now. But she is 28 years old, and she is a nurse
herself in a neonatal intensive care unit.
When I heard President Obama say these doctors, that they will take
out a set of tonsils for a few extra bucks, I found that outrageous.
Then when this Congress and this President signed the health care law,
I know the result of that. It is designed to lead to a government
takeover of our health care system.
All we have to do is take a look at Canada and Britain. We don't have
to theorize what that is going to result in. It will lower the quality
of care. It will result in rationing, and the medical innovation to
save my daughter's life and millions of others--it really is America
where medical miracles are created. I think that innovation is going to
come to a grinding halt.
So that is just the quality aspect of the health care bill, but it is
going to destroy our budget.
I wrote a piece with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, ex-CBO Director. Rather
than $93 billion a year, when this bill kicks in, as it is designed to
do, and a large percentage of Americans lose their health care employer
coverage and get dumped into the exchanges, we are talking about a $\1/
2\ trillion or maybe $900 billion.
I see we are running out of time, but that is why I ran, because we
are bankrupting America.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senators have used 30 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 additional
minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just want to say we have in this
colloquy Senator Blunt, who was the second ranking Republican leader in
the House and who has dealt with these issues for many years. We are so
glad to have him in the Senate--and Senator Johnson, a new Senator,
passionate and concerned about the future of America, both of them. I
think the American people should be proud of the service they have
rendered.
We have to change. I believe we can, and we are going to keep
fighting toward that end.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I appreciate the Presiding Officer
recognizing me. I kind of switched places with him earlier. I was in
the chair and listened to some comments from a number of Senators on
the other side of the aisle. I did not come to the floor to talk about
this, but I just cannot help myself sometimes.
I heard these comparisons. When they talked about the economy, it all
started January 20 of 2009, and they compared that day with today. What
they left out of that picture is when Barack Obama became President,
this economy was going like this. It was not like: He is President. Now
things will get better. The 30 days after he was sworn in on January
20, 2009, we lost 700,000 jobs in this country. The next 30 days we
lost somewhere in excess of, I believe, 600,000 jobs.
The point is, what happened for the first several months, almost
before President Obama could take a breath, before Congress, the House
and Senate, controlled by Democrats then, could actually put a program
in place and put policies in place that would respond to this terrible
economy bequeathed to them and to us by this sort of Republican
economic policy. The Republican economic policy was tax cuts for the
rich, two wars not paid for, a giveaway to the drug and insurance
industry, a bailout to the drug and insurance industry in the name of
Medicare privatization, privatization/deregulation of Wall Street, and
tax cuts that
[[Page 10523]]
went overwhelmingly to the richest Americans. That is what got us into
this.
For them to say look at the number of jobs today, look at the number
of jobs in January, 2009--they know that is a specious argument. They
are disingenuous. They are not especially honest when they make that
argument.
The fact is, we have seen in the last 14 months--and I wish it were
better. I went to Barberton, OH, this week and was at a plant expansion
with 30 jobs. It is not enough, I wish it were 300. It is an Alcoa
plant. They are hiring people. They are paying OK wages. I wish they
were paying better wages. I wish they could hire more people. But we
are seeing progress.
In the last 14 months--they forgot to tell us this--we are seeing job
growth every month, including manufacturing job growth, the lifeblood
of the economy in my State. We are the third leading manufacturing
State, only behind the States of Senator Cornyn and Senator Boxer and
Senator Feinstein in the number of manufacturing jobs and their output.
The point is, let's be honest when we have this discussion. We know
our policies are not working as fast as we would like. But we know what
their policies brought us--21 million private sector jobs created
during the 8 years of Bill Clinton; then when they put in the Bush
economic policies: tax cuts for the wealthy, twice; two wars, not
paying for them; partial privatization of Medicare; deregulation of
Wall Street--1 million private sector jobs created in 8 years; 21
million versus 1 million. Tell that story too.
I am not saying we have every answer--we don't--but we are making
progress in spite of their saying no to everything we are trying to do.
We have to look at the future. The biggest problem we have in this
country is the decline of the middle class and we have to address that.
That is why I came to the floor, because even though we are in the
midst of this budget debate as everyone is talking about, the focus has
to stay on jobs creation. It has to be: How do we create jobs in this
country?
One way not to create jobs is what Senator Casey talked about an hour
or so ago, and that would be three new trade agreements that too many
people on both sides of the aisle want to foist on the American people.
This morning, the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means
Committee were both having what are called mock markups of free-trade
deals with three countries: South Korea in Asia, Colombia and Panama in
our hemisphere.
The Senate Finance committee is including trade adjustment
assistance. The House does not even care to take care of workers who
lose their jobs because of these trade agreements. They are expendable.
They are a bunch of 50-year-olds who do not have much education and, if
they lose their jobs, who cares? That is what they are saying in the
House Ways and Means Committee. We will pass this legislation. When
people lose their jobs, there is nothing we can do to help them. But
there is, and we have had something called trade adjustment assistance
for 50 years and it has been bipartisan, until this group of radicals
who run the House of Representatives decided we don't want trade
assistance adjustment anymore.
In the last decade alone, 6 million manufacturing jobs, 55,000
manufacturing plants have been lost.
Multinational companies are too easily setting up companies overseas
and exporting products back into the U.S. market. Is there any time in
world history where the most compelling business plan for a company is
shut down what they do in their home country, move production far away
to another country where they have lower wages, fewer regulations, a
government that is not exactly free, make those products there, and
sell them back to the home country? This business plan that so many
American companies follow is move production overseas where they can
get cheap labor and weak regulations in a totalitarian government and
then sell the products back to the home country. That is a business
plan that far too many American companies have, obviously, followed.
Manufacturing now accounts for less than 10 percent of employment in
our country. That is partly because of NAFTA, partly because of the
CAFTA, partly because of the China permanent normal trade relations.
They only accelerate our decline and the country pays for it today. The
public has heard promises of job creation from trade deals before--
every single time: NAFTA would create this many jobs, CAFTA would
create this many jobs, PNTR would mean more prosperity and jobs for
Americans.
The Korean deal is more of the same. The International Trade
Commission projects the Korean Free Trade Agreement would increase the
U.S. trade deficit. The Economic Policy Institute estimates the loss of
at least 150,000 jobs from this agreement. The Korea pact has unusually
low rules of origin, allowing manufactured goods containing up to 65
percent of components from China or any other country to obtain the
benefits of the agreement.
What happens is a company in Seoul, South Korea--after this trade
agreement would pass, if it does--would contract with the Chinese; 65
percent of the product would come from China, be sold into South Korea,
South Korea puts its value added on it, sends it to the United States
duty free, tariff free, even though 65 percent of it was made in China.
Pundits and the editorial boards say agreements such as these are no-
brainers. They say trade adjustment assistance is just a payoff to
workers for passing more job-killing trade agreements. The Washington
Post editorial board--always a creative thinker of the future and wrong
in their predictions on war, wrong in their predictions on trade, wrong
in their predictions on labor law, but nonetheless the Washington Post
editorial board called TAA a consolation prize.
Once again, they get it wrong. Not many editorial writers in the
Washington Post, frankly, have lost their jobs in trade agreements.
They don't seem all that interested in people in Steubenville and Lima
and Zanesville who actually have lost their jobs because of these trade
agreements which the Washington Post editorial board always supports.
We need to focus on retraining workers who are displaced because of
past free-trade deals. But even this historically bipartisan program,
as I said earlier, is suddenly becoming controversial. It was operated
through numerous administrations, supported by Republicans and
Democrats alike, and ensures workers who lose their jobs and financial
security as a result of globalization have an opportunity to transition
to new jobs in emerging sectors of the economy. It helps retrain
workers for new opportunities.
In the 2010 fiscal year alone, more than 225,000 workers participated
in the TAA program, receiving training for jobs employers are looking
to fill. It is common sense. Senator Casey stood on this floor--he in
that row, I in this row--and asked repeatedly for his colleagues to
extend this vital job training program. Under the rules of the Senate,
one of them stands and objects, time and time again. We did get a 6-
week extension, but since mid-February, this part of trade adjustment
assistance is simply not available to so many people in New Mexico and
in Ohio and in Pennsylvania and across the country.
Senator Casey and I introduced the TAA bill last week that would
extend TAA for 5 years. We paid for it. We know it is no panacea for
bad trade agreements. It is not the price workers in my State want to
pay while Congress passes more trade deals. We must stand for workers
before even considering new trade agreements. We must focus on real job
creation. A big part of that is standing against China's unfair
currency regime that they have inflicted on this world trade regimen
for a number of years.
With our trade deficit, also comes trading partners manipulating
their currency to undermine our manufacturers. They have repeatedly
found ways to circumvent trade laws to gain an unfair advantage. In
2010, our trade deficit was $634 billion. That means every single day,
7 days a week, 52 weeks a year--every single day we buy
[[Page 10524]]
more than $1.5 billion more in goods than they sell internationally.
With China, our trade deficit was $273 billion. That means several
hundred million dollars every day we purchase from China more than we
sell to China, every single day.
President Bush once said that a $1 billion trade surplus or a $1
billion trade deficit translates into 13,000 jobs. Think about that. If
we have a trade deficit of $1 billion, according to President Bush--
these are not my numbers--both President Bushes, by and large,
supported both of these trade agreements--by and large, we lost 13,000
jobs, mostly manufacturing, in Indiana and Ohio and New Mexico and
around the country.
Do the math. If our trade deficit is $200 billion with China, we know
what that means.
Ten years ago, our trade deficit in goods with China was $68 billion.
These geniuses who come up with these trade agreements, supported by
the editorial boards, supported by Harvard economists, supported by
Presidents, supported by pundits who are in Washington and probably do
not get outside of Washington much--we had a $68 billion trade deficit
with China when the most effective corporate lobbyists in the history
of the world came to this institution, came to the House and Senate,
and sold a majority of House and Senate Members that PNTR with China
was a good idea. We had a $68 billion trade deficit with China then.
Now it is $273 billion. They told us: We are going to sell more goods.
We are going to do better with our deals with China when we have this.
In the last couple minutes, I would point out Senator Snowe and I
proposed bipartisan currency reform for the Fair Trade Act to ensure
our trade deficit is not further increased when countries such as China
manipulate their currency to make their exports less expensive so they
can break into our market and keep us out of their market. The
legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House last year. Our bill
would strengthen countervailing duty laws to consider undervalued
currency as an unfair trade subsidy in determining duty rates.
When an Ohio industry such as coated paper in Hamilton, OH, or steel
in Lorain or aluminum in Sidney, when they petition the International
Trade Commission for relief against unfair subsidies, they can talk
about--include in that petition--the charge of currency manipulation.
The bill sends a signal to our trading partners we are not going to sit
there while countries gain the unfair advantage over Americans workers
and businesses. Before pursuing more free-trade agreements, lets focus
on enforcement and focus on addressing currency manipulation. Let's
level the playing field so we can fight back and stop this terrible
hemorrhaging of American manufacturing jobs.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana is
recognized.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today Congressional leadership on both
sides of the aisle is meeting with the President to try to break the
current impasse on the debt talks. As the President said in a press
conference earlier this week: ``Right now, we've got a unique
opportunity to do something big.'' I completely agree with that
statement. I am glad and pleased that, finally, after months of concern
and months of urging, we are dealing with this impending debt crisis.
Time is running out. The leadership is now meeting. We will be
getting reports on what has come from this meeting. I was encouraged by
initial reports today indicating the President has agreed to address
the issue of entitlement spending as well as defining the amount of
spending cuts that are necessary to put together a credible plan that
move our country into a better financial position.
I have been discussing the necessity of a comprehensive solution to
our problem ever since day one of this session and my return to the
Senate, and I've indicated that the current process of spending way
beyond our means simply cannot be maintained and sustained and that we
have to address it-- not after 2012 but we need to address it now. So I
am encouraged by the talks that are now going on, and that are
beginning to incorporate the elements of a growing consensus, if not
almost total consensus, that exists and is necessary for this
initiative to be successful, for it to be deemed credible, and for it
to avoid the potentially catastrophic consequences of defaulting on our
debt and losing our credibility as the place to invest your money for
the best safety you can get.
I don't have to go through the math again, but I will just briefly.
Spending $3.7 trillion a year when you are only taking in $2.2 trillion
a year is unsustainable and is driving us toward the cliff of
bankruptcy--an inability to pay our debts. A big driver of that and the
biggest driver of that debt is clearly the mandatory spending that
comes with entitlements.
It is no secret that we have seen the baby boom generation move
through the economy from birth now to retirement. The programs that
were put in place and the promises that were made in terms of benefits
to those beneficiaries are not going to be available if we don't
address the pending bankruptcy of these programs. Those who have
analyzed this have basically said: Look, you have to do something now
to keep these programs from going broke in the future.
So all of those who say, don't touch my Medicare, don't touch my
Social Security, don't do anything, they are essentially saying we are
willing to ride it out for 2 or 3 more years and then see the whole
thing collapse. Then there are those of us who are saying, let's do
something sensible and rational now--not taking away any benefits from
current beneficiaries, by the way, but doing something to preserve
these programs in the future is absolutely essential. We are trying to
save Social Security, we are trying to save Medicare, and we are trying
to do the kinds of things that are necessary with our mandatory
spending to address the total imbalance in place that is driving these
programs into insolvency.
I would hope today that what we hear back from this meeting at the
White House is a commitment to go forward with a comprehensive approach
including necessary cuts, the elimination of duplications of programs,
redundancies, fraud and abuse--things we simply cannot afford anymore--
combined with addressing mandatory spending and entitlements in a
responsible way, and the mandatory spending, putting the right
enforcement mechanisms in place so we don't renege on our commitments,
and also incorporating comprehensive tax reform.
For months, the focus has been on cutting spending and tax increases.
I think another growing consensus is that without comprehensive tax
reform, we are not going to be able to address and solve this problem.
I believe the administration has also begun to recognize this and
acknowledge that comprehensive tax reform is necessary.
Yesterday, Senator Wyden and I sent a letter to President Obama and
to the congressional leaders who are participating in today's debt
ceiling talks urging them to include a timeline for comprehensive tax
reform.
The bill Senator Wyden and former Senator Gregg put together after 2
painstaking years of negotiations--which I have joined now in Senator
Gregg's place after he retired from the Senate, after we made some
modifications to the original bill--is a bipartisan effort to deal with
comprehensive tax reform. We need to go after the 10,000 special breaks
and interests and credits and exceptions that exist and take the
savings from that to lower rates and make the private sector more
competitive, which we know will bring about growth and ultimately jobs
for the American people.
The President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform found
that resolving the Nation's debt crisis demands comprehensive,
structural change, including, they said, tax reform. There is no better
way to raise revenue and reduce the deficit than by growing the economy
and putting Americans back to work. If done right, tax reform will
create those good-paying jobs and provide businesses and families with
the certainty they need to plan for the future.
[[Page 10525]]
Any revenues raised by closing tax loopholes should be part of a
comprehensive plan that reduces tax rates for American families and
businesses and creates jobs. I want to repeat that. The whole purpose
of this is to take those special interests and exemptions that have
been incorporated into the Tax Code over a 15-, 20-year period of time,
which now total 10,000 special exemptions, to take a selective portion
of that and a significant portion of that and eliminate or reduce those
to gain the revenues, allowing us to reduce tax rates on American
families and on American businesses so that those businesses can be
more competitive and those families will have more discretionary
spending.
Our businesses currently rank 35 out of 36 in terms of the highest
corporate tax rates imposed--some of the highest in the world. We
compete around the world with those countries that are producing the
same products, yet their tax rates are significantly lower than ours,
and that puts us at a competitive disadvantage. We can make the best
products in the world and we can outsell anybody in the world if we put
our companies and our businesses on a level playing field. The whole
structure and purpose behind the Wyden-Coats tax reform bill is to do
just that--to put us on a competitive basis with our competitors by
lowering rates and gaining the revenue to pay for our debt.
We know this won't be easy, and we know it requires Democrats and
Republicans to work together to take on the special interests that
currently benefit from the broken tax system. We know that right now
that seems very difficult and very challenging, but it has been done
before. We had tax reform in 1986 that stimulated the economy in ways
no stimulus had ever done before. It brought in significant additional
revenues to the Treasury and put Americans back to work.
This is a bipartisan bill--a Democrat from Oregon and a Republican
from Indiana--have joined forces on this. We want to signal that this
is something that can be done aside from political gotchas, aside from
political gain for the 2012 election, and something we can work
together on that will make a commitment to a substantial portion of the
necessary action that needs to be taking place to deal with this
pending debt crisis and deficit crisis that has to be resolved by
August 2 or close to that. Some say it can't be done in the time that
is left. Well, we are in extraordinary times, and I think we have to
set aside the conventional thinking and work toward what can and must
be done.
To the extent it can't be fully incorporated into the law, at the
very least, I believe the package we are ultimately going to be voting
on needs a rock-hard, firm commitment and instructions to the tax-
writing committees that this must be done and presented to the Congress
in this session so we can address it and so we eliminate the
uncertainty on whether we are going to go forward. It needs an
enforcement backup mechanism so that if Congress doesn't act in a
timely manner, there will be an automatic process in place that
presents this to us for a vote.
We have a unique opportunity to do something big, to quote the
President again. I commend him for saying that, and I commend him for
coming forward and saying we will get off this cut-only, tax-only
stalemate by beginning to address this on a comprehensive basis and put
in place those elements we all know are necessary to achieve success.
It will require the House and the Senate and the White House to cast
aside political posturing in the 2012 elections, to transcend the
politics, to do what is necessary for the future of America, for the
future of Americans, to do what is necessary to get our finances and
our economy moving again and to get people back to work. We need to
transcend that and do what is right for the future of our country.
I hope we have taken a positive step in that direction today. I look
forward to participating, as I know all of us do, in that process and
hopefully assuring the American people and assuring the world that
America is not at a stalemate, that America can address a challenge--a
big challenge--and we can come forward with a sensible solution that
puts us on the path to prosperity and guarantees a better future for
our children and grandchildren.
I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I understand we are debating a
specific resolution. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business for 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
NASA
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize
NASA's STS-135 mission. As the Presiding Officer knows, at
approximately 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, Space Shuttle Atlantis is scheduled
to lift off from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida with a crew of
four on board. The 12-day mission will deliver supplies, logistics, and
spare parts to the International Space Station. This will be the final
mission of the space shuttle era that began just over 30 years ago.
A Senator from Colorado may not seem like the most likely person to
come to the floor today to speak about the space shuttle, but NASA and
space exploration actually have quite a bit to do with Colorado, and it
is something I care deeply about.
Colorado has one of the three top aerospace economies in the country,
with a hand in every aspect of space--government, commercial and
academic, civil and military. We helped develop the space shuttle and
many of the missions that flew on it, and we are playing a major role
in the development of the shuttle's successors.
NASA has been a source of pride for all Americans from its very
beginnings. We have cheered their triumphs and suffered with them
during their tragedies. All the while, we have been inspired by their
mission of exploration.
The shuttle era is no exception. Ever since the first launch in April
of 1981, the names of the space shuttles--the Columbia, Challenger,
Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour--have become familiar to even casual
observers. This is a testament to the vehicle itself and those behind
it.
I would like to acknowledge all of those who have flown on the
shuttle, the thousands of unseen heroes at NASA who support them, and
the contractors at too many companies to name who make it all possible.
Flying the shuttle is a true team effort. Everyone who has been a part
of that team should be proud of what they have accomplished.
I see my colleague from Florida across the Chamber, and I know he is
also very aware that this has been a team effort across the board.
I know I would be remiss at this point if I didn't mention those who
paid the ultimate price for their service. We will never forget the
images of the horrible tragedies that befell the shuttle, one occurring
merely seconds after leaving the pull of Earth's gravity, the other
just minutes away from being home again. We will always remember the
crews of the Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia.
This milestone in the history of space flight forces us to reflect on
what we have learned and where we are going. America is now in the
unenviable position of having no U.S.-derived means of sending humans
into space, including to vital assets like the International Space
Station. For the near future, we will have to rely on our international
partners, namely Russia. But that position will change. It must change,
I would add. NASA is developing a successor to the shuttle based on
important work done during the Constellation Program, and the
burgeoning commercial sector is literally
[[Page 10526]]
changing the way we access space as we speak. These complementary
development tracks will build a more robust space exploration
enterprise.
As the Presiding Officer knows, I have an interest in climbing
mountains, as does he, and I have had the great good fortune to stand
on the top of some of the world's highest mountains. I believe it is in
our nature as humans to explore and understand the world around us, to
keep stretching to achieve goals just beyond our grasp.
The shuttle has allowed us to reach farther than many ever dreamed
possible. But the end of the shuttle era is by no means the end of
exploration. At its heart, NASA is not about parts, it is about people.
Even after the shuttle assumes its rightful place in history, legions
of engineers, scientists, pilots, and other adventurers will carry its
mission forward into the next phase of exploration. Keeping that spirit
intact will be a fitting tribute to the space shuttle.
I wish the crew of STS-135 a smooth and productive journey and, above
all, a safe return.
Before I yield the floor, I wish to add an additional note. In
Colorado, of course, we have 54 mountains that are over 14,000 feet. We
have countless peaks below that lofty elevation. But among the 100
highest peaks in Colorado, we have Columbia Point, which is named to
commemorate the astronauts and the mission that ended tragically. We
also have Challenger Point. Both peaks are in the top 100, both peaks
are linked by a high ridge, and in the middle of that high ridge is Kit
Carson Peak which is a 14,000-foot mountain. I have had the good
fortune to stand on the summit of both of those peaks, most recently
Columbia Peak in April, and the view is one that is worthy of us as
Americans. As we go forward, let's remember the great successes of the
shuttle program and build on them as we move forward as Americans
exploring the world and exploring the universe.
I know my colleague from Florida shares those sentiments. I don't
know that he is on the floor to speak on this particular topic, but I
look forward to working with him, given the importance of the space
industry and the space mission in the great State of Florida.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
for up to 15 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished
Senator from Colorado, as I pick up where he left off on the space
program.
Thirty years ago, the United States launched the first space shuttle
mission from Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
It marked a new era of American leadership in space and showed, once
again, that Americans would continue to be committed to being first in
space and on the cutting edge of scientific progress to improve our
lives.
It also showed what free people--committed to discovery, to
innovation, to improving the lives of their fellow man--can accomplish.
President Ronald Reagan said it best when he kicked off the space
station program in 1984 . . . ``We are first; we are the best; and we
are so because we're free.''
Over these 30 years, we have been witness to many heroic triumphs in
space that have served as a testament to America's unparalleled
ingenuity and imagination.
Over time, the shuttle program would make household names out of
some. Sally Ride became the first American woman to travel into space.
One shuttle alum even serves with us in the Senate today--our
colleague, Bill Nelson.
Of course, space exploration has always entailed risk-taking. It has
always required putting one's life on the line. And because of this,
the space shuttle program's history also gave us moments of great pain
as we lost Christa McAuliffe and the Challenger crew in 1986, and the
Columbia crew in 2003.
Each time these tragedies forced us to ask ourselves: Is space
exploration worth it?
And thank God, time and time again, America answered with an
emphatic: Yes.
Today, on this eve of the final space shuttle launch, we celebrate
the shuttle program's remarkable feats, which exhibited many of the
qualities that make America exceptional--courage, ingenuity, risk-
taking, and an ability to accomplish what once seemed unthinkable.
Space exploration speaks volumes about America--who we are as a
people and a nation.
When America was born 235 years ago, surely our Founding Fathers
could not fathom that one day our people would fly among the stars. But
the truth is, it has always been our destiny.
In the 19th century, it became our manifest destiny to explore and
push westward until the American land stretched from sea to shining
sea. And once we reached as far west as we could, Americans had no
choice but to gaze up to the sky and settle on the stars as our next
frontier.
Almost 42 years ago to the day, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Mike
Collins made that giant leap for mankind and left their indelible
footprints on the Moon's surface and on human history. And on that
night in July of 1969, the whole world witnessed the American miracle
firsthand.
Even today, that moment serves as a poignant reminder about the
limitless capacity that Americans possess in space and every aspect of
our lives.
Even as we face a host of domestic and international challenges,
America possesses a remarkable capacity to meet them by setting
ambitious goals as President Kennedy did in his Moon speech,
persevering in the face of setbacks and rising to the occasion to do
what history demands of us.
Our space program inspired younger generations of Americans to pursue
careers in the aerospace industry and other related fields. Satellite
technologies developed and improved by NASA now connect the world in
unprecedented ways, support our military's reconnaissance efforts, and
facilitate travel through GPS devices.
For others, it got them hooked on math and science, and led them to
other fields whose innovations make our lives better every day.
And then there were the lucky few who would actually go on to fly our
space shuttles.
For the rest of us who did not pursue careers in science, math and
engineering, our journeys into space have meant a lot--in different
ways.
For many of us, Kennedy Space Center elicits memories as the place
where imaginations are awakened and where dreams have been born.
And it is also where many children think fondly to their visits for
field trips or space camps, and, in my case, of the time my parents
took me there for my eighth birthday party before we moved to Las
Vegas.
But these types of feelings did not just happen in America. The
impact of our space program is a global phenomenon.
One needs to look no further than the various foreign currencies in
the donation box at Washington's National Air and Space Museum to
understand what our space program means not only for Florida and our
country but for all of humanity.
This brings me to my other reason for speaking today.
When this final shuttle mission draws to a close, many Americans will
be startled by the realization that we don't have an answer to the
question: What is next for NASA?
NASA has no answer. President Obama has no answer. And as we
transition to the next generation of space exploration, Florida's
aerospace workers are left with only questions about their future.
We know that for the next few years, we will have to rely on the
Russians to get to space.
Just a few weeks ago, that only cost $50 million an astronaut. Now
the price tag is up to $63 million per astronaut. We can only imagine
it will go higher.
[[Page 10527]]
Whereas America once led the way to the Moon, we now face the
unacceptable prospect of limited options to simply get a human into
orbit.
We know that our commercial space partners are working to fill some
of the gaps in our human spaceflight capabilities. But we need NASA to
lead.
And, as I say this, I fully recognize that our Nation faces a debt
crisis because politicians in both parties have spent recklessly for
many decades. It will require Washington to finally live within its
means and for leaders to make tough choices about what our Nation's
priorities are. NASA is no exception. It will not be about spending
more--it will be about spending wisely.
Tomorrow, Americans will proudly watch as Atlantis takes off for its
last flight. It will be a poignant opportunity to recall the entire 30-
year history of the shuttle program and all that has been achieved in
50 years of NASA's existence.
And it will be another opportunity to thank the thousands of men and
women in Florida who have made this program possible and who take such
pride in the shuttle and what it has accomplished.
For NASA, just like our Nation, is at its best when it is looking
forward, not looking back.
Mr. President, may I inquire of the Chair what my remaining time is?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. In postcloture status, the Senator
has 53 minutes remaining. So 8 minutes of the 15 minutes is remaining.
Mr. RUBIO. Fifty-three sounded like too much, even for a Senator.
I briefly wish to use the second half of my time to talk about the
issue of the day and that is the issue that is being discussed here in
town about the debt--an important issue. It is happening at a time when
many Americans from all across the country are traveling here on their
vacations to show their children and their families how government
works--or maybe in the case of this issue, how government does not
work--in any event, how our Republic is trying to work its way through
this issue, an important one.
I know that a few moments ago there was a meeting at the White House
that concluded, and we wait with great anticipation--I see my
colleague, the Senator from Illinois, has arrived and perhaps he will
update us here on the floor in a few moments. But we are all interested
in this issue because it goes well beyond partisanship or party
politics; it is about the future of our country.
I think there is growing consensus on some of the outlines of what it
will take to solve this issue. I think it will take two things, because
I have heard this terminology we use about a balanced approach. It will
take two things. First, it will take reductions in spending and it will
take cuts, but we cannot simply cut our way out of this process. We
must also grow our way out of this process.
My point is there is no way we can simply reduce spending enough to
get America out of the predicament it is facing. We must also grow our
economy at the same time. And growing our economy leads us to the No. 1
issue facing our country. For America, for the government, for us here
in Washington, the national debt is the No. 1 issue on our minds, and
rightfully so. It is a serious issue. But for the rest of our country,
the No. 1 issue is joblessness. It is the fact that people are
struggling to find a job.
These people did everything that was asked of them. They went to
school, got a degree, worked hard, and now they have lost their job and
their homes. If they did find a job, maybe they are making half as much
and working twice as long. So we have to grow our economy. The logic
behind it is very straightforward. If we have more people working, we
have more people paying into our tax system. If we have more people
paying into our tax system, that is more money available for our
government to pay down its debt.
So I want to focus on the growth aspect and what we can do to grow
our economy and help job creators create jobs. Don't ask the
politicians, ask the job creators. They will tell us there are two
things standing in the way of job creation in America. No. 1 is a
broken Tax Code that is uncertain, complicated, difficult to navigate
and, in many instances, unaffordable for them. No. 2, it is runaway
regulations. So any deal that deals with the debt in a serious way has
to encompass growth policies that involve, in my mind, both regulatory
reform and tax reform. I hope that is what they are working toward--tax
reform. Because what we need in America is not more taxes, we need more
taxpayers.
The other part of the deal, of course, is going to have to involve
some spending reductions. That is why I proudly stood with my
colleagues to point out three things we have to clearly do to bring it
under control. The first is we have to reduce spending this year.
Obviously, we can't solve the budget deficit and debt in 1 year, but we
have to begin to address it this year, so meaningful cuts this year.
The second thing we need to do is a spending cap that limits the
amount of money this government can spend in the future or the growth
in the amount of money the government can spend in the future. Our
government should not grow faster than our economy.
Finally, we need some sort of balanced budget amendment.
To top it all off, we have to save Social Security and Medicare. I
was encouraged this morning to read that the President is interested in
this issue. It is important. It is not about balancing the budget on
the backs of anyone. It is about saving Social Security and Medicare so
that there will never have to be benefit reductions for current
beneficiaries, and so that these programs exist for me when I retire
and for my children when they retire, and so they will never grow
insolvent.
With that, I yield the floor, and I note 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. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our debt
crisis, our short-term debt crisis and our long-term debt crisis. I
come here today to discuss ways to address them and ways not to address
them.
Our most immediate debt crisis is now upon us. In order to maintain
the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, Congress will have to
vote to raise the debt ceiling within a matter of weeks. This is
something Congress has done as a matter of course many times over the
years as our national debt has grown.
Let us be clear about what exactly it means to raise the debt ceiling
and why it is necessary. As a nation, we have accumulated $14.3
trillion in debt. This in and of itself is a very bad and dangerous
thing. That means our national debt is currently 93 percent of our
gross national product. Again, this is a very bad and dangerous thing.
We have been in this situation before. Actually, it has been worse.
After World War II, our national debt was at 121.7 percent of our gross
national product. We certainly had something to show for it. We had won
World War II.
Through the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, we worked our way to a
point where our national debt fell to 32.5 percent of GDP in 1981. We
did this through a combination of growth and some inflation. Our debt
was in pretty good shape until we hit the 1980s, during which we
quadrupled our national debt under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush.
We have hashed over time and again who is to blame for the situation
we find ourselves in. But let me leave that alone for the moment and
get back to what it means to raise the debt ceiling. As I said, our
debt currently stands at $14.3 trillion. I think we can agree on this:
That number reflects past choices, not current ones.
[[Page 10528]]
The debt ceiling also stands at $14.3 trillion. We have to raise the
debt ceiling because we as a nation have certain obligations we must
meet. We have to pay for the wars we are currently engaged in. We have
obligations to veterans who have served our Nation. We have obligations
to have the dedicated men and women at FEMA who have been responding to
the many floods and fires our Nation has been facing.
We have obligations to seniors who have paid into Social Security all
their working lives and have a right to expect a check every month of
their retirement.
We have obligations under Medicare, not just to seniors, who again
have paid in, but to clinics and hospitals and health care providers
and to those who supply medicine and medical equipment.
We have contractual obligations of all kinds to many different
businesses, whether they are building roads or water towers or
providing IT services to the VA or the Park Service or the Senate. I
think almost everyone would agree it is good to have guards in our
Federal prisons, except maybe the prisoners. The list of obligations
goes on and on, and one of our most fundamental obligations is to pay
principal and interest to bondholders who have invested in what has
been for decades and decades considered the safest investment in the
world: the U.S. Treasury bond.
Currently, we simply are not taking in enough revenues to meet all
these obligations, so we must borrow more. Of course, we must pay
interest on our debt, at an interest rate that is now actually quite
low.
The surest way to increase the interest on our debt would be to
default on our debt obligations. And make no mistake, that is exactly
what will happen if we fail to raise the debt ceiling. Even an increase
in interest rates of just 1 percent would add $1.3 trillion to our
interest payments over the next decade. So, as you can see, defaulting
on our debt to make a point about the seriousness of our current
position would, to say the least, be counterproductive. Yet some of my
colleagues are willing to do just that, and that is irresponsible.
As to the notion that bondholders could be paid while other
obligations were postponed, Scott Elmendorf, Chair of the Congressional
Budget Office, said:
Defaulting on any government obligation is a dangerous
gamble.
We are not absolutely certain what exactly will happen if we default,
but we have a pretty good idea. We know it would roil the international
financial markets, induce rating downgrades of our Treasury notes,
create fundamental doubts about the creditworthiness of the United
States, and force us to pay higher interest rates to induce people to
buy our bonds. It would damage the dollar and the special role of
Treasury securities in global markets for decades to come--a dangerous
gamble, one we cannot afford to take.
Defaulting on our debt would also be, as David Brooks so aptly put
it, a stain upon our national honor. Are we actually going to become a
country that cannot be relied on to pay its debts?
Yet we have Members of the House and Members of this body threatening
to vote against raising the debt ceiling unless the President and
Democrats in Congress meet their demands on how to address the deficit
going forward.
Are my friends suggesting we act like a deadbeat who buys a new car
and then, some time down the line, decides: ``You know, I just don't
feel like making the payments''?
I think these Members are doing an enormous disservice by holding our
Nation's economy and, indeed, the entire global economy hostage to
their demands. Because the U.S. Treasury bond has been the foundation
of the world financial system, it is not an overstatement to say that
defaulting on our debt at this fragile point in the global economic
recovery could throw us into a worldwide depression.
I am hardly alone in this regard. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce shares
my alarm. It is no small secret that the Wall Street backers of the
Republican Party are beseeching their allies in Congress to come to
their senses.
Yet Republican leaders know there are also those in their party who
believe this is their chance. This is their opportunity to exact
concessions from the White House and Democrats in Congress precisely
because the situation is so fraught with peril. They know the President
of the United States cannot play a game of chicken with the full faith
and credit of the United States of America. And in a game of chicken,
the irrational and irresponsible player holds a distinct strategic
advantage over the rational and responsible player.
So we find ourselves in this place at this time.
What are the demands?
Well, Republican leaders here in the Senate are holding the debt
ceiling hostage so they can end Medicare as we know it. Democrats are
trying to protect Medicare and ensure its solvency, and the Affordable
Care Act is already doing that. Not only does the Affordable Care Act
provide more benefits to Medicare recipients, it also extends the
solvency of Medicare by 7 years. That is the conclusion of the most
recent report of the Medicare trustees.
Of course, the first big idea from our friends on the other side of
the aisle this Congress was to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they
all voted to do that. So please understand that one of their first
votes this Congress would have had the effect of diminishing the
solvency of Medicare, shrinking the solvency of Medicare by 7 years.
Not only that, but according to the Congressional Budget Office, the
Affordable Care Act will reduce the debt over the next decade by $210
billion, and over the decade following that by more than $1 trillion.
So rather than saving money by making our health care system stronger,
making our delivery of care more efficient, and keeping our
constituents healthy, Republicans voted to repeal the health reform
law. So the big Republican contribution to the sustainability of
Medicare and our national debt was to vote to shorten Medicare's life
expectancy by 7 years and to add well over $1 trillion to the debt in
the next two decades.
There is no doubt that the biggest threat to the sustainability of
our long-term debt is the cost of health care. That is why so much of
the Affordable Care Act is designed to address the cost of the delivery
of medical care.
Let me give you a couple of examples. First, the value index. The
value index will direct that health care providers be reimbursed by the
value of the care they provide rather than by the volume--the quality
of the care rather than the quantity of care. In Minnesota, for
instance, we do health care a lot better than most other States. We
provide higher quality care at a lower cost than almost any other
State. There is room for improvement in Minnesota, of course. As a
health care economist told me: In Minnesota, we get an A, but that is
because we grade on a curve.
In Texas, they get reimbursed 50 percent more per patient in Medicare
than we do in Minnesota and yet we have better outcomes.
Why? Well, we have a different health care culture in Minnesota. We
tend to do more coordinated, fully integrated care. We tend to see
patients as people who we want to keep healthy and out of the hospital.
In Texas, patients are more often viewed as profit centers. There are
some excellent, high-value centers of health care in Texas, such as
Baylor University. Then, there are some egregiously low-value ones,
like some in McAllen, TX. And, by and large, Texas doctors order more
procedures than Minnesota doctors so they can bill for more procedures.
But the idea here isn't to pit Minnesota against Texas. The idea is
to incentivize low-value States to do health care more like high-value
States. Imagine if we could bring down the cost of health care in Texas
by one-third. Imagine the savings to Medicare and Medicaid.
One more example. Senator Lugar and I wrote a provision into the bill
called the Diabetes Prevention Program. It is based on a CDC program
piloted in Indianapolis and in St. Paul.
[[Page 10529]]
They took folks that had been diagnosed with ``prediabetes'' and gave
them 16 weeks of nutritional training and 16 weeks of physical exercise
at the YMCA, all at a cost of only about $300 per person.
The number of people with prediabetes who later developed full-blown
type 2 diabetes was reduced by almost 60 percent--60 percent! Caring
for chronic disease is the most expensive piece of our health care
system in this country. One of the most common chronic illnesses is
diabetes. It costs our Nation $218 billion a year to treat diabetes.
A couple weeks after the Affordable Care Act passed, I brought the
Under Secretary of Health and Human Services into my office to meet
with diabetes experts from the CDC and with United Health Group, the
country's largest insurance company. The goal of the meeting was to get
HHS on board to bring the piloted Diabetes Prevention Program up to
scale nationwide. The executive from United Health said she would
definitely reimburse their policy holders for going through the 16-week
program. She said, ``You know why? Because for every dollar we spend,
we'll save four dollars.''
The value index and the Diabetes Prevention Program are but two of
the many programs in the Affordable Care Act that have been written
into the law. Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who helped put
together the health reform system in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was
Governor there, has said of the Affordable Care Act, ``It's really hard
to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can't think of a thing
to try that they didn't try . . . You couldn't have done better than
they are doing.''
Since then, in the House, Representative Paul Ryan and the
Republicans in Congress have taken an entirely different approach.
Instead of putting in the long, hard hours of consulting with health
care providers, health care economists, patient groups, hospitals,
rural health groups, and medical researchers to actually try to build
on protocols that have been proven to bring down the cost of delivering
quality medicine, Representative Ryan decided just to slash the funding
of Medicare, give the money left over to seniors, and let them fend for
themselves to buy their own health care from insurance companies.
Now, we know there was no functional market for health insurance for
folks 65 and over before Medicare and Medicaid started in 1965. It is
doubtful that there would be one now. Under the Republican plan,
seniors would essentially get a voucher for a significantly lower
amount than their Medicare is worth now. Remember that the cost to
Medicare for administering its program is less than 2 percent.
Insurance companies, on the other hand, spend around 11 percent on
administration. The CBO estimates that under the Ryan plan, out-of-
pocket cost for health care for each senior will more than double to
over $12,500 a year.
This is not Medicare as we know it. It is not Medicare. So,
understand this: the Republican plan to end Medicare would make huge
cuts in Medicare benefits and put insurance companies in charge of
seniors' health care. This would double the out-of-pocket costs for
seniors and toss aside all the new benefits offered by the Affordable
Care Act.
There is no question which vision of Medicare holds more hope for
seniors and which takes a scientific, evidence-based, best practices
approach to addressing the long-range cost of delivering health care to
all Americans.
And yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are telling us
that they are willing to risk throwing the global economy into
depression if Democrats don't act more responsibly on Medicare.
Well, ok. Here is an idea. Allow Medicare to negotiate with the
pharmaceutical companies on drugs for Medicare Part D. The VA does it.
And guess what. The VA pays an average of 48 percent less than Medicare
does for the top 10 most prescribed drugs. Now the pharmaceutical
industry tells us they need us to pay the higher price because they
need the money for research. But, in fact, they spend more money on
advertising and marketing than they do on research.
Almost every other developed country uses its size to negotiate with
the pharmaceutical companies. Why does the American taxpayer have to be
the chump who pays full price? I say we negotiate with the
pharmaceutical companies and bring down the cost to Medicare by as much
as $24 billion a year, or $240 billion over the next 10 years. That
could go straight to paying off the debt. There. I got you a $240
billion cut to Medicare. Now can we please vote to raise the debt
ceiling and avert a worldwide economic catastrophe?
If my friends on the other side are really serious about getting our
deficit under control, couldn't we start by getting rid of a measly $2
billion a year in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies--the companies
that are getting record profits because the price of oil is so high?
Unfortunately, according to my Republican colleagues, this would be a
tax hike.
In order for us to agree to balance the budget, everyone has to pay.
Who is in a better position to give? Exxon or a little girl in
Minnesota named Evelyn. You see, Evelyn was born with cystic fibrosis.
When she was 10, her liver failed, and her own toxins started to poison
her. But Medicaid helped her get the care she needed. That is what this
is about. Exxon or Evelyn. Frankly, it makes me kind of sad.
So there are some more billions for deficit reduction. Get rid of the
subsidies to the five biggest oil companies--$21 billion over the next
10 years. And you know what? If we are seriously going to address our
debt crisis, we have to increase revenues.
Now under the Republican plan, the cuts to end Medicare as we know it
and to slash Medicaid all go to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest
Americans. That's right. The Republican plan cuts taxes on the top
marginal rates for millionaires and billionaires from 35 percent to 25
percent.
Now my Republican friends like to say that tax cuts always produce
revenue increases. Besides the fact that that is simply not true, it
also contradicts the other argument Republicans use for not raising
taxes. Raising taxes, Republicans often argue, would just give the
government more money to spend. According to that oft-repeated
Republican argument, cutting taxes will lower revenue and ``starve the
beast.''
Here is President Ronald Reagan making this exact point in 1981:
There were always those who told us that taxes couldn't be
cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can
lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of
voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply
reducing their allowance.
In other words, cutting taxes cuts revenues and forces the children,
in this case, the government, to cut spending.
So, at the heart of my friends' argument on why we must cut taxes are
two completely contradictory, mutually exclusive arguments. On the one
hand, according to my friends, lowering taxes always increases revenues
and therefore brings down the deficit. On the other hand, they argue,
lowering taxes decreases revenues. Which is it? Because you can't have
it both ways.
I will try to provide some context for my friends. After President
Reagan cut taxes in 1981, we immediately started amassing enormous
deficits. They were so bad that President Reagan felt compelled to
raise taxes in 1982 and then again in 1983. In fact, President Ronald
Reagan, the supply-side icon, raised taxes 11 times. If President
Reagan did that today, the Tea Party and, in fact, the entire
Republican Party would run him out of town on a rail.
But, you see, President Reagan knew that to raise revenue, you have
to either raise marginal tax rates, or get rid of tax loopholes for the
wealthy and for big corporations. Which is what he did repeatedly.
Even so, our national debt nearly tripled during the Reagan
Presidency. The national debt continued to grow rapidly during the
George H. W. Bush administration. In fact, in 1993, he handed President
Bill Clinton what at
[[Page 10530]]
that point was the largest deficit in history.
So what did President Clinton do? Well, in his 1993 deficit reduction
package, he added two new marginal tax rates at the top end--36 percent
for those making over $180,000 and 39.6 percent for those making over
$250,000. Every Republican voted against the package. They said that
raising the top marginal tax rate would cause a recession. Former
Speaker Newt Gingrich said:
I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is
the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will
be held personally accountable.
Senator Phil Gramm of Texas said:
The Clinton plan is a one-way ticket to recession. This
plan does not reduce the deficit. But it raises taxes and it
puts people out of work.
Representative John Kasich, then ranking member of the House Budget
Committee, said:
This plan will not work. If it was to work, I'd have to
become a Democrat.
Well, it worked. Not only did we have an unprecedented expansion of
our economy for 8 years, creating more than 22 million new net jobs,
but we balanced the budget and Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush a
record surplus. I call that ``working.''
Now President Clinton, and especially the Democrats in Congress, paid
a political price for the 1993 deficit reduction package. The Democrats
went down to defeat in 1994, losing control of the House for the first
time in 40 years. You could say that Democrats took a shellacking.
Nevertheless, between 1993 and 2001 the Nation created an
unprecedented number of jobs benefiting every quartile of our economy,
decreasing the number of Americans in poverty, increasing median
income, and creating more millionaires than ever--to which my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle might say, ``Sure, it worked
in practice. But does it work in theory?''
President Clinton's deficit reduction plan not only reduced the
deficit as planned, it eliminated it entirely and gave incoming
President George W. Bush a record surplus. In fact, when President Bush
took office, we were on track to completely pay off our national debt
with $5 trillion of surpluses projected over the next 10 years. In
other words, we would have zeroed out our national debt this year.
Five days after President Bush took office--again, after President
Bush took office--Alan Greenspan testified to the Senate Budget
Committee that we were in danger of paying off the national debt too
quickly and entering uncharted territory in which the Federal
Government would have too much money. The Federal Government, Greenspan
warned, would have to put its excess money into private equities,
thereby distorting and decreasing the efficiency of our markets.
President Bush told the country that a surplus meant that Americans
were paying too much in taxes. This was our money, he told us, and so
we all deserved a tax cut. Then after the economy went into recession,
Bush told us that what we needed was another tax cut to stimulate the
economy. So, in other words, ``when the economy is going strong, tax
cuts are in order.'' And ``when the economy is weak, tax cuts are in
order.'' Combine those with the aforementioned contradictory ``tax cuts
reduce revenues forcing government to spend less of our money'' and
``tax cuts always increase revenues'' and you have an exquisitely
incomprehensible economic theory.
But that exquisitely incomprehensible theory needed just one more
element to make it downright dangerous. And that element would be
provided by Vice President Richard Cheney.
By late 2002, the surplus President George W. Bush had inherited from
Bill Clinton was turning once again into huge deficits. According to
then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, he tried to warn Vice President
Cheney that budget deficits were growing at an alarming rate, posing a
threat to the economy. Vice President Cheney cut O'Neill off, saying,
``You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.''
By the end of his Presidency, George W. Bush left President Obama a
budget deficit projected at $1.2 trillion for fiscal year 2009.
Meanwhile, President Bush had doubled our national debt.
What was to blame? Could it have had anything to do with the fact
that for the first time in history we cut taxes while we were at war?
Well, not according to the Republican leader. In July of last year
Senator McConnell said: ``There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush
tax cuts actually diminished revenue.''
But adjusting for inflation, since the Bush tax cuts were enacted,
revenues have fallen 17 percent. And that is not even taking into
account growth in our population, which was 9 percent over this period.
When you add the effect of population growth, revenues declined by
about 24 percent per capita. I think this clearly constitutes evidence
that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue.
So it should be no surprise that reduced revenues are responsible for
a lot of our deficit, as you can see here. This chart by the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities is based on CBO data and shows that the
Bush tax cuts were responsible for 25 percent of the deficit in 2010.
And that is only going to grow. By 2019, the tax cuts will account for
almost 60 percent of our deficit.
And the fact is that not only did the national debt double during the
Bush administration, we also had a dismal record of job creation. And
during the Bush years, for the first time since we started keeping
records, median income fell in America. And more Americans fell into
poverty. One in five children in America now lives in poverty. It is
even higher in rural America.
There is one group that did very well during the Bush years, and
continues to do very well: The extremely wealthy.
We now have in this country the greatest disparity in income and
wealth that we have had since the 1920s.
So the one thing that there is no evidence whatsoever of is that
cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans can create jobs and keep the
deficit under control.
So why would we do it, when the evidence is so stark that the Bush
tax cuts coincided with a huge spike in both the debt and unemployment?
Why not look back on what has worked in the past and learn from it?
As I said earlier, after World War II our debt as a percentage of GDP
was, in fact, significantly larger than it is today. But what did we
do? Well, we passed the G.I. bill so that our troops returning from the
war could go to college.
Truman started the Marshall plan to help Europe get on its feet.
And it is not as if we had smooth sailing as far as Defense spending.
We went to war in Korea, losing nearly 35,000 Americans. After that war
ended, we found ourselves in an extended Cold War. We built the largest
infrastructure project in our history, the Interstate Highway System--
it added enormously to our economic development, because now we could
transport our goods around the country so much more efficiently.
When the Soviets launched Sputnik into space, we jump-started our
space program and our investment in science and math education. My
brother and I were Sputnik kids. He was 11 and I was 6 when it was
launched. My parents took us into our living room in Minnesota and told
us that we had to study math and science in order to beat the Soviets.
I thought that was a big burden to place on an 11-year-old and a 6-
year-old. But we were obedient sons, and so we studied math and
science. And wouldn't you know it, my parents were right. We beat the
Soviets.
The space program created all kinds of dividends in technology and to
our economic development. I watched a Senate debate last fall in which
the Republican candidate said that government had never created a job.
The debate, of course, was broadcast by satellite.
I think you get the idea. The fact is the investments we made in the
1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s in science and technology, in our State
universities, in infrastructure that was the envy of the world brought
our debt as a percentage of GDP from 121 percent in 1945 to 33 percent
in 1980.
[[Page 10531]]
Erskine Bowles is right. We can't get out of our current debt crisis
with growth alone. But I will tell you most certainly that we will not
get out of it without growth.
And so we have to choose wisely in what we invest in, in when we
invest, and in how we invest; and in what we cut, and when we cut, and
how we cut--which we must do--and in how we increase revenues, when we
increase revenues, and from whom we get those revenues.
Why not invest in retrofitting our buildings when we have so many in
the building trades out of work, sitting on the sidelines, and knowing
that we can recoup that investment in energy savings within 3 to 5
years? Let's find creative ways of financing that, such as PACE
financing, which lets families get a loan from their local government
and pay it back on their property taxes. This is how cities pay for
streetlights and sidewalks. It adds value to homes; and when the family
moves, the loan stays with the property. We should also create
incentives for banks to lend to small businesses for retrofitting
commercial buildings.
There is a company in Minnesota called McQuay that makes heating and
air conditioning systems for commercial buildings. They are actually
supplying the system for the new World Trade Center, and their systems
are so energy efficient that they pay for themselves in 3 to 5 years
through energy savings.
They have been taking out loans from banks since they are a large
creditworthy company, but then they give out loans to customers who
install their systems. It is a win-win, because they are selling more
units and putting people back to work, and their customers are actually
making money in the long run through energy savings. McQuay has a good
model, and we should be figuring out how to encourage others to do the
same thing.
Why not cut our Defense spending when $100 billion in cuts have been
identified by our service chiefs at Secretary Gates' request, and when
cost overruns on our weapons systems are absurdly high? The GAO
recently revealed that when you add up the growth in costs of major
Defense weapons systems over their original estimates, the total is
over $402 billion.
Why not raise revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthiest in this
Nation--those who have benefited the most from the economy in recent
years--especially when we can look to the recent past and see that
their tax cuts created virtually no jobs and contributed mightily to
our deficit?
Only when the middle class is strong does our economy grow, because
the middle class has always been the part of our society that creates
demand. There are just not enough rich people to buy enough stuff. The
middle class spends its money. But today, companies are sitting on
trillions of dollars because there is just not enough demand. And that
is because there is a lot of unemployment and because wages for the
middle class have gone down over the last decade.
Creating a middle class is not an end unto itself. A strong middle
class leads to strong consumer spending, and therefore to a strong
economy and to national prosperity. The middle class is also where you
get entrepreneurs and small businesses--it is the engine of our
economy.
Why not invest in early childhood education when we know that the
return on quality early childhood education is up to $16 for every $1
spent? We know that children who have had quality early childhood
education are less likely to need special education, less likely to
repeat grades, they have better health outcomes, and that the girls are
less likely to get pregnant as teenagers. We know children who have
quality early childhood education are more likely to graduate from high
school, more likely to go to college, more likely to get a good job and
pay taxes, and much less likely to go to prison.
My friends on the other side say that we must cut the deficit for our
children's sake, and I agree. But why then are such a disproportionate
amount of the cuts aimed at programs that help kids? As I said, one of
every five children in America lives in poverty, and even more in rural
areas.
But the Republicans want to cut Head Start and Early Head Start. We
currently serve about 40 percent of children who qualify for Head Start
and less than 4 percent of children who qualify for Early Head Start.
Do we really want to cut that? Do we really want to cut Pell grants?
The Republican budget slashes Medicaid. About 50 percent of the
recipients of Medicaid are children. We know we are going to have to
make shared sacrifices to get the budget under control, but do we
really think that sick kids should make those sacrifices?
You know, immediately after this last election, Republican leadership
said that their No. 1 priority was seeing to it that Barack Obama is a
one-term President. They didn't say their No. 1 priority was getting
Americans back to work, or educating our kids, or even balancing the
budget.
Their No. 1 priority was winning the next election. But I don't think
that is what Americans want. The American people want us to get to work
to solve problems, to improve their lives. We don't have to agree on
how to do that but they sent us here to work together. If the time
between elections just becomes about jockeying for the next election,
then what in the world is the point of getting elected in the first
place? I thought we were here to work together constructively in the
interest of the American people.
Now the Senate Republican leader is saying that raising any new
revenues is off the table; that he will not vote to raise the debt
ceiling if part of our compromise on the budget going forward involves
any tax increase on anyone, no matter how wealthy they are, no matter
what their income.
I ask all my colleagues, for the good of the country, to step back
from the brink, to step back from brinksmanship on this debt ceiling.
Let's not panic. We are going to be on this planet for a while. Let's
have some confidence in ourselves to do this in a smart thoughtful way
so that our children will say, ``Well, they might not have been the
Greatest Generation, but they were a Pretty Good Generation.''
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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kirk and I speak in
succession for up to 15 minutes and that the Democratic side then have
two speakers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
AHMED ABDULKADIR WARSAME
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, we have just learned that Ahmed Abdulkadir
Warsame was arrested by the U.S. military in April. This news has just
come to us, learning that this man who fought for no country and wore
no uniform and under an international law is considered an enemy
combatant and therefore not a prisoner of war or an American civilian
criminal, has been taken to a U.S. criminal court to be granted full
U.S. constitutional rights in a prosecution in the civilian courts of
the United States, located in the Southern District of New York.
This man was taken outside American territory for attacks outside
U.S. jurisdiction for acts against non-U.S. citizens. Yet he has been
charged with a U.S. civilian crime and has been given the full rights
of an American citizen or a nationalized individual. I think we have
made a grievous mistake.
We have made a significant change just this week. We have violated
the principles set forth by President Lincoln and President Roosevelt,
who well used military commissions to handle enemy combatants and not
providing them full U.S. constitutional rights for actions taken
outside the United States against non-U.S. citizens in the war on
terror.
I am very worried this foreign terrorist, who was taken abroad for
attacks committed abroad, is now going
[[Page 10532]]
to have the full constitutional right to confront his accuser and have
all information used in his trial exposed. This means that, under the
new policy, the United States may be forced to reveal intelligence
information critical in the war on terror, especially against al Qaida,
al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and Al-Shabaab, when otherwise a
military commission could have kept that information confidential,
leading to further success by the United States.
We should ask at what cost this prosecution will come. The previous
proposal by the President, which he backed away from, was to bring the
author of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to central New York,
at a cost of an estimated $75 million to protect the court, the judge,
the prosecutor, the jury, and their families. The President backed away
from that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed decision, but apparently he has now
made that decision again with regard to Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame.
My question is this: What threat is now being posed to the people of
New York? What threat is being posed to the Federal judge? What will
the prosecutor fear for the rest of his or her life in participating in
this unnecessary civilian prosecution--and especially for the jurors
and their families who now will be subject to scrutiny throughout the
jihadist world by al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and Al-Shabaab. Why
is this unnecessary threat now going to be posed to these Americans?
That is why 39 Republicans and Democrats joined me in a letter to
Attorney General Eric Holder, saying this decision was a mistake and
should not be repeated; that we have now created undue attention to the
people of New York by al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaida
itself, and Al-Shabaab.
Remember, following our successful attack against bin Laden, we now
estimate that al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and Al-Shabaab are the
most dangerous and heavily armed subsidiaries of al Qaida. Al-Shabaab
alone has over 8,000 men under training and, as one intelligence expert
said, some of them at the level of training equivalent to the U.S. Army
Rangers.
How are we going to protect the judge in this case for the rest of
his or her life? How are we going to protect the prosecutor for the
rest of his or her life? How are we going to protect the jury and their
families for the rest of their lives because of this mistake made by
the Attorney General of the United States?
At what cost will this prosecution come? Will it be paid by the city
of New York, already heavily strained in finances, a New York State
famously short of funds, or the Federal Government, which is also short
of money?
What happens if Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame is found innocent? We
already know many released terrorists have already returned to jihad,
as he proudly indicates he surely will.
In the wake of the debate on deficits and debt on a famous criminal
trial in New York, we may have overlooked a fundamental decision, a
mistake made by the Attorney General of the United States. The 9/11
Commission taught us a critical lesson, that terrorism is not a law
enforcement problem; it is an intelligence and military problem. Well-
established principles under Roosevelt, Lincoln, Bush, and, yes,
President Obama, using military commissions, should be used instead of
subjecting the American people to the increased threats, the increased
costs, and the terrible precedent we have just set in giving an
international terrorist, for acts committed overseas against
foreigners, full constitutional rights. I think it is a decision we
will regret. Many of us may quote the 9/11 Commission report in its
clear findings in highlighting the error that was made.
I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again to urge all of us, Democrats
and Republicans, to come together and put serious deficit reduction
proposals on the floor for full debate, an open amendment process, a
constructive debate and votes and action. That is the way we can move
forward and resolve this greatest threat we face as a country, out-of-
control Washington spending and debt.
We are making a little bit of progress in that regard. After months
and months of the distinguished majority leader putting every other
issue under the Sun on the floor but spending and debt, we finally
forced this central issue to come and be debated.
Last week, many of us banded together, conservatives who were pushing
for this debate, and said: Enough is enough. We should cancel the July
4 recess, we should block it so we stay and debate the central issue.
That is what we did, and we successfully did that. Unfortunately, the
majority leader then proposed that we stay here--yes, because we had
blocked the recess--but did not put the central issue on the floor and
moved yet another topic. We said: No; we are staying to get to this
debate, this important issue, the greatest challenge we face right now
as a country, and we successfully defeated his move to another topic.
Finally, with this little bit of progress, we are on the floor at
least talking about the right issue. But we don't yet have a strong,
meaningful, underlying proposal to act on. We have a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. That is a good basis for debate, I suppose. But, of
course, we need more than that. We need serious proposals to debate and
amend and vote on and act on. That is the important next step.
When I made these remarks yesterday, the distinguished Senator from
New York, Senator Schumer, was in the Chamber and suggested that
Republicans, including myself, had not gotten behind a serious,
credible proposal. Specifically, he said: Wait a minute. The Ryan
budget, which you voted for, doesn't reduce the deficit at all. I said
at the time that is incorrect, but I didn't have the numbers in front
of me. In fact, I looked it up, and the Ryan budget does significantly
reduce the deficit from $1.4 trillion this year to $391 billion at the
end of 10 years. That is a major reduction.
As I said to the Senator from New York at the time, my preference
even ahead of that is the Toomey budget, which we produced on the
Republican side in the Senate. That reduces the deficit from $1.4
trillion right now to zero over 10 years. It balances the budget over
10 years--obviously, major progress.
Again, going back to the Ryan budget, which Senator Schumer brought
up, it contains $6.2 trillion in spending reductions compared to
spending in President Obama's budget. It adds total deficits that are
$4.4 trillion lower than that in the President's budget. It brings
total Federal spending to below 20 percent of the economy. The
President's budget is always above 23 percent in that figure. So it
puts us on a path to balance. Again, the Toomey budget, my first
choice, actually achieves that balance within the 10-year budget
window.
In contrast to that, I have to say it is very unsettling that the
distinguished majority leader and the majority in this Chamber have not
even tried to meet our mandated budget responsibilities. Section 300 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is the Federal law that
controls the budget process, says that by April 15 of every year, a
budget resolution is supposed to be passed. We are 83 days and counting
past that deadline and no serious attempt to even try to meet that
legal mandate has been made by the majority or by the distinguished
majority leader. We have had a few budget votes, three Republican
budget proposals, and President Obama's budget. The Obama budget got
zero votes on the Senate floor. The majority, the majority leader
produced no budget proposal. The Finance Committee, led by the
majority, produced no budget proposal, not even trying to meet our
responsibility, an actual legal mandate under the law.
Through the Chair, I would ask Senator Schumer: Where is your
proposal? Where is your attempt? Yes, we have put forth specific
proposals that dramatically cut the deficit. When is the majority going
to even try? Again, 83 days and counting this year past that deadline.
Of course, last year this body, under the same leadership, produced no
budget. So we are 448 days and counting in total under the Budget Act.
In
[[Page 10533]]
that time, by the way, our debt has increased $3.2 trillion.
That is why we need serious proposals on this Senate floor to debate,
to amend if necessary, to vote on, to act on. At least we are to the
topic, but we need serious proposals before us to act on.
Again, I urge all of my colleagues to embrace a three-tier approach,
cut and cap and balance: passing a budget resolution which we are
mandated to do that includes immediate meaningful real cuts--that is
cut; cap, structural budget reform to cap spending in every major
category of the budget to ensure we stay on that path to a balanced
budget; and balance, a requirement in the U.S. Constitution that we
have a balanced Federal budget through the balanced budget amendment to
the Constitution. I support that. All Republicans in this body have
coauthored that. That is the third crucial tier of this three-tier
approach: cut, cap, and balance.
I hope we get to consideration of those and other important
proposals. I hope we not only have a debate around a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution, I hope we have real meaningful proposals on the
floor, an open amendment process, an open debate and votes and action
on this most critical issue. I have endorsed specific proposals. I
mentioned two of them. They dramatically reduce the deficit. I have
coauthored the balanced budget constitutional amendment that enforces
discipline, the straitjacket we need. I support the cap concept for the
medium term to get us on that path. But we need to act on that on the
floor in a bipartisan way. I urge that as the next necessary step.
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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I thank my good friend and
colleague from Minnesota, Senator Franken, for leading this debate here
today, the subject of course being the potential of default by the U.S.
Government, a subject many of us thought we would never have to
discuss. I hope people who did not get a chance to see his speech--I am
sorry, I had hoped to be here but we had the final vote on the free
trade agreements in the Finance Committee, but I hope people will look
at the speech. It is a very erudite, thoughtful, and compelling
document. It is on a subject that deserves that kind of attention,
which is the danger of default. In our entire history we have never
defaulted on our debt. America has always kept its promises. But some
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are threatening to make
us the first generation of Americans that does not pay its debts, that
does not keep its promise. Earlier this week the President said we
should reach a deal within 2 weeks in order to avoid roiling the
financial markets. We Democrats are working in good faith. We are
committed to making sure our Nation does not fail in meeting its
obligations. My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle are working
diligently to find spending cuts, many of which come from programs we
strongly believe help this country, in order to come to a final
agreement. We are also identifying tax loopholes to close.
But I must ask, what exactly are my Republican colleagues doing? They
are stalling, they are demagoging. They walked out on bipartisan budget
negotiations and are continuing to insist that we cannot raise a single
dollar in revenue, no matter how wasteful the tax breaks or how
generous the subsidy. The shocking truth is that our Republican
colleagues seem to be willing to tank the economy simply to help out
the very most privileged, who are already doing well.
Let's face it, middle-class people, poor people, depend on government
programs. But if you are wealthy you do not need government spending.
You don't need help to send your kid to college. You don't need to go
to a clinic to have your teeth looked at in case they are falling apart
and you cannot afford high-priced, fancy dentists. But if you are
wealthy, how do you get breaks? You look into the Tax Code and lobby
Congress, whether you are a corporation or individual, to get those
breaks. That is how the high-end folks benefit, in terms of this
government.
To say all those are off limits is not class warfare, it is a simple
fact of life. It is a fact of life that the well-to-do, whether they be
corporate or individuals, benefit from tax expenditures, whereas
middle-class and poorer people benefit from spending expenditures. Yet
our Republican colleagues say one whole side is off limits. That is
putting politics over the economy.
In fact, these actions seem to indicate they might be deliberately
tanking, or want to deliberately tank, the economy to harm the
President's reelection chances. That is a tough thought. I shudder to
believe it. But when you look at the evidence, it leads in that
direction.
These are not actions of leaders. Forcing the United States into
default to score political points is playing with fire. You risk
undermining the future credit of the United States and do enough damage
to the global economy that it could cause another financial crisis not
unlike the one we saw in 2008 from which we still have not recovered,
all to score political points, all to help those, the one segment of
society which, God bless them, has done very well in the last decade.
I also want to talk today about a subject that is often ignored in
debates over the debt ceiling. These debates can seem very abstract and
the potential consequences very remote. That is why my colleague from
Minnesota decided to lead a debate in this regard. In fact, the
consequences would affect every American who wants to take out a
mortgage; every parent who needs to take out student loans to send
their kids to college; every American with a credit card. It would even
affect the price of gasoline and the price of food. The impact of a
default will not just be felt on Wall Street or in the mythical world
of bond markets, but in every town, every household in the Nation.
The consequences will not be short lived. The repercussions of a
default will stay with us for years or even decades. J.P. Morgan
estimates that even a technical default, the failure to pay interest on
our debt for a few days, would result in the cost of U.S. treasuries
increasing by 50 basis points.
What does that mean to the average household? Most households do not
speak in terms of basis points. Mortgage rates are often set at 150
points above U.S. Treasury. That means 1.5 percent above U.S.
treasuries. If the rate on treasuries goes up 50 basis points, it goes
up another half percent. So the cost of a mortgage for a family with a
30-year fixed rate mortgage worth $172,000, just that alone, that
little few days where the United States does not pay its debt, costs
$19,000 to that family.
The cost of interest on a credit card would also increase. A family
carrying a modest balance, $3,300, would pay an estimated $250 more in
interest every year.
In total, a default or even a near default could end up costing
American households $10 billion in increased borrowing costs every
year.
The same J.P. Morgan study tells us that a 50-percent increase in the
cost of U.S. treasuries will decrease our GDP by 1 percent. Leading
economists estimate a 1-percent contraction in the GDP would result in
640,000 jobs lost. These are jobs we cannot afford to lose.
In addition, the stock market would also go down significantly,
costing all Americans who are investing for their retirement or saving
to send a child to college. The typical American would lose $8,000 to
$12,000 in his or her retirement account.
J.P. Morgan also estimates that the value of the dollar would decline
5 percent to 10 percent as a result of a default.
There are significant consequences for the future of the dollar if
this happens. We should all be asking ourselves, what happens if the
dollar ceases to be the global reserve currency? But even if my
colleagues
[[Page 10534]]
across the aisle do not want to consider that, they should certainly
think about the impact of a depreciated dollar on their constituents.
Higher borrowing costs to the government would also increase the
deficit, exactly the opposite of what we are trying to do.
So when they cavalierly say ``let's default because we have a huge
deficit,'' it is actually an internal contradiction. The defaulting
will make the deficit worse. According to a J.P. Morgan analysis, the
deficit would increase by $10 billion a year in the short term, $75
billion in the long term.
The worst part is this: All of these costs would be self-inflicted
wounds. We are fully capable of paying our debt, as we always have. But
some are threatening to intentionally default. To borrow a phrase from
the President's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, ``This would be the
first default in history caused entirely by insanity.''
Let me say this. Every American family has debt, just about. Most of
us have mortgages. Let's say we have a mortgage on our house, we have a
house and we are living in it. If all of a sudden we say to our bank I
am not going to pay my mortgage unless you do A, B, and C--you have
already signed to pay that mortgage--what happens? You are not living
up to an agreement you made. Your house is foreclosed upon and you lose
it.
The analogy is the same here. For the U.S. Government to default on
purpose would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, and hurt the
citizens of this country.
I say to my Republican colleague, how do you plan to explain this to
your constituents? Do you think they will believe the political games
are worth the increased costs? I sincerely doubt it. I want to say to
my Republican colleagues, because so many of you have trifled with the
idea of not paying our debts, if, God forbid, it happens--I hope it
doesn't, for the good of the country, but if it does, you will bear the
blame. Not a single Democrat I am aware of has said we want to default.
Many Republicans have said they want to default. So you do not have to
be Albert Einstein or a Ph.D. in biophysics to know who is risking
default, who is trifling with default, and who would cause default if,
God forbid, we cannot come to an agreement.
Many on our side have said we are willing, if it comes to it, to
raise the debt ceiling if we cannot come to an agreement because the
consequences are so horrible. Not the other side--no. They are
leveraging the default as a means to assert their beliefs, sincerely
held. That is so wrong. But the good news is that the American people,
and certainly the people who are following this issue, realize that. As
we get closer and closer to the day of August 2 they will know who is
willing to risk default to achieve political goals. They will know it
is not the people from our side of the aisle. They will know it is the
people from the other side of the aisle, and that will make problems
Newt Gingrich faced in 1995--I believe it was when he shut down the
government--look like child's play. I would urge my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to rethink their position. The time has come
for a little soul searching on the other side of the aisle. You must
decide if you are willing to create another economic crisis to mollify
an extreme wing of your party and score political points against the
President. You must decide if you want to go down in history as the
first generation of American leaders to renege on promises already made
by Presidents and Congresses, Democratic and Republican alike. In the
coming weeks my Republican friends will have to make a very serious
decision. Are they going to get serious about working with us to find a
bipartisan solution to our debt crisis or are they going to put
partisan politics above the good of the country? Are they going to say
it has to be our way, all the way, 100 percent, no revenues, or we are
going to force the country to default? Or will they put the good of the
country and compromise above narrow, ideological, often fear-driven
politics?
In conclusion, I am an optimist. I believe my colleagues will come
around and join us in finding a bipartisan way forward. I don't base
that on anything that has been said. I wish I could. I base it on my
innate optimism that Americans, at the end of the day, are practical,
problem-solving people, not people who look for self-destructive
solutions. I ask my colleagues to come around, join us in a bipartisan
solution. We are willing to give some. You should be willing to give
some, but I can tell you, my friends, time is running out. I can only
hope, the American people can only hope, you don't wait too long.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I am on the floor this afternoon to talk
about the issue not only of the day, the week, the month, the year, it
is the issue about what to do about the deficit. Everyone around here
knows that if we fail to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2
deadline, the United States will default on its loan payments.
Defaulting could have catastrophic consequences on our economy as we
attempt to recover from the worst economic recession since the Great
Depression. Failing to raise the debt limit could send our economy into
a tailspin with unthinkable results for the American people. With the
stakes so high, we must ask ourselves: How did we get into this
position? Or as my constituents back home in Alaska say: How did you
get into this mess? Over the last decade, both sides of the aisle have
played a role in this irresponsible spending that resulted in our
current fiscal crisis. At the beginning of the last decade, we had a
budget surplus--let me say that again--a budget surplus of $200
billion, with a projected surplus of $5 trillion for the next 10 years.
By the time I took office in 2009, not only had our budget surplus
disappeared, we faced a budget deficit of over $1 trillion.
The creditworthiness of the United States is in jeopardy. Some of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose raising the debt
ceiling, citing the need to rein in reckless spending. While I support
broad deficit reduction measures, I strongly disagree with those who
fail to recognize consequences of failing to raise the debt limit and
defaulting on our financial obligations. Everyone around here knows
what will happen if we do not. For the first time ever the
creditworthiness of the United States would be put in jeopardy. I want
to step back for a second and remind everyone Congress has enacted
measures on the Federal debt limit 74 times. So they obviously
understand what will happen if the American government defaults on its
payments. The ceiling has been increased by both Democratic and
Republican administrations and Congress. George W. Bush's first term in
May of 2003 would increase the limit by $984 billion. In fact, Congress
raised the debt ceiling seven times during his administration. The
Senate Republicans provided the votes to raise the debt ceiling in
2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. To keep a good credit rating is something
the American people understand, and they are doing their very best
during these hard times. I hear this all the time when we are back
home.
While the American people understand that defaulting on our loans
would only make matters worse, some Members of Congress insist on
playing politics even during this economically uncertain time. If the
U.S. Government defaults on its financial obligations, it would be the
first time in history our credit would be downgraded. Let me repeat--
never before have we let our creditworthiness be called into question.
The consequences are large and somewhat unknown.
Let me take a little bit from what the Senator from New York talked
about and expand on that, and that is: How does it affect the
individual, the person working hard every day, paying their mortgage,
driving to work, pumping gas in their car, going on a vacation, doing
everyday things that Americans do in my State of Alaska, especially now
they are out fishing, enjoying the summer. The kids are out of school,
and the State fair is getting geared up in another month. What happens?
Well, first off, if we default on
[[Page 10535]]
our loans that are due, our obligations, some immediate things will
probably happen.
First off, individuals who have credit cards will have their rates go
up, because if you read the fine print of those great credit card bills
we get every month, which are very small and very detailed, they talk
about how the rate is structured. The rate is structured around what
happens in the market. Obviously a lot of people today may have a good
rate, 9 percent, 10 percent, but average is around 15 percent, 18
percent. That interest rate will go up. Home mortgage rates--if you
have an adjustable rate mortgage, it will be adjusted up. If you are a
small business person--as I have been, and am still today, my wife--
there are many businesses that borrow on a 1-year, 2-year, 3-year loan,
adjustable rate, maybe monthly, maybe it is an inventory loan because
it is a seasonable business--all those rates will go up, assuming you
can get a loan. When you drive your car and pump that gas and fill up
your tank and you think prices are high now, oil commodities are traded
in U.S. dollars. So the net effect is going to be that dollar is going
to have less value, which means the price of the fuel will go up and
what you pump into your car will increase.
Mr. President, 75 percent of world markets, transactions across this
world are done in U.S. dollars. If you impact the creditworthiness of
the country, the dollar has less credit behind it, which, of course,
costs money, which means things we import such as fuel to operate our
cars, energy to heat this building, to turn on these lights, go up. It
has a real impact to individuals. It is not some global discussion here
in the halls of Congress. It is not about just debt limit and GDP and
all these other phrases that people kind of wonder what it means to
them in their individual life, but it has a direct impact in their
lives. What happens to their retirement funds? Their funds are invested
in maybe U.S. Government securities. Well, they are going to see a
change, a dramatic change. The American people, Alaskans, are already
struggling. To add this additional burden because we are unable to sit
down and work together and solve this problem in a cohesive,
comprehensive way is irresponsible.
To my friends across the aisle, let me remind you of what President
Reagan said in 1983 in a letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard
Baker. He said it better than I think any of us could say, and this is
directly from his letter:
The full consequences of default--or even the serious
prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to
predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full
faith and credit of the United States would have substantial
effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of
the dollar in exchange markets.
The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risk,
the costs, the disruptions and incalculable damage lead me to
but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation
before Congress adjourns.
It is amazing I can take a quote such as this from history and
transplant it today and it is the same situation.
At the same time as we deal with this, I feel strongly we must pass a
deficit reduction measure. I have supported the deficit commission, the
debt commission, and their efforts. I didn't agree with it all, but I
agreed the $4 trillion mark should be it. We should try to do our best.
In order to solve this problem, this challenge--and we all have our
sides where we are kind of hunkered down. Every time I go back home--
and I was back home this last weekend for my short 48 hours. I spend
more time on the plane than staying at home at times. But when I get
home, people say very simply to me, it is a combination. We are going
to have to reduce the spending. I don't object to that. We are going to
have to create a more fair tax system, which I don't object to. Along
with Senator Wyden and Senator Coats, I have introduced tax legislation
that does that, simplifies individual rates, focuses on a growth agenda
with our tax policy. It gets rid of the loopholes, tax havens that
people take advantage of who pay no taxes but enjoy the great bounties
of our country.
We also have to invest. We have to invest in a growth agenda. That
means investing in infrastructure, in education. Because as you reduce
your budget, which I don't disagree with, and as we create a more fair,
balanced tax system, we have to do one of the most principled things
and that is to continue to help grow this economy and we have to invest
in our infrastructure, and invest in a variety of things that grow our
economy.
This is an opportunity for us to put our country on sound financial
footing by passing a broad deficit reduction measure that includes cost
savings and increased revenues. When it comes to protecting America's
economic security and improving fiscal responsibility, the time to act
is now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. I rise today to talk about some of the enormous
challenges facing our economy, about Washington's failure to address
those challenges and a way forward. Today there are nearly 23 million
Americans looking for full-time jobs. This includes people among those
9 percent of Americans on the unemployment rolls, but also includes a
lot of Americans who want to work but have given up looking for work or
are scraping by on part-time jobs when they want a full-time job. What
makes it more troubling is that, among the Americans being counted in
that 9 percent, the average length of time on the unemployment rolls is
now nearly 10 months. That is the longest ever recorded. These folks
are looking for help, looking to us for leadership and looking for us
to help get the economy back on track by creating a better environment
for job creation and economic growth. As we have heard from the two
previous speakers, the government faces serious, unprecedented
budgetary challenges. Washington is borrowing nearly 40 cents of every
dollar it spends. It looks as if we may have another record deficit
this year, and we will have the highest debt ever. Government spending
has gone from $25,000 per household to more than $31,000 per household
in the last 4 years. The national debt has doubled over the 2008
levels--doubled since 2008. We have hit this $14.3 trillion debt limit,
and if we do nothing about it, we are going to end up with an economic
crisis much like Greece is facing today.
I just listened to the comments of my colleague from New York and my
friend from Alaska, and they are talking about the fact that interest
rates might go up unless we vote to extend the debt limit. I am talking
to a lot of economists and thinking about the impact it will have on
Ohio if we don't do something about the deficit and debt. When we
extend the debt limit again, interest rates will go up. The value of
the dollar will continue to go down. Inflation will go up.
The point is not that we want to go into default--I hope nobody does
in this Chamber. Despite what my friend and colleague from New York
said, there is no Republican interest in defaulting on the debt. No one
wants to default on the debt. But it is just the same as when we have a
credit card in our families. Once we max out on the credit card, before
we try to get a higher line of credit, we ought to look at the
underlying problem, otherwise we will fall right back into the same
financial problems. That is what Republicans are saying.
It is this: If we do not deal with the underlying problem, which is
this huge fiscal imbalance we just talked about--a $14.3 trillion debt
that has doubled since 2008--then we are going to find ourselves with a
financial and economic problem that will result in a spike in interest
rates and will result in this negative impact on all Americans via car
loans, mortgages, and student loans.
So this is why it is so critical over the next few weeks as we work
through this; That we deal with not just extending the debt limit--I
guess that is a pretty easy thing to do, to just say let's go borrow
more; we are already borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar--but we
have to deal with the underlying problem.
So what are we doing in the Senate to deal with that underlying
problem?
[[Page 10536]]
Very little. This week we are debating a meaningless sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. It is what is called a nonbinding resolution. It
will not create a single job or reform a single part of our tax code.
It will not save $1 of government spending. It does nothing to address
the debt limit. It is a distraction, and that is why earlier today I
voted against proceeding to it. Serious times demand serious work.
I was pleased when the Senate came together to cancel this week's
scheduled recess because we should be here. We pledged to return to
Washington and to confront these economic challenges we talked about
and the budget problems we face. I supported doing that, but this has
not been a serious effort.
By the way, the Senate has not even passed a basic budget for this
year. There is no budget, which is highly unusual. It also never passed
a budget last year. So instead of talking about nonbinding resolutions,
we should be talking about a budget. We should have a budget on the
floor. We should be debating it. The other side will have their issues,
and we will have issues to talk about. None of us will necessarily
agree with one another on the precise provisions of a budget, and that
is fine. Let's have the debate and end up with a blueprint for our
spending going forward.
President Obama talks about getting involved and showing true
leadership but, to be honest, he hasn't stepped to the plate. The best
example would be his own budget. He is required by law to submit one
every year. He did submit a budget. That budget was voted on by this
Senate. Because we didn't have our own budget, we voted on his budget.
It was unanimously rejected 97 to 0 partly because, as Democrats will
say, a few weeks after he submitted the budget, he gave a speech where
he said: My budget wasn't really adequate to the task. So he rejected
his own budget, in a sense, but he offered no alternatives, no
specifics.
His own budget, by the way, was so unserious that it doubled the debt
over the next decade, and that is why, again, it was voted down by this
Senate.
What is our budget? What do we believe in? We should have that
debate.
We need to know what the numbers are; and what vision the President
has for the next 10 years. That is what the budget is supposed to do.
And, of course, we need to know what he will do to help grow the
economy. In my view, getting the budget under control is a matter of
restraining spending, but it is also a matter of growing the economy.
If we don't grow the economy--and that will increase revenues, by
growing the economy--we will not be able to get out of this deep fiscal
hole we are in with record deficits, record debt, and, again, an
increasing negative impact on our economy.
The lack of a true debate is not from a lack of ideas, by the way.
Senate Republicans have developed a commonsense jobs plan, much of
which I think should be and can be bipartisan. It includes a lot of
commonsense ideas. One is to reform the Tax Code. Senator Begich from
Alaska talked about that earlier. That is to make sure that our Tax
Code works better for our economy; that it is simpler, that it
encourages investment and job creation. Economists across the board
would agree that our current code is inefficient. We should do that as
a body. That will help develop the economy and jobs and economic
activity which will increase revenue.
We need to rein in regulations. When I am home talking to small
businesses, the first thing they talk to me about is the latest Federal
regulation. A new one out today from the Environmental Protection
Agency which is affecting my home State of Ohio is going to cost jobs
at a time when we need jobs desperately. These are very specific
proposals. Maybe they are not proposals everyone can agree to. What are
the other side's proposals? Let's debate this issue. Let's pass
legislation that forces a cost-benefit analysis of regulations. Let's
be sure the regulators are using the least burdensome and least costly
alternatives.
These are commonsense ideas: creating a competitive workforce to make
sure we are competitive for the 21st century. This is incredibly
important. Expanding exports to create more jobs. On energy, being sure
we have the ability to get away from our dangerous dependence on
foreign oil by developing more resources right here in this country.
These are all commonsense proposals we should work on because they
relate to the very issue we should be talking about this week, which is
how to deal with our budget imbalance.
The proposal, by the way, also caps government spending. It says we
need to have a balance between revenues and expenditures, which is only
common sense because until we get the fiscal house in order it is going
to be very difficult to get our economy moving. It is like a wet
blanket over the economy creating uncertainty and unpredictability.
On the budget, let's be clear. The long-term problem is from soaring
spending, not falling revenues. This is from the Congressional Budget
Office. It is a nonpartisan group. Their job is to give us the data to
tell us what is going to happen with spending and with revenues. This
is what they tell us.
Even if we keep current tax rates for everybody--in other words,
don't get rid of the so-called Bush tax cuts--revenues are still
expected to rebound above the historical average of 18 percent of the
economy. If, in fact, the Bush tax cuts do not get extended, which is
current law--right now they are expected to end at the end of next
year--those tax revenues will be well above the historic average.
Instead of 18 percent, they get up over the next several years to about
20 percent. Over the last 50 years, it has been about 18 percent. The
deficit is rising not because of lack of revenue but because spending
is now at 24.5 to 25 percent of our economy as compared to its
historical level over the last 50 years of 20.3 percent of the economy.
What is going to happen? Well, CBO has it right there. It is
projected to rise on the spending side to 26 percent of the economy
over the next several years; then 30, then 40, then 50 percent of the
economy on spending alone. We talked earlier about the fact that we
have gone from $25,000 per household government spending to $31,000 per
household in the last 4 years alone. That spending is projected to grow
and grow. If we don't deal with that spending we will never be able to
get the budget in balance. That is the top issue. Again, we have to
face this before we extend the debt limit again. If we don't, there
will be major economic problems.
Look at what Standard & Poor's and Moody's and Fitch--the so-called
credit agencies--are telling us. They are saying: Yes, default would be
a terrible thing. Let's not default. But they are also saying: If we
don't deal with the fiscal imbalance, if we don't deal with the record
deficits and debts, there will be major and negative impacts on the
economy, and they will be in a position where they may downgrade our
debt, which means higher interest rates.
Having tax rates chase spending is not the solution. It will not
balance the budget. Moreover, it will not spur this sputtering economy
to grow and to create the jobs we talk about today. It will not work to
get us back to work. In fact, virtually all economic theories agree
that tax increases harm economic growth. When we tax something, people
do less of it. That is why we tax smoking. So if we want economic
growth, the last thing we should do is to raise taxes on working, raise
taxes on savings, raise taxes on investment. These are not the ways to
get the economy moving again. Instead, we should be unleashing American
entrepreneurs, not putting more taxes on them.
Some suggest we must choose between creating jobs and reining in
government. My view is that the opposite is true. Reining in government
can help create jobs. The less the government spends, the more money
remains in the private sector for families and entrepreneurs to spend.
The less the government borrows, the more savings are available for
businesses to borrow in order to expand, as well as for families to
borrow for a new home, a new car, or a student loan. Think about it.
The government borrowing all this
[[Page 10537]]
money is like a big sponge soaking up our savings. Today, we are
borrowing, again, more than 40 cents of every dollar the government
spends. That is harming the economy. Reducing the deficit also reduces
the risk of a debt-induced financial crisis that might otherwise dwarf
what we have seen happening in Greece today.
But don't take my word for it. Lots of economists have looked at
this. There is a great study out there that I encourage people to look
at. It is done by the economists Ken Rogoff and Carman Reinhart. Rogoff
and Reinhart do something very simple. They go around the world and
look at different economies and determine what happens when their debt
gets too big for their economy. Their view is that when the debt gets
to 90 percent of the size of a nation's economy, it has a substantial
negative impact on the economic growth and jobs in that country.
Their data suggests that when the debt gets to 90 percent of the
economy, there is a 1-percent reduction in economic growth rates. So
instead of our economy growing at 1.8 percent in the first quarter, it
should have grown at 2.8 percent. What does that mean? That 1-percent
growth would otherwise mean 1 million jobs.
So if we didn't have this huge debt--and right now it is about 93
percent of our economy; it will be at 100 percent of the economy this
year--then we would have more jobs. If we look at what Rogoff and
Reinhart have said, it means we would have about 1 million more jobs in
this country. Could we use those jobs? Yes. We need them desperately.
So there is a connection between this overspending--and this huge gap
we have between revenues and spending--and our ability to get this
economy back on track.
Over 25 years, by the way, annual growth rates 1 percent lower would
leave the economy nearly one-fourth smaller than it would otherwise be.
Think about that: a 25-percent reduction in the size of the economy as
a result of this debt.
In order to create jobs and growth, we have to balance the budget,
and we have to reduce that debt that is now over 90 percent of our
economy. There are two ways to reduce the debt's share of the economy:
One is to make the debt smaller, and the other is to make the economy
larger. We know raising taxes will shrink the economy. Instead, we have
to keep tax rates low to create jobs and expand the economy, and we
have to reform the Tax Code so it works better.
Again, economists across the spectrum will tell us we can have a
better economy if we have a more sensible Tax Code. We must also
responsibly reduce government spending, of course, to rein in the debt.
Low tax rates and spending restraint will bring prosperity and
alleviate this immoral avalanche of debt that we are otherwise leaving
in the laps of our children and grandchildren.
I understand some of my colleagues have their own approaches to
this--to jobs, to the economy, to the budget deficit. That is fine.
Let's have the debate. There are numerous proposals in Congress to
reduce spending, balance the budget, and reform entitlements. Instead
of voting on political nonbinding resolutions as we have done this week
in the Senate, let's have that debate. We have too many important
issues. Let's stop fiddling while Rome burns.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as we discuss the need to bring down the
deficit, we should acknowledge a few basics. First is cannot achieve
the deficit reduction we need with spending cuts to nondefense
discretionary programs alone. They simply aren't large enough to make
the difference we need, and the damage we would do to American families
from drastic cuts in those programs is simply too great.
Second is that in light of those facts and in the interest of basic
fairness, a balanced solution to deficit spending must include revenues
as well as spending cuts. If we ask college students relying on Federal
aid, workers in need of Federal job training, seniors in need of health
care to sacrifice in the name of deficit reduction, so, too, should
those who benefit from loopholes and handouts in the Tax Code,
including loopholes that often benefit only highly profitable
corporations, one of those huge loopholes that benefits corporations
that dole out large stock option pay to their executives.
Current law provides an unwarranted tax subsidy to executive stock
option compensation thereby increasing the tax burden on working
families and increasing our deficit. According to the Joint Committee
on Taxation, closing this loophole would reduce the deficit by about
$25 billion.
Today, under tax rules for reporting stock options, corporations
report stock option expenses on their books when those stock options
are granted but use another method to claim a different and a typically
much higher expense on their tax returns when the stock options are
exercised. The result is, corporations can claim larger tax deductions
for options on their tax returns than the actual expense they show on
their books for those same options.
Stock options are the only type of compensation where the Tax Code
allows a corporation to deduct more than the expense shown on their
books. For all other types of compensation--cash, stock, bonuses, and
others--the tax return deduction equals the book expense. In fact, if
corporations deducted on their tax returns more than their books showed
as compensation, it could constitute tax fraud. The sole exception to
that rule is stock options. It is an exception we can no longer afford.
The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, held a
hearing in June of 2007, when we examined the stock option tax gap in
detail at nine companies. We found that those nine companies claimed
tax deductions that were a combined $1 billion greater than the
expenses shown on their books. Let me repeat, just nine companies, $1
billion in excess tax deductions.
We were shocked by that finding, and we asked the IRS to calculate
the stock option tax gap for the country as a whole. Using actual data
from tax returns, the IRS found that for the first full year in which
data was available, U.S. companies claimed an excess of $61 billion in
stock option tax deductions compared to their book expenses. Since
then, IRS data shows that the stock option tax gap has persisted for 5
years. They looked at 2005 to 2009, which was the latest year for which
data was available, with the size of the excess tax deductions varying
from $11 billion to $52 billion per year. These excessive deductions
mean billions of dollars in reduced taxes for corporations wealthy
enough to provide substantial stock option compensation to their
already well-paid executives and all at the expense of ordinary
taxpayers and an increase in the deficit.
It is a tax loophole that is fueling excessive executive pay,
increasing the pay gap between millionaires and the middle class, and
enabling profitable corporations to avoid paying their fair share to
reduce the deficit.
I will soon be reintroducing the same legislation I have introduced
in past years to end this misalignment of the Tax Code.
The bill would cure the problem simply by requiring the corporate
stock option tax deduction to equal the stock option expense shown on
the corporate books. It would not affect the taxes paid by individuals
who receive the stock options. It would not affect so-called incentive
stock options which receive favored tax treatment under section 422 of
the Tax Code and are often used by startup companies.
In addition, the bill would make stock options pay subject to the
same $1 million cap on corporate tax deductions that applies to other
forms of executive pay. Congress established that $1 million cap so
that taxpayers would not have to subsidize enormous paychecks for
executives. But the cap can't end that tax subsidy without including
stock options. Even if included under the cap, stock options could
still be awarded in excess of $1 million, but not at the expense of
ordinary taxpayers.
[[Page 10538]]
I do not know of any Senator who does not want to reduce the budget
deficit. I do not know of any Senator who believes it is wise to
subsidize executive paychecks at the expense of working families. But
as it now stands, the excessive corporate tax deduction for stock
option pay widens the deficit while increasing the tax burden on
ordinary taxpayers. By closing this tax gap, by ending the illogical
treatment of corporate stock options in current law, we can reduce the
budget deficit and bring much-needed fairness to the Tax Code.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed
as in morning business for 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ahmed Warsame
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Department of Justice announced earlier
this week that Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, an accused member of the
terrorist group Al-Shabaab, has been indicted on charges of providing
material support to Al-Shabaab and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula,
conspiring to teach and demonstrate the making of explosives,
possessing firearms and explosives in furtherance of crimes of
violence, and other violations of Federal law. He will be tried for
these offenses in Federal court in New York.
Warsame is a Somali national who was captured in the gulf region in
late April and taken to a U.S. Navy vessel for detention and
interrogation. The Department of Defense has stated that the
interrogation was conducted by an interagency team comprised of U.S.
military personnel, with assistance from the High-Value Detainee
Interrogation Group. After the completion of this interrogation and a
hiatus of several days, Warsame was turned over to a team of FBI
officials for law enforcement questioning, and in that he waived his
Miranda rights and continued to talk.
This case appears to be an example of our national security and law
enforcement teams working together in the manner we would hope they
would toward the twin objectives of collecting critical intelligence
information and ensuring a successful criminal prosecution of the
detainee.
Published reports indicate that Warsame was captured by American
military forces on a boat in international waters between Yemen and
Somalia after the United States acquired intelligence indicating that a
significant terrorist figure was on board the vessel. Under these
circumstances, it was appropriate for the military to detain and
interrogate Warsame to obtain actionable intelligence. The United
States is currently engaged in military operations pursuant to the 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force. As the Supreme Court held 7
years ago in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the capture and detention
of both lawful and unlawful combatants is a ``fundamental and accepted
. . . incident to war.'' I understand these interrogations were
conducted in a manner fully consistent with the interrogation
techniques authorized under the Army Field Manual on interrogations.
Once our national security team determined that the collection of
actionable intelligence had been completed, a separate decision was
made, on the basis of the specific facts of this case, as to the best
forum in which to prosecute Warsame for his alleged crimes.
The indictment sets forth evidence that Warsame violated a number of
Federal statutes, including sections of the Criminal Code prohibiting
trafficking in explosives, use of dangerous weapons, acts of
international terrorism, providing material support to foreign
terrorist organizations, and receiving military-type training from
foreign terrorist organizations--making him a candidate for prosecution
in a Federal court with jurisdiction over such violations.
Warsame also appears to have engaged in acts of terrorism and
material support to terrorism, both of which are crimes under the
Military Commissions Act, if they are committed ``in the context of and
associated with hostilities'' against the United States. What has not
been resolved is whether Warsame meets the jurisdictional threshold in
the Military Commissions Act of having acted in the context of
hostilities against the United States and having engaged in or
materially supported such hostilities.
The administration's national security team unanimously agreed that
prosecution in Federal court was the better option and the one most
likely to lead to a conviction under the facts of this case. Our
Federal prosecutors and Federal courts have a proven track record in
prosecuting terrorists. Two years ago, the Justice Department informed
us that there were 208 inmates in Federal prisons who had been
sentenced for crimes related to international terrorism and an
additional 139 inmates who had been sentenced for crimes related to
domestic terrorism. By contrast, prosecution of the Warsame case before
a military commission would have raised a difficult jurisdictional
issue that could have resulted in dismissal or even acquittal.
Critics of the decision to try Warsame in Federal court apparently
would prefer that he be tried before a military commission, even though
he might be less likely to be convicted there due to the jurisdictional
issue. I disagree with that position. In my view, the most appropriate
forum for trial should be determined, as it was here, on the basis of
the nature of the offense, the nature of the evidence, and the
likelihood of successful prosecution. The executive branch officials
who made the determination in this case are in a much better position
to weigh those factors and make that judgment than is the Congress.
By the way, the approach taken by the administration in this case is
consistent with the bipartisan detainee provisions included in the
National Defense Authorization Act, as reported by the Senate Armed
Services Committee last month.
Those provisions would authorize military detention for enemy
belligerents captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the
2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. That authority
appropriately encompasses the detention of an individual like Warsame,
who is suspected of participation in such hostilities, until such time
as the military has been able to interrogate the detainee and make an
appropriate status determination. While we may not have enough evidence
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Warsame participated in
hostilities against the United States, we undoubtedly had sufficient
evidence to hold him for the time required to interrogate him and
obtain the intelligence that our military needs.
The provisions in the Senate Armed Services Committee-reported bill
would also expressly authorize the transfer of such a detainee ``for
trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful
jurisdiction.'' Indeed, an amendment to delete this authority was
defeated in committee by a bipartisan vote of 7 to 19. We decided, in
other words, to leave it up to executive branch officials to determine
on a case-by-case basis, as they did here, the most appropriate forum
for prosecution, whether it be a Federal court or a military
commission.
By contrast, the House version of the defense authorization bill
includes a provision that would expressly prohibit the trial in Federal
court of any alleged foreign terrorist who might be subject to trial by
a military commission--even if he is arrested inside the United States.
This provision may well be unconstitutional, given that article III of
the U.S. Constitution expressly states that:
The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority.
Under the plain language of this provision, Congress would appear to
lack the authority to exclude the prosecution of violations of the laws
of the United States in the Federal courts.
The effort to direct all terrorist cases to military commissions
could also be highly counterproductive, providing jurisdictional
arguments that defendants could use to seek the dismissal of charges
against them. If the House language were adopted, a case in Federal
[[Page 10539]]
court on a terrorism charge would be at risk of being dismissed on the
grounds that it could only have been brought before a military
commission, while at the same time, because of the limited jurisdiction
of military commissions, the military commission might not have
jurisdiction either. In such a case, it would be impossible to
prosecute an alleged terrorist in any forum. The critics of the
Department of Justice decision should end their effort to score
political points here. The stakes are too high, and if the critics get
their way, we might not be able to try some terrorists at all--
anywhere.
Some may contend that holding alleged terrorists in the United States
for trial could needlessly subject Americans to retaliatory attacks by
terrorist organizations. There is no basis for that argument. We have
tried hundreds of alleged terrorists in our Federal courts over the
last decade. We are currently holding many more--including the
Christmas Day bomber, who is being held in my hometown of Detroit. So
far as I know, none of these cases have led to retaliatory attacks by
terrorist organizations. In any event, we know that al-Qaida and its
allies are already seeking avenues to attack us on American soil and
would do so if they could. Moving the location of a trial to Guantanamo
or some other foreign location is unlikely to deter such an attack.
Last month, ADM William McRaven--the President's nominee to be
commander of U.S. Special Operations Command--testified before our
Armed Services Committee that a suspected enemy belligerent detained
outside the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq would likely be put on a
naval vessel until ``we can prosecute that individual in a U.S. court
or we can return him to a third party country.'' Admiral McRaven made
it clear later in his testimony that such an individual could also be
transferred for trial by a military commission. In other words, we have
a choice. We should preserve that choice.
In summary, the Warsame case demonstrates that we do have the
capacity to detain and interrogate suspected terrorists in military
custody for the purpose of obtaining actionable intelligence, and then
to transfer them to an appropriate forum for trial--whether it be a
Federal court or a military commission. This case demonstrates that we
do not have to sacrifice actionable intelligence for law enforcement
purposes, and that we do not have to sacrifice criminal prosecution in
order to collect intelligence information. And it demonstrates that we
can pursue both of these objectives without being pushed to what
Admiral McRaven described as the ``unenviable option'' of having to
release the detainee.
The only ``unenviable'' outcome is the one that the critics of the
Department of Justice decision would lead us to--prohibiting the
criminal trial of suspected foreign terrorists in Federal court and
requiring them to be tried by military commissions, even in cases like
the Warsame case, where a jurisdictional problem might lead a military
commission to dismiss the case.
The action of the administration in the Warsame case is sound. The
prosecutorial discretion they exercised as to the best forum for the
trial should be preserved and should not be interfered with by the
Congress.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise, along with my fellow colleagues,
to again address the need to reduce our deficit and our debt. The
United States is the strongest country in the world--in the history of
the world--but that will not be the case for long if we do not solve
our deficit and our debt crisis. It is vital we solve it now for our
generation, but it is vital we solve it for future generations as well.
The wealth, the economic activity of this country, is created by the
private sector, by hard-working men and women, not by the government.
The government creates the forum, the environment, if you will, that
fosters or allows economic activity. But the key is, the government
should not just allow economic activity, the government needs to create
an environment that truly empowers, that promotes economic activity,
that encourages private investment, that encourages entrepreneurship,
business expansion and job growth, innovation--the very entrepreneurial
activity that has built this country. That is the success of America,
that is the strength of our country, that is how America has become the
greatest economic powerhouse in the history of the world. That is why
our people enjoy the highest standard of living.
But our current administration believes more government is the
answer--more spending, more regulation, and more taxes. It is not the
answer. That is the problem, and it is making the situation worse.
Let's go through just some of the economic statistics.
Today, we have 13.9 million--almost 14 million--people unemployed.
The unemployment rate is over 9 percent. Gas prices, since the current
administration took office, are up to more than $3.50 a gallon. That is
almost a 100-percent increase in the cost of gasoline. Our Federal debt
is closing in on $14.5 trillion. For every man, woman, and child in
this country, that is almost $50,000 for every single person. We have
45 million people on food stamps today. Health insurance. In spite of
the health insurance legislation, health insurance premiums are rising,
and home values are going down.
Clearly, we need to get our economy going. We need to get people back
to work. We need that economic growth and dynamism that has been the
hallmark of this country.
Clearly, we need to reduce our deficit and our debt. The reality is,
we can do it. We absolutely can do it, and we have done it before. But
we need to begin with a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit and
the debt. Any agreement to raise the debt ceiling needs to include a
comprehensive agreement to reduce the deficit and the debt.
By a comprehensive agreement, I mean something that includes a
balanced budget amendment, reduction in spending, and living within our
means on an ongoing basis. It means reforming entitlement programs to
save them from bankruptcy, not only to protect our seniors today but to
make sure those programs are solvent and there for future generations.
All these things and more can go into a comprehensive plan. But we
need a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit, to reduce the debt as
part of the debt ceiling issue we need to deal with now--not put off
but deal with now.
If we think about it, a balanced budget amendment makes sense. Forty-
nine of the fifty States--49 out of 50 States--have either a
constitutional or a statutory requirement that they balance their
budget--not just this year but every year. States balance their
budgets. Cities balance their budgets. Businesses balance their
budgets. Families balance their budgets, live within their means. Our
Federal Government needs to do the same. Our Federal Government needs
that fiscal responsibility, needs that fiscal discipline.
Also, if we think about it, a balanced budget amendment gets
everybody involved. It gets everybody involved in Congress. It takes a
two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House to pass a balanced
budget amendment. Then what happens? It goes out to the States. It goes
out to the 50 States, and three-fourths of the States must ratify that
balanced budget amendment in order for it to be approved. So we not
only have everybody at the Federal level working to live within our
means and balance the budget, but we get all the States involved as
well.
This is a challenging problem--no question about it--getting on top
of these deficits and our long-term debt not only now but for the
future as well. So let's have everyone involved. A balanced budget
amendment will do just that.
Of course, at the same time, we have to reduce our spending both now
and make sure we continue to live within our means going forward. The
statistics are very clear. The statistics right now show that this year
the Federal Government will take in about $2.2 trillion in revenue.
[[Page 10540]]
So our revenue is about $2.2 trillion, but our expenses are $3.7
trillion. That is about a $1.5 trillion deficit. This year, actually,
it will be larger than that number. So you can see that is why our
Federal debt now is closing in on $14.5 trillion. We are borrowing 40
cents of every dollar we spend--40 cents of every dollar we spend--and
every single day our debt goes up $4 billion. That is simply
unsustainable.
That is why any vote to increase the debt ceiling must include a
comprehensive plan to reduce our deficit and our debt. No question, we
need to control spending, but as we do that, at the same time, in order
to truly solve the problem, we have to create, as I said at the outset,
a government environment that not only encourages government investment
but empowers private investment across our Nation.
This next chart shows some of the challenges--barriers, if you will--
to doing that. We need legal, tax, and regulatory certainty to
encourage private investment. A probusiness, progrowth, projobs
environment is one that creates legal, tax, and regulatory certainty to
not only encourage but empower private investment.
One of the ways we do this is by reducing the regulatory burden. We
have an incredible regulatory burden at the Federal level. We need to
find ways to reduce that. That is what this chart shows.
Earlier this year, President Obama issued an Executive order that
proposes to review regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective,
insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and also to modify,
streamline, or even repeal them. Just a week ago, he said again:
What I have done--and this is unprecedented--is I have said
to each agency, look at the regulations that are already on
the books, and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of
them.
That is what he said. I absolutely agree with that. Yet, over the
past 2 years, the administration has issued 502 proposed or enacted
regulations and is on pace this year to exceed $100 billion in total
regulatory cost burdens to industry. That is a huge regulatory burden.
This chart shows the cost of major new regulations in billions of
dollars over the last 30 years. As you can see, when the cost of
regulation is low, the economy is strong, and when the cost of
regulation is high, as it is now, the economy is weak; more important,
job growth is weak. Look at 2010. In 2010, you see the highest
regulatory burden, in adjusted dollars, in the last 30 years. How did
our economy do in 2010?
Senator Roberts, my colleague from Kansas, myself, and others have
taken the President up on his pledge to review these regulations. We
have introduced the Regulatory Responsibility For Our Economy Act, a
measure that would give teeth to the President's directive. Regulators
will have to show the benefits of a new rule and show that the benefits
outweigh its cost. They will have to show that it imposes the least
burden on society and that it maximizes economic benefits. That is an
approach which would not only encourage but truly empower private
investment.
Let me give you another example of what I am talking about with the
regulatory burden--again, trying to create that legal and tax certainty
that stimulates the private investment we need to get this economy
going, not more government spending. We are spending way beyond our
means. What I mean is, more private investment that gets this economy
going, gets people back to work, and generates revenue, which will help
us, over time, reduce our debt.
When we talk about onerous regulations, a key area of the economy
that is incredibly overburdened and where we see a prevention of
investment because of the regulatory burden is the energy industry.
My next chart illustrates the long reach of the EPA and how it is
sidelining and dampening job growth in the energy sector. It shows a
long, complex obstacle course, if you will, of expensive standards and
procedures and regulations that are not only being implemented now but
will go on for the foreseeable future.
How would you like to be an energy company looking at investing and
putting hundreds of millions, billions of dollars into new plants and
investments, whether it is producing oil and gas, whether it is
biofuels or biomass--you name it--how would you like to make those
investments on behalf of your shareholders and have some idea what rate
of return you are going to be able to get and what rules of the road
you are going to have to follow?
This is just a small sampling of the regulations that are now coming
into being and will continue to come into place for the foreseeable
future. At a time of high oil prices, unrest in the Middle East, and
sluggish economic growth, we are not only failing to provide Americans
with affordable energy for their homes and vehicles, but we are
actually discouraging the very investment that will make it happen, and
this is just one small example.
To remedy that, we need new legislation. I know the occupant of the
chair and others are working on a lot of new legislation that will
streamline regulations and encourage investment.
I will give just a couple of examples. One of them I am working on
with Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. He introduced it, and it
is called the EPA Fair Play Act. It would prohibit rescinding properly
approved 404 permits. When EPA approves a 404 permit for mining, it
says you can't arbitrarily withdraw that permit. So a company that has
invested millions or billions of dollars can't find itself high and dry
after it has already gotten the proper permit.
Another example of legislation that we have introduced that would
make a difference is Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs
Act. The primary sponsor of that is Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming.
This legislation ensures that Congress makes the call on regulating
greenhouse gases, not the EPA through regulatory fiat.
Another example is the Gas Accessibility and Stabilization Act, which
I am pleased to cosponsor with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri and
others, which will simplify the complex rules and regulations that
govern refining and distribution of fuel throughout the United States.
There are many other examples I could give as well.
The point is, with 14 million Americans out of work, we can no longer
delay. It is not just regulations, it is legal, tax, and regulatory
certainty that will empower investment by entrepreneurs and companies
all over this great Nation.
We don't just have to talk about regulations. Let's talk about trade
for a minute. Right now, we have three trade agreements pending: the
United States-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the free-trade
agreement with Panama, and another one with Colombia. These agreements
have been pending since 2007. The benefit of these agreements, for
example, is that they would generate more than $13 billion a year in
economic activity for this country and create up to 250,000 American
jobs. If we fail to act, we will lose on the order of 380,000 jobs to
the European Union and Canada, which have already approved their trade
agreements. Why aren't we dealing with those trade agreements now, when
we have 14 million people out of work, when we have an economy we need
to get going, and when we have huge deficits and debt, increasing at
the rate of $4 billion a day?
Well, the deadline on the debt limit is fast approaching. The time to
act is now. The simple truth is this: We cannot continue to spend more,
tax more, and regulate more. It is time to control our spending and
create an environment that unleashes the entrepreneurial power and
spirit of the American people. We can do it. In fact, we have done it
before. We just need the will to act for ourselves today and for the
benefit of future generations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by referring to the front
page of today's Washington Post. The headline is ``Obama: Social
Security on table. Cuts offered in debt talks.''
Mr. President, I hope very much that headline is wrong because, in
fact, Social Security, which is perhaps the
[[Page 10541]]
most successful Federal program in the history of our country, has not
contributed one penny to our deficit or our national debt. The idea of
lumping Social Security and cuts in Social Security into a discussion
about our deficit and our national debt is absolutely wrong and unfair
to the tens of millions of seniors and people with disabilities who
benefit from that program.
As you know and as the American people know, Social Security is
independently funded through the payroll tax. Every worker and every
employer contributes into that fund. Social Security, today, has a $2.6
trillion surplus that is projected, in fact, to grow to over $4
trillion by 2023.
We, of course, need a vigorous debate about how we deal with the
deficit crisis and our national debt, but Social Security,
independently funded, with a $2.6 trillion surplus, having not
contributed one nickel to the national debt, should not be part of that
debate.
I understand there are many people in the Senate--many of my
Republican colleagues--who do not like Social Security, who do not
believe in Social Security because, essentially, they do not believe
the government should be involved in retirement insurance for seniors
or people with disabilities. I respect their point of view. I very
strongly disagree with it.
The real problem they have is that Social Security is enormously
popular. Poll after poll shows that the American people do not want to
see Social Security cut, they do not want to see the retirement age
raised, and they most certainly do not want to see Social Security
privatized because, in fact, Social Security has succeeded. It has
accomplished the goals of those people who founded that program in the
1930s. In the 1930s, about half of America's senior citizens lived in
poverty. Today, that number, while it is too high, is down to 10
percent. More important, given the incredible instability in the
economy we have seen for decades--especially in the last few years--
where millions of people have lost some or all of the retirement
savings they had invested in Wall Street, over the last 75 years, not
one American has lost one dime he or she was entitled to in terms of
Social Security benefits. That is a pretty good record--every American,
getting every penny that was owed to him or her for 75 years. It is a
program that has worked. It is a program that is working today. It is a
program that can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American
for the next 25 years. It is a program that should not be cut.
But more to the point, in terms of President Obama, one of the
problems we have as a nation is that it is no great secret that many of
our people are losing faith in government, for a whole lot of reasons.
But certainly one of the reasons is that politicians say one thing and
they do something else. They campaign on a certain promise, they give a
speech, everybody applauds, and 2 years later: Well, I guess I have to
change my mind; I can't quite do this.
Let's be clear: When President Obama ran for the Presidency in 2008,
he was a strong advocate of Social Security. He made it very clear to
the American people he was not going to cut benefits. Let me quote from
a speech the President gave--he was then-Senator Barack Obama--on
September 6, 2008. This is what he said:
John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer
for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut
cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let
me be clear: I will not do either.
``I will not do either.'' Today's Washington Post: Obama: Social
Security on table. Cuts offered in debt talks.
Mr. President, on April 16, 2008, candidate Obama said:
The alternatives, like raising the retirement age, or
cutting benefits, or raising the payroll tax on everybody,
including people making less than $97,000 a year----
And that is now up to $106,000 a year----
those are not good policy options.
On November 11, 2007, candidate Obama said:
I believe that cutting [Social Security] benefits is not
the right answer; and that raising the retirement age is not
the best option.
The American people expect the President of the United States to keep
his word.
Now, again, I am not privileged to the discussions that may be going
on right this moment in the White House about some grand national debt
negotiations. All I can tell you--and it may be accurate, it may not;
the media has been wrong once or twice in history--is that according to
today's Washington Post, the President is considering lowering cost-of-
living adjustments for Social Security recipients, even though, by the
way, Social Security recipients have not received a COLA in the last 2
years.
So let's be clear: Today, despite significant inflation on health
care costs and prescription drugs, the fact that seniors have not
received a COLA in 2 years, the fact veterans have not received a COLA
in 2 years, apparently, the President, in negotiating with Republicans,
is considering lowering COLAs in the future.
It is important to understand what that means. According to the
Strengthen Social Security Campaign, which is a coalition of senior
groups who are working hard to protect Social Security, changing the
way Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are calculated--as the
President may be considering--and again, I do not want to make a
definitive statement. All I am doing is telling you what is on the
Washington Post's front page today. Is it true? I can't say. But if it
is true, this would cost senior citizens hundreds of dollars a year in
lower benefits.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the adoption of the
so-called ``Chained CPI''--and this is a different formulation. I
happen to believe, and I have introduced legislation to this effect,
the current COLAs for seniors are not accurate and are too low because
they do not, in a realistic way, measure what seniors are purchasing,
which, to a significant degree has to do with health care and
prescription drugs. When you are old, you are not primarily buying
laptop computers or big television sets. You are often spending a lot
of your money on health care, prescription drugs, and those costs are
going up. So I think today's COLA is too low and it does not reflect
the real purchasing needs of seniors.
According to the CBO, if in fact the government adopted the so-called
``Chained-CPI''--which is a different formulation that is even lower
than the current inadequate formulation--annual COLAs under this
proposal would cut benefits by $112 billion over 10 years.
Here is the important point for individuals. The Social Security
Administration Chief Actuary estimates the effects of this change would
be that beneficiaries who retire at the age of 65 and receive average
benefits would get $560 less a year at age 75 than they would under
current law and get $1,000 less a year at age 85.
People are living longer. Many of our people, God bless them, reach
75, even reach 85. To say to somebody when they reach 85, and they
don't have a whole lot of money, that as a result of these cuts they
will get $1,000 a year less is totally, to my mind, unacceptable and
not something that should be supported by the President or by any
Member of the Senate.
The American people, despite what many of my Republican friends are
saying, are pretty clear on some basic issues regarding how we address
the serious problem of our national debt and our deficit. What the
American people say in poll after poll after poll--and they say it to
me on the streets in Burlington, VT, or any other place in Vermont that
I go--is that we must have shared sacrifice; that at a time when
poverty is increasing in this country, when we have the highest rate of
childhood poverty in the industrialized world, when millions of workers
are working longer hours for lower wages, when unemployment is sky
high, when seniors have not received a COLA in 2 years, when young
people are finding it hard to get any jobs at all, it is immoral and
bad economics to do deficit reduction on the backs of those people--of
working families, of
[[Page 10542]]
children, of the elderly, of the sick, of the poor.
Overwhelmingly, the American people say that is wrong, especially at
a time when the wealthiest people have never had it so good and when
corporate profits are soaring.
Mr. President, you may have seen an article on the front page of the
New York Times a few days ago. Last year CEOs of major corporations
have seen a 23-percent increase in their compensation packages--23
percent. We are in the midst of a horrendous recession, where real
wages for American workers are going down, but CEOs are doing great,
Wall Street is doing great, corporate profits are soaring, and we have
dozens of corporations that make huge profits and don't pay a nickel in
taxes.
We have a military budget that is three times higher than it was in
1997. So the vast majority of the people say--and they say it in polls
all over the place--we need to go forward with shared sacrifice. Not as
the Republicans suggest--cutting programs for the most vulnerable
people in this country, throwing millions of kids off Medicaid, ending
Medicare as we know it now, and making it impossible for working class
families to send their kids to college. That is not what the American
people are saying.
A recent survey by Public Policy Polling in swing States asked the
questions. When voters in Ohio--this is just the other day this came
out--were asked this spring if they would support or oppose cutting
spending of Social Security to reduce the national debt, only 16
percent favored that approach compared to 80 percent who were opposed,
with similar, identical results, or very close results in States such
as Missouri, Montana, and Minnesota. That was just out in the papers
yesterday. Meanwhile, strong majorities, including Republicans, favor
increased revenue from the wealthiest Americans and most profitable
corporations being a part of any deficit reduction package.
So let me conclude by saying that I hope very much President Obama
does not reach any agreement with the Republicans which includes cuts
in Social Security. Social Security has not contributed one nickel to
our national debt. It is a successful program and widely supported by
the American people who are benefiting from it every single day. More
to the point, President Obama, when he campaigned for office, made it
clear when he told the American people if he was elected President he
would not be cutting Social Security, and the American people expect
him to keep his word.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about the matter of tax
expenditures, and I would like to expand on that topic today. They are
becoming a critical issue in negotiations over the debt ceiling.
First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to
finish my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Democrats say they want to eliminate tax
expenditures. They refer to them as loopholes or spending through the
Tax Code. This might be a good political argument, but it bears little
relationship to the understanding of tax expenditures and tax law or
tax policy.
Yesterday, I outlined a general definition of tax expenditures. They
are most definitely not spending through the Tax Code, as President
Obama so creatively put it, and they are most definitely not, by and
large, loopholes. Rather, they were intentionally included in the Tax
Code by Congress in order to realize certain policy goals.
Tax expenditures are an opportunity for families and businesses to
keep more of their income. Unfortunately, rather than have a serious
conversation about tax expenditures and tax policy, President Obama and
his liberal allies are intent on setting new ground for juvenile public
discourse.
Faced with a $14.3 trillion debt--and going up every day--Social
Security and Medicare Programs that are set for bankruptcy--ruining
America's seniors--and a legitimate fiscal crisis that poses a clear
and present danger to the Nation's security and the security of
America's families and businesses, President Obama is again talking
about shared sacrifice. Well, I like the term. The only thing is, I
would prefer to have shared prosperity because all we are going to get
out of this administration is shared sacrifice, which means everybody
is going to suffer. I would like to have shared prosperity where
everybody is lifted.
The first time we really started hearing about this concept of shared
sacrifice was in the debate over ObamaCare. For those who are
unfamiliar with Washington-speak, this is what the President meant by
shared sacrifice: I am going to raise taxes on families and businesses
by over $\1/2\ trillion, and I am going to do it by shaking down
businesses.
He made them an offer they couldn't refuse: Pay up now or pay up more
later. So when we started hearing again about shared sacrifice, we knew
what was coming: more proposals for tax increases. But I have to say I
remain shocked at how ham-fisted most of these proposals are. They are
nothing but a series of bad talking points that can be used for the
President's reelection campaign. These talking points were tired by the
end of the 1936 Presidential election.
I would not be surprised to see President Obama dust off Franklin
Roosevelt's speeches and start railing against economic royalists by
the end of the debt limit negotiations.
Sadly, the Senate's leadership has followed suit. After making a big
to-do about keeping the Senate in session to address the fiscal crisis,
we are spending this week debating a nonbinding resolution demanding
higher taxes on millionaires. Really? The Democrats' solution to $14.3
trillion in debt is to attack corporate jets. Seriously? Three billion
dollars over ten years. The last time they did that, they wound up with
their tails between their legs in 1990, and in 1993 had to reverse the
whole thing because it cost thousands of jobs.
I never underestimate liberals' lack of respect for the intelligence
of the American people, but this is a new low. Do they think that
ordinary Americans are so consumed with class hatred that they will
respond like Pavlovian dogs to the criticism of corporate jets, and
forget that it was programmatic liberalism, not bonus depreciation of
corporate jets or tax benefits to energy companies, that got us into
this debt crisis?
This is how the left perceives Republicans. They want to score some
cheap points against Republicans by going after corporate jets, as
though all Republicans love corporate jets. I would venture to say that
an awful lot of corporate jets are owned by very wealthy Democrats.
What are we going to get next week, a tax on monocles and top hats?
Maybe we will spend next week debating a nonbinding resolution on the
need to tax madras blazers for the good of the country.
Unfortunately, not all of the Democratic proposals are a laughing
matter. They have been down this road in the past pushing tax increases
on luxury items such as yachts. Today, the press ridiculed Republicans
for ``defending the yachting class.'' There is no yachting class in
this country, unless you count the Democratic party of Martha's
Vineyard.
But there is a class of people who build yachts. This is what
happened to those people the last time the Democrats engaged in class
warfare of this kind. In the 1990 budget deal, a new luxury excise tax
was created applying to yachts, aircraft, jewelry, and furs, first
applying to the 1991 year. The similarities are eerie.
Faced with soaring deficits, Democrats insisted that revenues be part
of the equation. And how did this work out? The tax was repealed in
1993 because, as the Democratic-controlled Senate Finance Committee
report, as reported by the Budget Committee, explains:
During the recent recession, the boat, aircraft, jewelry,
and fur industries have suffered job losses and increased
unemployment. The Committee believes that it is appropriate
to eliminate the burden these taxes impose on the interest of
fostering economic recovery in those and related industries.
[[Page 10543]]
Republicans are not defending the yachting class. They are defending
the people whose jobs will be lost to Democratic class warfare.
Of course, the left cannot contain themselves to these targeted tax
increases. Today we read in the paper that the President is eager to
reform Social Security. Yet it appears he is only willing to do so if
we let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, tax cuts which only last
December the President acknowledged were necessary components of our
economic recovery.
I would not be surprised to see the old Democratic hobby horse, an
increase in the Social Security tax max, make an appearance in the
Democrats' list of demands.
These are nonstarters, and everyone understands why. These broad-
based tax increases would be a weight around our economic recovery.
But the issue of tax expenditures continues to cause confusion and
must be addressed. Those who advocate limiting or eliminating these tax
expenditures suggest that they are spending and loopholes that benefit
wealthy individuals.
Yesterday, I offered a grown-up definition of what a tax expenditure
is. Today, I wish to highlight what are in fact the top tax
expenditures. What we will find is that the tax expenditures that would
generate the largest amount of revenue are also those that are
available to the middle class, enabling them to give to their churches
and synagogues, and to save for a home, for college, and for
retirement. To get at meaningful deficit reduction, Democrats would
have to eliminate these expenditures. Is that what they want to do?
That might be a good question at the President's next press conference.
Maybe someone could give him a copy of this chart right here, and ask
which of these tax expenditures he is willing to eliminate in the
interest of deficit reduction:
No. 1, exclusion for employer-provided health care. Is he going to
get rid of that? That is 13 percent of all tax expenditures.
How about home mortgage interest deductions? Is he going to get rid
of that? That is 9 percent.
How about preferential rates for dividends and capital gains? That is
8 percent.
Exclusion of Medicare benefits. Are they going to do away with that?
That is 7 percent.
Net exclusion of defined benefit pension contributions and earnings.
Are they going to attack our pensions? That is 6 percent.
And earned income tax credit. My gosh, that is 5 percent.
Deduction for State and local taxes, except real property. That is 5
percent.
No. 8, net exclusion of defined contribution/earnings. That is 4
percent.
How about No. 9, exclusion of capital gains at death? That is 4
percent.
And how about No. 10, deductions for charitable contributions? That
is 4 percent.
I venture to say hardly any American is going to want to do away with
all of those in the interest of getting more revenue so the Democrats
can spend it back here.
Look at that chart. It is a list of the top 10 tax expenditures.
Maybe someone can give him a copy of this chart and ask which of these
tax expenditures he is willing to eliminate in the interest of deficit
reduction. I encourage all my friends to look at this chart. It is a
list of the top 10 tax expenditures.
With the rhetoric coming out of the White House, you might be
surprised to learn that tax benefits for yachts and corporate jets are
not in the top two. Not only do they not make the top 10, they don't
even come close.
If you take the so-called savings that would come from the corporate
jet tax approach of the President, it would take us 3,000 years to even
reach the approximately $800 billion stimulus package. In the context
of the President's trillion-dollar deficits, they are statistical
noise.
So what are the big tax expenditures?
No. 1 is an issue from the ObamaCare debate. It is the exclusion for
employer-provided health insurance. The exclusion of employer-provided
health insurance from income is the single largest tax expenditure,
representing 13 percent of tax expenditures.
Yesterday a Member of the other side's leadership pointed out that
the largest tax expenditure is one for corporations. Boy, is he wrong.
Here is what he said:
The biggest single deduction is the employer's exclusion
for health care premiums. So employers are able to exclude
from income the amount of money they spend for health
insurance for their employees. That's the biggest.
Well, that is an incorrect description of the law that they are
arguing. Employers always have been allowed, and should be allowed, a
deduction for the cost of benefits they provide to their employees.
Employee compensation, including the provision of health insurance to
one's employees, is a cost of doing business and thus properly
deductible by the employer so as to accurately measure the income, or
profit, of the employer. That has never been considered a tax
expenditure. The exclusion at issue, which is a tax expenditure, refers
to the employee's tax treatment, not the employer's tax treatment. That
is, most compensation that an employee receives from his employer is
includable as taxable income. One of the few exceptions to that general
rule is that employees do not include in taxable income the value of
employer-provided health insurance.
Coming in at No. 2 is the home mortgage interest deduction. This
expenditure alone accounts for 9 percent of all tax expenditures.
The third largest? There we have the lower rate on capital gains and
dividends. Do away with this expenditure, and the rate on capital gains
and dividends will almost triple in about 18 months. Capital gains and
dividends represent about 8 percent of all tax expenditures.
What is No. 4? Here we have an untaxed piece of Medicare benefits.
Imagine that. I wonder how many folks on the other side realize this or
even if the President does. When my friends on the other side
categorically talk about cutting back tax expenditures as the yellow
brick road to deficit reduction, I wonder if they know that hiding
behind the curtain is an increase in the aftertax cost of Medicare.
Do my friends on the other side realize this? A few months ago, a
liberal group ran an ad showing my friend, the chairman of the House
Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, pushing an old woman in a wheelchair over
a cliff. His crime? Recommending policy changes that would prevent the
inevitable bankruptcy of Medicare.
I am not going to hold my breath waiting for this same group to pull
the fire alarm, because the Democrats' talk of eliminating tax
expenditures might result in seniors getting hit with higher taxes on
Medicare benefits. But this is what the President and the Democrats are
talking about. If they are serious about using tax expenditures to
reduce the deficit, these are the things that will have to be on the
table. These are the big expenditures. This expenditure is real. You
can look it up in the handy tax expenditure publication from the
nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. It is significant,
representing 7 percent of all tax expenditures, to the exclusion of
Medicare benefits.
At No. 5 is the pre-tax treatment for defined benefit pension plan
contributions and the inside buildup on the accounts. This is a tax
benefit that reduces the cost for those workers who make the decision
to save for retirement. This represents 6 percent of all tax
expenditures.
What is No. 6? It is the refundable earned income tax credit, the
EITC. When folks describe tax expenditures as spending through the Tax
Code, this is one that could properly be labeled that way. Under
congressional budget rules, this one, for the most part, scores as
spending. That is not the case with the other tax expenditures on this
list. Refundable tax credits score as spending because the government
cuts a check to the taxpayer. With the other tax benefits on this list,
the taxpayer is receiving a portion of the money back in the form of
reduced taxes. There are some serious tax hikes there. This tax
expenditure accounts for 5 percent of tax expenditures.
[[Page 10544]]
No. 7 is the deduction for State and local taxes. My friends on the
other side need to be particularly careful with this one. So far, they
would hit seniors, families who have health insurance through their
employers, people with mortgages, and anyone who owns stocks and bonds.
But with this, many Democrats risk alienating every last taxpayer in
their States. Removing this deduction is going to hit high-tax States
hard. If you are from a so-called blue State, it is likely that
constituents are already heavily burdened with State and local taxes.
Take away this and you will, in effect, drive up the marginal rate of
your constituents who take their deduction by as much as 35 percent.
I am convinced that many of the inroads Democrats made between 2006
and 2008 were due to carefully crafted Trojan horse campaigns. Skillful
operatives ran Democratic campaigns promising moderate tax and spending
policies that would be respectful of families and businesses. But once
that Trojan horse got inside the Capitol, and former Speaker Pelosi and
President Obama took charge, frustrated liberals spilled out and
started taxing anything that could move to pay for the largest
expansion of government since Lyndon Johnson was in office.
Removing the deduction for State and local taxes might be the final
act that restores purple America to its traditional red hue. At 5
percent of all tax expenditures, this would represent a massive tax
increase, this net exclusion of defined benefit pension contribution.
And that is No. 7, after State and local taxes, except for real
property.
What is No. 8? This is the pre-tax treatment for the contributions
workers make to their defined contribution plans and the inside buildup
on the accounts. Many of us know of these retirement plans as 401(k)
plans. At 4 percent of tax expenditures, this is a significant
incentive to families to save for retirement.
No. 9 is a bit more obscure but no less critical for families. It is
the tax expenditure for the step up in basis at death. We all know the
saying that nothing is as certain as death and taxes. Well, if this tax
expenditure were eliminated, this step up in basis at death, this
saying would take on an even darker meaning. Death could now be taxed
twice. First, the decedent's estate might get hit with the death tax.
Then the decedent's heirs would be taxed again on the gain embedded in
any inherited asset should they decide to sell. This accounts for 4
percent of tax expenditures.
We close with No. 10, the tax expenditure and probably the most
important one to my constituents in Utah. It is the tax benefit for
donations to charities other than education and health care
institutions.
When you make your weekly or yearly donation to your church, you can
now deduct it for tax purposes. This charitable deduction represents 4
percent of all tax expenditures. The folks in my State all pay
tithing--almost all of them. That is 10 percent of their gross income.
I do it every year. I have to tell you, you would hit a lot of very
charitable people and a lot of churches with the loss of that one, No.
10. Yet that is the smallest of the whole 10.
As the chart shows, these widespread everyday tax policies account
for almost two-thirds of tax expenditures. We are not talking about
yachts or corporate jets.
Now, I have already suggested it, but rolling back many of these
expenditures would have an immediate adverse impact on American
families and taxpayers.
It would also undercut longstanding Federal policies promoting
saving, home ownership, and charitable giving.
Let's turn first to retirement security.
About half of Americans save for retirement. The overwhelming
bipartisan consensus is that this number is way too low. Ideally, all
American workers would be saving for retirement.
More savings means less financial stress on Social Security and
Medicare. Most importantly, it means retirees can enjoy their
retirement if they can rely on a nest egg. That is why there has been a
bipartisan desire to incentivize retirement savings through worker
participation in retirement plans.
A time-honored method has been to offer a tax benefit up front in the
case of the traditional defined benefit plan, traditional defined
contribution, or traditional IRA. The benefit remains untaxed during
the individual's working years. It is only taxed when received in
retirement. By contrast, Roth pension plans and IRAs provide a tax
benefit on the back end, when a worker retires and begins drawing on
the account.
Former Finance Committee Chairman William Roth captured the policy
rationale best by noting the deliberate tax policy bias toward savings.
Chairman Roth used to make the point with a rhetorical question. He
would ask: ``Is there any bad saving?''
Of course, the answer is no.
One thing we know for sure. Curtail or eliminate the tax expenditure
for retirement savings and the after-tax cost of savings will rise.
Savers will react. It is true that some will continue to save. But it
is also true they will have less to save if they choose to do so. For
middle income taxpayers, it will probably mean lower savings rates.
Is that a good policy to put in place?
Consider this: According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2009
over half of households paid no income tax. Forty-nine percent of
Americans shouldered 100 percent of the income tax burden.
The half shouldering the income tax burden are also, generally
speaking, the part of the population making sound personal decisions
like saving for retirement. That behavior is good in both a micro and
macro sense. In the micro sense workers are sacrificing current
consumption for security and a better standard of living in the future.
In a macro sense, the collective behavior of these citizens stabilizes
our aging society.
To encourage this kind of sacrifice, our tax policy provides a
tangible tax benefit. Take away that tax benefit and, as with raising
taxes on anything else, you will get less of the behavior. Take away
the tax benefit, and you will get less saving for retirement. Does that
make any sense?
In order to avoid restraining the rapid growth in government
spending, our friends on the other side would have us send the wrong
policy signal to the half of our population that saves. They would add
to the burden of those who are already shouldering the entire burden of
funding the Federal Government. At the same time, by discouraging
saving and personal responsibility we would further unleash the
appetite of those who want us to spend more.
Take another look at the chart. Add up the tax expenditures from
defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans. They account for
10 percent of tax expenditures. Over 5 years, the revenue from these
expenditures amounts to almost $700 billion. On a per-year average
basis, it is $140 billion. That is an annual policy shift of $140
billion in incentives for private savings to $140 billion in incentives
for growing government spending.
Do we want a society where more saving is encouraged? Or do we want a
society where dependency and more government spending are encouraged?
Do we want to look more like Switzerland or do we want to look like
Greece?
The answer to this question is clear to the citizens of this country.
Unfortunately, not all of their representatives seem to have thought
through the implications of going after tax expenditures.
To get at this from another angle, I would like to discuss the impact
on taxpayers of cutting back some of these tax expenditures that come
in the form of itemized deductions.
I am going to examine the effects of cutting back these itemized
deductions by applying President Obama's budget proposal to cap
itemized deductions at 28 percent.
It is clear that some in the White House are pushing this 28 percent
cap hard in the negotiations over the debt limit.
As noted before, itemized deductions generally are considered tax
expenditures. But itemized deductions impact
[[Page 10545]]
a number of basic, longstanding features of American life. Itemized
deductions include the home mortgage interest deduction, the charitable
contribution deduction, and the State and local tax deduction. The
President is proposing to chisel away at these itemized deductions, and
we should carefully reflect on what that would mean.
President Obama has proposed repeatedly ``to limit the tax rate at
which high-income taxpayers can take itemized deductions to 28
percent.'' It appears that this proposal is designed to lessen the
benefit to higher income taxpayers of itemized deductions. The Joint
Committee on Taxation says that this provision would mean the Federal
Government would collect an additional $293 billion in taxes over 10
years.
True to form, this is just another version of the same soak-the-rich
play that the left has been running for decades. From their
perspective, it is unfair that higher income individuals get a more
valuable tax benefit than lower income individuals? But this
perspective mischaracterizes a critical issue. The 35 percent bracket
was established by Congress with an understanding that itemized
deductions would allow a significant tax benefit. Had Congress known
that higher income taxpayers would be disallowed some of their itemized
deductions--as the President now proposes--undoubtedly Congress would
have set that bracket at lower than 35 percent.
So, taking away some of the benefit of itemized deductions for higher
income taxpayers, while leaving the high-income tax rates at their
current levels, upsets the balance struck by prior Congresses.
Obviously, Congress is allowed to do this, but let's not pretend that
these expenditures are loopholes or oversights by prior Congresses. The
President and the Senate's Democratic leadership are free to do this if
they choose, but they should at least come clean about what they are
doing. They are significantly raising taxes on the people who are
already shouldering the lion's share of the Federal income tax burden--
98 percent of them, as a matter of fact.
Even aside from the staggering character of this tax increase--one
that would clearly violate President Obama's campaign pledge not to
raise taxes on middle class Americans the macroeconomic impact of this
cap is negative at best.
President Obama's 28 percent cap would reduce the benefit from the
home mortgage interest deduction. For 5 years now, our Nation has been
experiencing a bursting of the real estate bubble. Current headlines
indicate that this trend will continue for a time. Limiting the value
of the home mortgage interest deduction would apply additional downward
pressure on home prices--not only for high end homes, but for all
homes. By repeatedly proposing to limit the benefit of the home
mortgage interest deduction, is it the President's intent to further
depress housing prices, or is this mere collateral damage from his
desire to raise taxes.
But the damage from this cap does not stop at the housing market.
President Obama's 28 percent cap would also reduce the benefit from the
charitable contribution deduction. This would almost surely reduce the
amount of contributions people would make to churches, synagogues,
temples, soup kitchens, shelters, universities, and museums. Is that
the President's intention? Does the President know that these revenues
might never materialize because the elimination of this deduction will
step up pressure for direct government assistance for the poor, for
students, and for the arts?
Finally, this cap would reduce the benefit of the State and local tax
deduction. I touched on this point earlier. High-tax States are able to
soften the blow of their high taxes by pointing out to their citizens
the Federal deductibility of such taxes. So, my colleagues from high-
tax States might want to talk to their governors about the impact the
President's proposed cap would have on State and local public finance.
I want to be clear about something. Our Tax Code is a colossal, awful
mess. And tax expenditures must be a part of any conversation about tax
reform. But I want to emphasize that the conversation about tax
expenditures should happen in a conversation about broad based tax
reform--reform that flattens the code while lowering rates.
The conversation about tax expenditures should be a sober one in the
context of a meaningful discussion about tax policy. Unfortunately, the
President has chosen instead to target tax expenditures willy nilly
with little regard for the policy implications of these tax hikes.
Make no mistake, whatever the President wants to call it--reducing
spending through the Tax Code, closing loopholes, or making people pay
their fair share--these are tax increases plain and simple. And they
are tax increases on the middle class.
There has been some criticism in recent days about Republicans for
their commitment to a pledge many of them took against any net tax
increase.
I have to admit I am at a loss here.
Conservative Republicans, convinced that taxes are already high
enough, promise their taxpaying citizens that they will never support a
net tax increase.
They gave their constituents their word, and are sticking to it.
Meanwhile, President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on the
middle class when running for office, vows to break this promise at
every opportunity.
And yet it is the conservative Republicans who are somehow lacking
integrity? Hardly.
I don't care how many blows I take from sophisticated Washingtonians
and professional leftists for sticking by my pledge to the people of
Utah. I will resist any effort by the President to include tax
increases as part of the deal to increase the debt ceiling. I will do
so for a number of reasons. First, our Tax Code needs a fundamental
overhaul. It is a complicated mess that is lacking in fundamental
fairness. Yet the President's proposal to reduce tax expenditures for
deficit reduction, is a proposal to maintain a tax code that grows more
burdensome by the day. The President's proposal essentially robs the
government of the revenues that it might use later to flatten the Tax
Code and lower rates.
More importantly, I oppose the President's proposed tax hikes as a
matter of principle. Flattening the tax base without any offsetting
rate reduction is a tax increase.
My friend, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, Senator
Sessions captured the point well in an interview the other day. I will
quote Senator Sessions:
We have to be honest and recognize that if you are going to
eliminate systematically a host of deductions and keep the
money or spend it for new programs, then you've raised taxes.
. . . It just is unless we've changed the English language.
The campaign against tax expenditures is a campaign for a tax
increase.
It is a tax increase that could send the wrong signal to those
Americans who sacrifice current consumption and save for retirement. It
could raise the bar for those Americans who want to experience the
American dream of home ownership. It would mean the residents of high
tax States would face even higher State and local taxes. And it could
mean a cutback back in the volume of charitable giving.
This is shared sacrifice that the Nation cannot afford.
I prefer shared prosperity by cutting taxes and giving the small
businesses and businesses the opportunity to use that money to hire
people and get people working and get more people paying taxes. I think
it is abysmal that the bottom 51 percent do not pay income taxes, and
23 million of them get refundable tax credits from the government that
are far more than the payroll taxes they might have to pay, which are
Social Security payments.
I listened to my colleague from Vermont saying we cannot do anything
on Social Security, we cannot do this, cannot do that, the poor people
are going to be hurt. Where are they going to be when Social Security
is bankrupt? Where are they going to be when Medicare and Medicaid are
bankrupt? The way we are going, that is where they are going to be.
[[Page 10546]]
We cannot keep spending like this, and we have to quit playing the
phony game with tax expenditures.
All I can say is we have to get with it around here and we have to
start working together as Democrats and Republicans in the best
interests of the American people, and that is reforming this awful Tax
Code, getting taxes down for everybody, and taking care of the poor but
also expecting everybody to have some skin in the game--except the
really poor--and help our country pull out of the mess we are in.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
____________________
SECOND OPINION
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have week
after week since the health care bill was signed into law, with a
doctor's second opinion about the health care law because the President
repeatedly made promises to the American people as the health care bill
was being debated and even after the health care law was signed. He
promised to improve, not hurt, the quality of medical care in this
country.
We now know the President's health care law actually makes the
problem of health care in this country worse. In fact, since this bill
was signed into law, we have learned that it makes the cost of health
care worse. We know it makes the American's ability to get health care
worse and the ability of individuals to keep the care they like--it
makes their ability to keep that care worse.
Today, I would like to first talk about the cost of care.
President Obama promised American families they would see their
health insurance premiums go down because of the health care law, and
he actually told them they would go down by over $2,000 per family.
Well, now we know that is not the case. In fact, Americans have seen
their premiums increase 19 percent since the time the President signed
his health care bill into law.
I was looking at the front page of the Sheridan Press, Sheridan, WY,
yesterday. Headline, front page:
Health care premium increase. County administrative
director said the county's cost to provide health care
coverage for its employees will increase by about $360,000
this year.
We are talking about 1 county--1 out of 23 counties in Wyoming,
$360,000 for county employees.
You know, throughout this entire health care debate, the President
promised the American people that if they liked their health care plan,
his health care law would let them keep it--another broken promise.
Employers all across the country have made it clear that the health
care law's mandates are too expensive and threaten their ability to
offer insurance to their employees.
A recent study by McKinsey & Company, which is a reputable national
consulting firm, produced a report entitled ``How U.S. health care
reform will affect employee benefits.'' They surveyed over 1,300
employers across diverse industries, geographies, and employer sizes.
The results confirmed what Republicans and American workers and their
families knew all along, and they knew it long before the President and
Washington Democrats forced this health care law down their throats.
Overall, the report says, 30 percent of employers will probably stop
offering employer-sponsored coverage in the years after 2014 when the
Obama health care law goes fully into effect. Among employers with a
high awareness of the health care reform law and what is specifically
in the law, then the proportion of those who will definitely or
probably stop offering coverage jumps to 50 percent, and upward of 60
percent will pursue other options. So at least 30 percent of employers
would actually gain economically from dropping coverage even if they
completely compensated their employees for the change through other
benefit offerings and higher salaries.
Apparently, the President's promise that ``if you like the health
insurance you have today, you can keep it'' translates into ``you may
very well lose your coverage.''
As former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin's
analysis confirms, if employers decided to drop coverage--which is in
their economic best interest to do in many cases based on their
economic evaluation--the cost of Federal insurance subsidies would
skyrocket.
Remember, the White House and Democrats in Congress met behind closed
doors. They acted swiftly and covertly to pass a law without regard for
how its provisions would impact each and every American family.
Then the question is, Will Americans actually have the ability to get
medical care they need from a doctor they want at a price they can
afford? The President promised that his law would increase access to
affordable care. Some groups tell a different story.
In April 2010, a month after the President signed his health care
plan into law, the Association of American Medical Colleges estimated
that based on graduation and training rates, this country would have a
shortage of 150,000 doctors over the next 15 years. In May of the same
year, the American Medical Association issued the results of its survey
showing the impact of low payment rates and the threat of future
payment cuts on Medicare patients' access to care. The AMA found that
one in five physicians currently restricts the number of Medicare
patients they see. The AMA study shows that nearly one-third of primary
care physicians restrict the number of Medicare patients they take into
their practice.
All any of the Members of the Senate need to do is, at home on the
weekend, talk to someone in your community, someone who is on Medicare,
someone who is trying to find a doctor, a doctor to care for them, and
see how very difficult it is for someone on Medicare to find a doctor
to care for them.
Well, later last year, the Association of American Medical Colleges
related updated physician shortage estimates. The September 2010 study
said that by 2015, doctor shortages will be actually 50 percent worse
than originally projected. By 2020, there will be a shortage of 45,000
primary care physicians and a shortage of 46,000 surgeons and medical
specialists.
So I find it ironic that we have a health care law that is passed
that actually doesn't put money into training doctors to treat you but
puts money in to hire IRS agents to investigate you. Absolutely
astonishing.
These studies clearly demonstrate that the President's health care
law will only make it harder for Americans to see their doctor. In
fact, Washington only expanded the ability for folks to get government-
approved, government-mandated, government-subsidized coverage. They did
not expand the ability for the American people to get actual medical
care. There is a huge difference between medical coverage and medical
care. When you take over $500 billion away from our seniors on Medicare
not to save Medicare but to start a brand new government program for
someone else, well, that is a way to make the problem worse. When you
force 16 million more people onto Medicaid, a program where half of the
doctors in the country won't see those patients, that also makes the
problem worse.
On the front page of yesterday's USA TODAY, Wednesday, July 6, the
headline is ``Medicaid payments go under the knife.'' State cuts could
add to shortage of doctors.
The second paragraph:
Some health care experts say the cuts, most of which went
into effect July 1, or will later this month, could add to a
shortage of physicians and other providers participating in
Medicaid.
The article goes on:
[[Page 10547]]
Under the 2010 health care law, more than 16 million
additional people will become eligible starting in 2014.
So already we have a situation where doctors are reluctant to take
care of people on Medicaid. Yet the President's solution to the health
care dilemma in this country is to put more people into a system that
is already broken. We are giving individuals and families an insurance
card but not really giving them access to the care that has been
promised.
Adults are not the only ones waiting in lines to get into doctors
offices as the lines get longer. In fact, children enrolled in Medicaid
have a harder time accessing medical care than children who have
private insurance. Yet that is the President's solution to the needs of
this country.
On January 16 of this year, the New England Journal of Medicine
published a study conducted in Cook County, IL. It is President Obama's
hometown of Chicago. People were calling medical offices asking for
appointments. They were asking for appointments for children with
chronic conditions or acute conditions and telling the offices--these
were kind of secret shoppers--the person had Medicaid or private
insurance. What they found is 66 percent of the time when the
researcher called for an appointment and they mentioned Medicaid, they
were denied an appointment. But only 11 percent of the researchers
calling for appointments who said they had private insurance--only 11
percent would not get an appointment. So there you have 66 percent
denied if they had Medicaid and only 11 percent denied with private
insurance. Those Medicaid patients who did get an appointment, well,
they faced wait times twice as long as kids with private insurance--an
average of about 6 weeks. As one caller was told when asked what kind
of insurance the person had--when that person said Medicaid, the
receptionist at the medical office said: Medicaid is not insurance. Yet
that is what the President and the Democrats base their entire health
care plan on--16 million more on Medicaid.
Here it is over a year after the law has been signed, and the
President's health care law has made health care in America worse.
Premiums are higher, and the lines at doctors offices are longer. It is
more difficult to get a doctor to care for you. This is not what the
President's health care law was supposed to do, and it is not what the
President promised the American people last year. He promised that the
health care law would make health care better for all Americans. Each
week, we learn that the promises are coming up empty and health care in
America under this health care law has been made worse.
That is why week after week I come to the Senate floor as we learn
more things about the health care law that passed the Senate, passed
the House, was signed by the President, and, in my opinion as a doctor
who practiced medicine for 24 years, has actually been bad for
patients, bad for providers and nurses and doctors who take care of
those patients, and bad for the taxpayers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I have two things I would
like to talk about. First, I wish to deal with the resolution we have
on the floor that we had a vote on today, which was this motion to
proceed to S. 1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared
sacrifice and resolving the budget. I think it is important that we
realize what is in this sense of the Senate. The findings the Congress
makes here are very important, and I would like to read these three
findings.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the median pay for chief
financial officers of the S&P 500 companies increased 19 percent to
$2.9 million last year. And then you compare that with the middle class
over the last 10 years--the median family income has declined by more
than $2,500. Mr. President, 20 percent of all income earned in the
United States is earned by the top 1 percent of individuals. Over the
past quarter century, four-fifths of the income gains accrued to the
top 1 percent of individuals.
So we conclude in this sense of the Senate--it is the sense of the
Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require
that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful
contribution to the deficit reduction effort. And that is what we have
been talking about today; that is what our leaders are doing--meeting
at the White House with the President--is trying to come up with a
budget deal and a resolution to this that involves shared sacrifice and
involves putting us on a path to better budget responsibility, reducing
the national budget deficit. Clearly part of this has to do with
millionaires paying more of their fair share.
Now, we got 74 votes on the motion to proceed, but I heard many
people say--many Senators walked on the floor and said: Well, I am
voting for the motion to proceed, to invoke cloture on the motion to
proceed, but I am not sure I support the bill. But I think the 74 votes
show a little bit of bipartisanship in terms of a mix of revenue and
expenditure cuts. That is the point I wanted to make on this
resolution.
First of all, I hear things from the White House that worry me
because what has been said when we talk about a package--and they are
talking about the overall package--is they say: We are going to have a
ratio of 1 to 3, meaning 75 percent cuts and only 25 percent revenue,
so three-quarters in cuts and one-quarter in revenue.
Now, how does that compare to how we got out of deficit situations in
the past? I think that is one of the most important things to look at
because we were in a big hole in the 1980s. The Reagan administration
took us down that road and President Clinton and President Bush 1 had
to deal with that situation. What did they come up with? They came up
with an agreement which was basically 55 percent revenue and 45 percent
cuts. So it was about a 50-50 situation.
I urge the President to look at the budget. We have only been briefed
in a very cursory way on the budget Kent Conrad has prepared, but it
comes in at about 50-50 in terms of revenue and cuts.
We have to realize we are at the lowest Federal revenue we have seen
in 60 years and the highest Federal expenditures we have seen in 60
years. So we have to work at both sides of this. So that is where I
hope the President comes in with some kind of proposal as he is
negotiating this, and I look forward to him doing that.
New Mexico Wildfires
The other topic I wish to speak about is the wildfires in New Mexico.
I spent the last week in my State of New Mexico. I stayed there. I
started to go to the plane, and I kept hearing the reports from my
staff, and one of the most shocking was the entire community of Los
Alamos--12,000 people--was evacuated because a forest fire was coming
in their direction. As I kept getting the reports and the evacuation
had started to take place, I thought: Well, the best thing to do is to
not fly out but to go back to the community of Los Alamos and the
surrounding communities and try to assist in any way I could.
I want to talk a little bit about that. I think there are some
lessons to be learned in terms of budgets and deficits and how we
should invest. But first I want to thank the Senators who helped me
while I was gone. As the Presiding Officer, Senator Franken, knows, we
are assigned weekly duties in terms of presiding, and I was supposed to
preside last week. So three of my colleagues, Senator Durbin, Senator
Merkley, and my cousin, Senator Mark Udall, stepped up to help me with
presiding time. I had an amendment that was on the floor when we were
dealing with the rules package, and Senator Harkin helped me with that
proposal. So there was a real team effort within our Democratic caucus
to help me to be able to work on the wildfire issue out in New Mexico
and stay there and have my capable staff and the other Senators help
out. I really thank everybody for that team effort.
The wildfires that are raging across New Mexico are not only in New
Mexico. A number of States have been hit:
[[Page 10548]]
Texas, Arizona, Florida, and my home State of New Mexico. Generally,
what we see in this country is the fire season starts at the southern
part and moves up to the north as we go through the summer season. In
the Southwest, we have had an extraordinary fire season. I was just
briefed by Secretary Vilsack when I was out there. He spoke in the
southwest region about 1,600-plus fires burning 1.5 million acres. This
is still very early in the fire season. We could see a lot more burning
going on. Then, the thing that really hit me was the fact that we were
told this is the driest recorded summer since the Forest Service has
been keeping records. So it is pretty remarkable we are in this kind of
situation where we have a drought and then we have fires that heat up.
This particular fire, for New Mexico--the name of it is called the
Las Conchas fire right near Los Alamos. As we speak, it is more than
135,000 acres. It is almost three times as big as the previous fire
situation we have seen.
What happens with these forest fires in our dry, arid region is we
get extreme heat within the forest, and we get what are called crown
fires, where the tops of the trees--these trees may be 30 to 50 to 100
feet tall, and the fires burn in the top of the crown. They can spread
when there is a 40- or 50-mile-an-hour wind, as there was in some cases
here. They can be in the crown of the trees and they can jump out a
mile in advance with embers and create additional fire in front of it.
As a result of the heat--very intensive heat; I think close to 1,000
degrees right in the heat of the fire--it makes the soil unable to
absorb water any longer, which is something that creates a situation
when we get our rainy season, which occurs right after the fire season,
we can have serious flood situations. The soil will not absorb water,
so when the rains come all of the soil on the surface washes off. It
washes into the reservoirs. It can fill them up with silt. Some of
those are used for recreation, for fishing; others are used for
drinking water. For example, several of the communities in northern New
Mexico get 40 percent, 50 percent of their drinking water from these
reservoirs. So these kinds of forest fires can be absolutely
devastating to communities.
But the one thing we were thankful for, because of the Federal
firefighters, is the worst case scenarios didn't occur. One of the
things that was expected--and I think many saw this covered on the
national media--is this might get into the National Laboratory, the Los
Alamos National Laboratory; that there was going to be radiation
released and those kinds of things. In fact, we dodged a bullet there.
It didn't go into Los Alamos National Laboratory. The labs and the
residences were protected.
There was another fire burning nearby that threatened the Santa Fe
watershed. The fire changed directions and because of the skillful
firefighting it didn't get into the watershed. So we dodged a bullet.
But many other areas--many other areas--were severely impacted, and
many other groups were.
For example, New Mexico's Indian pueblos--we have 19 pueblos in New
Mexico. Some of them were terribly impacted by this: the Nambe Pueblo,
the Santa Clara Pueblo, San Ildefonso Pueblo, the Ohkay Pueblo, Owingeh
Pueblo, and many other pueblos. One of the most damaged pueblos was the
Santa Clara Pueblo. The Governor is a gentleman by the name of Walter
Dasheno. He and some of his counselors had come to a meeting. Eighty-
five percent of this Indian reservation has been burned in the last two
big fires. What they said when we were sitting in a room--and these are
the elders from the pueblo who came to talk to us--they said: Our
hearts are in a very sad state. The fire devastated our religious
sites, our sacred sites. We had medicinal plants we would collect in
this area. We can't do that any longer.
With great emotion these elders said: We are never going to see this
forest in the same condition again. So, obviously, the loss was great
at Santa Clara, but it was all across New Mexico, of those pueblos that
I just named, and it is a very significant loss.
The first thing I wish to do in speaking today is to thank all the
firefighters who were involved in this effort. I think we have fighting
just this one fire 2,600 firefighters from all over the Nation--15
different States. It is incredibly tough work--difficult, tough, dirty
work.
I met many of these firefighters out on the front where they were
fighting the fire. Some of them would talk about how they had been away
from their families for 2 weeks. They hadn't had a shower. They were
sleeping in tents. It is a tremendously trying occupation, being a
firefighter, but they believe in it. They show up every day, and they
do an incredible job. They were supported by our National Guard which
guarded the community of Los Alamos while the people were evacuated to
make sure there wasn't any crime going on. The State police patrolled
the roads to try to make sure they could keep order. Local law
enforcement, local firefighters participated, the local fire
departments.
So it was an incredible effort by our community pulling together. One
of the most remarkable things is the expertise at the Federal level in
Federal land management agencies and firefighters. These teams are
headed up--typically, we will have a type 1 and a type 2 team, and the
head of the team called the incident commander will probably have 20,
25, 30 years of experience in fighting fires every summer around the
country. These are career people from the Bureau of Land Management,
the Forest Service, the Park Service, and a variety of other Federal
agencies that step to the plate and help out when we get in these
emergency situations.
As I said, they come from all over the country to work in the States
that are impacted, and then as the fire season spreads north up to
Colorado and Wyoming and Montana, those same firefighters move on to
continue the battle up there.
One of the points I take from this, one of the things I learned from
this--and I think President Lincoln said this very well: Government
does for people what they can't do for themselves. Collectively, we
pull together when we hit situations where if we have an individual who
has a home in Los Alamos, there is not much he can do with a big forest
fire coming in his direction. But we can organize as a governmental
entity to say when we get big catastrophic fires such as this, we are
going to have people who are competent, who are capable, and who have
all of this experience in fighting fires who will come together and
help out. That is something we need to protect.
When we think of debating budgets and deficits and all of that, there
is a very important function that government serves out there, and we
need to protect that safety net function, that collective function
where we help each other. I think this firefighting is a great example
of where government is needed and we could be devastated if we didn't
have the expertise that the government has in terms of fighting fires.
The other thing I saw at these fires--and it was pretty remarkable.
When I have been to tornado sites in New Mexico, when I have been to
some of the flood situations, what stands out for me is how New
Mexicans pull together in this situation--New Mexicans helping New
Mexicans. The pueblos I talked about that were so impacted by the
fires, they actually opened other sites on their reservations so the
evacuees coming out of Los Alamos, the 12,000 people--several of these
pueblos said: We are going to open our convention center and let them
set up cots, and we are going to feed the people. We are going to do
everything we can to help with this situation.
At the same time, their particular pueblo was being devastated by a
forest fire. So there was an extraordinary outpouring of goodwill that
New Mexicans have shown in this kind of emergency situation. It is
remarkable to see in a time of need people pulling together and doing
that in such a way that it brings tears to your eyes.
There was one individual I want to talk about. I was in talking to a
group of people who were training for a charity that was going to help
the evacuees--help them serve meals, help
[[Page 10549]]
them set up cots, help them be organized. I got a question from the
floor, and the individual said to me: I have lived in Los Alamos, and I
had to come down here. I am an evacuee, but I found a friend who was
able to put me up. I know there are other people who do not have that
situation. So I am out here today training with the American Red Cross
because I want to help the others, and I want to try to give back.
That is the spirit we have seen in New Mexico, that even if you were
in need and had been driven from your home, you were still trying to
help out. I think it is a pretty remarkable story.
One of the things we are going to have to do as we look across the
country--and we see floods in the Midwest and wildfires in the
Southwest and tornadoes--all of these things require a disaster relief
bill, they require disaster relief funding for agencies that deal with
fires and all these other natural disasters.
These things are very costly for local government. FEMA steps in and
helps out with the Governor making a request. The Forest Service helps
out. There are burn area rehabilitation teams that move in right after
a fire to try to protect the erosion so there are not bad floods.
We have to try to do everything we can to make sure we maintain, once
again, in this deficit situation, that kind of responsibility. The
Federal Government has to help. Even within a deficit situation, we
have to have a disaster relief kind of effort. The idea that we are
going to somehow change the way we do disasters now, that we are going
to take money away from Medicaid in order to put it into disasters, is
I do not think a very good idea. So I think when we talk about how we
do disaster relief, we need to remember we are all in this together,
and when disasters hit, we need to help each other.
To show you the kind of pressure we are under in New Mexico,
Secretary Vilsack, with the Forest Service, was out in New Mexico, and
the one plea he made to the congressional delegation--because we were
talking to him about watersheds that mean clean drinking water and that
kind of situation--the Secretary said: I have a program that is called
the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. It is for all over the
country. It is for when we get into these kinds of wildfires, floods--
whatever the situation is. He said: We have $9 million--$9 million--in
the account. He said: Already, before your requests or any others have
come in from New Mexico and other States--I know there are five fires
down in Florida and fires in Texas and Arizona--we have $45 million in
requests.
So there is $9 million in the account, $45 million in requests. What
we are talking about, when we talk about watersheds, is drinking water
not deteriorating and that kind of thing. So we need to remember there
is a lot the Federal Government does in a shared way with local
communities to protect those communities.
My final note, to talk a little bit about the biggest picture here.
That is about climate change and global warming. We are seeing these
wildfires, droughts, and floods as we have never seen before. I have
seen Senators from all over the country talking about these disaster
situations. The scientists tell us we are putting too much carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere, we are warming the atmosphere. In the
West--what the scientists tell us--it is going to be twice as hot in
the West, the computer models show, than in other places in the
country. While the climate scientists are very cautious with their
modeling and what they say, they say: You cannot point to any
particular storm. I cannot say that particular fire that occurred in
New Mexico--the Las Conchas fire--was caused by global warming or
climate change.
They also tell us--and this is the part we need to listen to--the
scientists tell us what we are going to see as a result of this is more
severe weather events, meaning more severe: If you get into a drought
situation, it is going to be a more severe drought, which is exactly
what we are seeing in New Mexico right now. When you get floods, you
are going to see a more severe flood. You are going to see more severe
wildfires. These are all what we are seeing today in New Mexico. We are
seeing them across the Nation. We have seen extreme floods in New
Mexico, catastrophic forest fires.
We are seeing droughts we have not seen before. The Forest Service
has been keeping records for 117 years, and they reported to us there
is no record for how dry we are right now. This is the driest year we
have ever had, which laid the groundwork for the wildfires we had with
the wind and all the other things that occurred.
So we cannot put our heads in the sand in terms of climate change, in
terms of global warming. We have to look at these things and realize we
are contributing to them, and we need to put policies in place, solid
policies that put us on a path to reducing that carbon dioxide
pollution that is out there.
With that, I thank the Presiding Officer very much and thank the
Senate for the time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand before you today to discuss a problem
that is of concern to 300 million Americans. It relates to our national
debt, a debt that will soon cross the $15 trillion threshold.
We have been asked to raise the debt limit, extend the Nation's
credit one more time. This we have the power to do but we have to ask
ourselves the question: Should we exercise that power? Should we incur
additional debt yet again without any plan moving forward to change
fundamentally the way we spend money in Washington, DC?
Our current law requiring us to raise the debt limit periodically
every time our existing line of credit dries up dates back to 1982. We
have raised the debt limit since 1982 nearly 40 times. I fear if we do
it again this time without any permanent binding plan in place, legal
restrictions changing the way Congress spends money, we will be right
back to the same trough a few months later. That is a problem because
as we do this over time we inevitably put pressure on our financial
system, pressure that will soon cause our economy dire circumstances,
pressure that will in time result in excessive job losses, skyrocketing
interest rates, and lots of other economic conditions that would be, to
say the least, unpleasant.
It is for this reason that 100 Senators from around the country have
canceled their plans they previously made to spend time with their
constituents in their respective home States this week. That had been
our plan, to spend time in our home States. We canceled those plans so
we could come back here and have serious, earnest debate and discussion
surrounding the best path forward toward moving in the direction of a
balanced budget, toward figuring out what conditions, if any, would
satisfy the American people who are understandably concerned about the
prospect of yet another knee-jerk reflexive debt limit increase.
The American people understand the fact that if we choose to do
nothing more than say: Well, if we are going to raise the debt limit by
$2 trillion, let's make sure we cut $2 trillion from our anticipated
spending--they understand that kind of promise is one that is not
binding on the Congress if those spending cuts are stretched out over
the course of 10 or 15 years or more, as has been discussed, because we
here in Congress cannot bind the Congress that will be sworn into power
in January of 2013 or January of 2015 or January of 2017. We cannot
bind a future Congress. We can make suggestions they can follow, but we
cannot bind them--unless, of course, we choose to do that, which has
been done only 27 times in our Nation's history, which is, amend the
Constitution. That will bind a future Congress. That, I believe, is
what we have to do in order to change fundamentally the way we spend
money in Washington, to make sure we are not headed back to the same
trough a few months from now to do exactly the same thing, leading us
closer and closer to the dire circumstances I described a few minutes
ago.
While we have been here this week, convening during a week that was
previously scheduled for a recess, we as a group of Senate Republicans
have come together and offered a real meaningful
[[Page 10550]]
solution. We have offered to raise the debt limit. We have introduced
legislation today with 21 Republican cosponsors in the Senate which is
a piece of legislation we are calling the Cut-Cap-Balance Act. Here is
what it says. It says we will raise the debt limit. We will do so only
under three circumstances, only after three very specific conditions
precedent have been met.
The first two relate to immediate spending cuts to discretionary
spending, and statutory spending caps making sure we start putting
ourselves right now on a statutorily mandated glidepath toward a
balanced budget.
The third step, which is by far the most important, involves passage
out of both Houses of Congress by the requisite two-thirds margin a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--one that would cap
spending as a percentage of GDP, and one that would require a two-
thirds supermajority in order to raise taxes. Upon each of those
conditions being met, then the debt limit would be raised, but only
then. We would not raise it without those conditions having been met.
Because if we do not meet those conditions, we will not be able to look
our constituents in the eye and say: We have done what needs to be done
in order to make sure we get to where we need to be, in order to get to
the point at which we will no longer be in a position of having to go
back to the same trough every few months to go through the ceremony of
raising the debt limit yet again.
We have to remember that every time we do this, we run an increased
risk that we will start having to pay higher and higher yields on our
Treasury instruments. Every time that happens, we incur more expenses
that relate to our ability to remain current on our debt interest
payments. Every time interest rates, yields on those debt instruments,
go up by 1 percentage point, we have to spend an additional $150
billion a year in interest once our debt instruments catch up with the
increased rate. That is a lot of money. That means if we were to
return--let's say if interest rates were to go up 3 percent, we can
soon find ourselves in a position in which we might be spending as much
as $700 billion a year on interest. We are currently paying about $250
billion.
Mr. President, $700 billion a year is roughly what we spend on
national defense. It is roughly what we spend on Social Security in an
entire year. It is close to what we pay in Medicare and Medicaid
combined at the Federal level in an entire year. So where is the
difference going to come from when interest rates start to creep up?
Even if they go up 3 percentage points, they would still be below their
historical average. That money has to come from somewhere, and it will.
It will end up coming from the various programs that Americans are most
concerned about.
So whether you are a conservative, and you might be most concerned
about that money coming from our defense budget or, on the other hand,
if you are a liberal, and perhaps you are most concerned about it
coming from entitlements, you ought to be concerned about our practice
of perpetually raising the debt limit and engaging in perpetual deficit
spending, especially when that deficit spending is now in excess of
$1.5 trillion every single year.
This potentially threatens every Federal program out there. It also
interferes with the ability of each American to find the prosperity he
or she seeks, the ability of each American to live his or her life in
the way he or she chooses. That is distressing. It interferes with the
liberty of the individual, which is what we have been elected to
protect.
I am very proud to be part of this 21-Senator coalition consisting of
a group of Senators who are concerned enough about this issue that they
are willing to say: We understand that we cannot just not raise the
debt limit. There are enough people who are concerned enough in this
country about not raising it. The abrupt halt in spending that would
bring about would create enough uncertainty and chaos that many are
unwilling to face that prospect.
So recognizing that reality, we have taken the bull by the horns and
we are willing to do one difficult thing. In order for us to raise the
debt limit, we have to be willing to set things in motion in such a way
that will solve the underlying problem and will create permanent
structural spending reform within the Congress.
I wish to close by responding to an argument made recently by Timothy
Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, to the effect that we in
Congress are essentially mere surplus when it comes to the debt limit
increase. He argued that, as I understand it, section 4 of the 14th
amendment somehow independently authorizes the executive branch--
perhaps the Treasury Secretary, perhaps just the President--to somehow
raise the debt limit without consulting Congress, without an act of
Congress in place.
That argument is not accurate. That argument is based on an improper
reading of the 14th amendment. The language to which he refers reads,
in part, as follows:
The validity of the public debt of the United States,
authorized by law, shall not be questioned.
Adopted in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, this provision
simply acknowledges the fact that we can't ignore our debt obligations,
that when interest or principal comes due on our national debt, they
have to be honored. You will notice that in the middle of it, set off
by commas, is a phrase that says ``authorized by law.''
To create law in this country, you have to move something through
Congress. That something has to be presented to the President for his
signature or a veto. You cannot make a law in the U.S. Government
without Congress. Article I, section 8, clause 2 makes that point clear
by giving the authority to Congress to incur debt in the name of the
United States.
So, necessarily, by definition and operation of the plain text of the
Constitution, you cannot raise the debt limit without an act of
Congress. If anything, section 4 of the 14th amendment simply makes
clear that which I wish Secretary Geithner would acknowledge--and I
hereby call upon him to acknowledge--which is that he has a legal and a
moral obligation to make sure that if the debt limit is not increased,
during whatever time it remains in limbo, during whatever time we face
the debt limit-induced shortfall, it is his obligation to use the first
tax revenues coming in the door to pay our debt obligations, pay the
interest being accrued on our national debt. It is his obligation not
only as a fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary but also the very provision of
the Constitution, section 4 of the 14th amendment--the same provision
he cites--binds his hands and requires him to make sure that interest
gets paid and prohibits him from bringing about a default on our
national debt, which is what he has been threatening on many occasions.
There is a way forward. The circumstances in which we now find
ourselves are, to be sure, threatening, intimidating and daunting and
they are circumstances that bring about substantial disagreement within
this body and the other body that meets down the hall from us. But
there are answers and solutions to which we can agree.
I believe the Cut-Cap-Balance Act provides the proper solution which
can appeal to liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans
alike. I call on all within the sound of my voice to look at this
legislation and jump on board and become part of the solution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Tall Stacks
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a serious public
health issue in Rhode Island and to commend the EPA for its actions to
address it.
Rhode Island has the sixth highest rate of asthma in the country.
According to our Department of Health, more than 25,000 Rhode Island
children or 11 percent of children in our State--more than 1 in every
10 kids--suffer from asthma, and 82,000 adults in Rhode Island, which
is also about 11 percent of our adult population, also suffer from this
chronic disease.
From 2005 to 2009, asthma was the underlying cause or a contributing
cause of death for 240 people in Rhode Island, including 4 children.
In 2009, there were 1,750 hospital discharges in Rhode Island for
asthma
[[Page 10551]]
cases. Those hospital stays cost about $8 million--in just that 1
year--in direct medical costs, not counting the costs associated with
days of work and school missed or the medication for ongoing treatment.
On a clear summer day in Rhode Island, many of us have had the
experience commuting to work and hearing a warning on drive time radio:
Today is a bad air day in Rhode Island. Infants, senior citizens, and
people with respiratory difficulties should stay indoors today.
In fact, yesterday was just such a day in Rhode Island. An air
quality alert was issued by our State Department of Environmental
Management, warning that ozone was expected to reach dangerous levels
in the southern half of our State by afternoon. They recommended that
all residents limit physical exertion and take refuge in air-
conditioned environments for the better part of the day. In addition,
Rhode Island's public transit operator, RIPTA, offered free bus rides
all day long to keep people out of their cars.
These are real costs--costs paid in freedom, in reduced quality of
life, in medical bills, in burdened public services to respond to the
health risks of dirty air, and in more missed days of work and school.
There is still a lot to learn about the causes and cures of asthma.
But we know air pollution triggers asthma attacks. We know air
pollution is a preventable problem. Armed with this knowledge, Rhode
Island has taken great strides to reduce air pollution.
In 2006, Rhode Island passed a law to prohibit cars and buses from
idling with their engines on.
In 2007, Rhode Island passed a law to retrofit all State school buses
with diesel pollution controls.
In 2010, Rhode Island began requiring heavy-duty vehicles used in
federally funded construction projects to install diesel pollution
controls, adhere to the State anti-idling law, and use only low-sulfur
diesel fuel.
RIPTA has voluntarily retrofitted half its bus fleet with diesel
pollution control equipment.
However, Rhode Island cannot solve its air pollution problem on its
own. We could stop driving entirely and shut down every industry in our
State, and we would still have problems with ground-level ozone and
particulate matter pollution. Why is that? Because, as EPA has
determined, most of the pollution that lands in Rhode Island is sent to
us by other States. Much of that out-of-State pollution comes from
virtually uncontrolled Midwestern coal-fired powerplants that are tied
to excessively tall smokestacks that send pollution hundreds of miles
away from the source.
Last month, at my request, the Government Accountability Office
completed a report about tall smokestacks at coal powerplants. Here is
what the report said: In 1970, the year the Clean Air Act was enacted,
there were two tall stacks--stacks over 500 feet--in the United States.
By 1985, this number of tall stacks had grown from 2 to more than 180.
Utilities and industry literally built their way into compliance with
the Clean Air Act.
The trend continued. As of December 31, 2010, at the end of last
year, 284 tall stacks were operating at 172 coal powerplants in the
United States. These tall smokestacks are associated with 64 percent of
the coal generating capacity in our country. Most of the coal
generating capacity in our country vents its pollution through tall
smokestacks.
Most of the tall stacks--207 of them or nearly three-quarters of
them--are between 500 and 699 feet tall; 63 of them are between 700 and
999 feet tall. The remaining 14 are over 1,000 feet tall. The tallest
stack at a coal powerplant in the United States is 1,038 feet, which is
at the Rockport Powerplant in Indiana. This graphic compares some of
these stacks with some of the well-known landmarks in our country. Here
is the Statue of Liberty, at 305 feet; the Washington Monument, at 555
feet; and here are stacks at 1,000 feet, 1,038, and 12,004 feet--the
Empire State Building in New York and the Willis Tower in Chicago.
As I have noted in previous floor remarks, once a stack gets over
1,000 feet, it has to be actually marked on aviation maps as a hazard
to avoid plane collisions.
What do I mean when I say the utilities built their way into
compliance with these tall stacks? In the early days of the Clean Air
Act, some States allowed pollution sources to build tall stacks instead
of installing pollution controls. The concept was that pollution sent
high enough into the atmosphere would be sent far away from the source
and it would not contribute to the air pollution problem in that State
and everybody would be happy.
The problem is, this air pollution causes problems downwind in other
States. As the GAO report put it, ``Tall stacks generally disperse
pollutants over greater distances than shorter stacks and provide
pollutants greater time to react in the atmosphere to form ozone and
particulate matter,'' which are the precursors to asthma. Yet public
health policy has not yet caught up with this practice. Rhode Island
pays the price.
Making matters worse, the GAO found that more than half the boilers
attached to these tall stacks at the coal powerplants have no scrubber
to control sulfur dioxide emissions--none. Approximately 85 percent of
these boilers went into service before 1980, so they are antiquated and
dirty and they run the pollution up the tall stack and it ends up being
dumped on Rhode Island instead of cleaned up at the source. Nearly two-
thirds of boilers connected to these tall stacks have no postcombustion
controls for nitrogen oxide--controls that are vastly more effective
than so-called low NOX burners. Again, uncontrolled at the
source, they dump the pollution up the tall stacks, export it
elsewhere, and it is not their problem, but it then lands on Rhode
Island.
Here is a graphic that shows more than 70 coal plants which have tall
stacks at boilers that operate without scrubbers or postcombustion
nitrogen oxide controls. These boilers are sending hundreds of
thousands of tons of unabated pollution up very tall smokestacks, into
the jetstream, and the jetstream delivers it downwind onto States such
as Rhode Island.
As the GAO indicated:
In the Mid-Atlantic United States, the wind generally blows
from west to east during the day . . . ozone can travel
hundreds of miles at night with the help of high-speed winds
known as the low-level jet. This phenomenon typically occurs
at night . . . due to the ground cooling quicker than the
upper atmosphere, which can allow the low-level jet to form
and transport ozone and particulate matter with its high
winds.
The map shows a typical prevailing wind pattern in the spring. Notice
how the prevailing winds send so much of the pollution up and over to
Rhode Island and other States along the eastern seaboard. In fact, five
of the States on this map--Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois,
and North Carolina--have been identified by EPA as contributing
significantly to Rhode Island's pollution problems.
The electricity that comes from these uncontrolled powerplants, which
don't stop the pollution at the start but instead jet it up into this
low-level jet so it gets dumped in other States--the electricity coming
from them might seem cheaper to consumers than electricity from a
pollution-controlled powerplant. But that is not so. That would be
wrong to consider or to conclude. The costs weren't cheaper. The costs
just got shifted. They got shifted from the companies and the consumers
in the polluting States to the lungs of children in Rhode Island and
other downwind States. It is the lungs of children and adults and
seniors in Rhode Island that are actually paying for that cheap
electricity.
Happily, and at last, the EPA has begun to remedy this unfair and
wrongful public health situation by requiring utilities in upwind
States to control their pollution under the good neighbor provision of
the Clean Air Act, because while a tall stack will send uncontrolled
pollution farther than a short stack would, the most effective way to
reduce pollution is to install pollution controls.
Prompted by petitions from our downwind States, the Bush EPA
attempted to set pollution limits for States that contribute to
unhealthy
[[Page 10552]]
pollution levels outside their borders. However, on review, the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals told them they had not gone far enough. So the
EPA went back to the drawing board and crafted the cross-State air
pollution rule that has been announced today, which will cap the
pollution that can be produced in upwind States, such as Ohio,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, and North Carolina. Those caps
were designed based on each State's contribution to pollution in States
such as Rhode Island, and it will ratchet down whenever EPA tightens
air quality standards based on the latest and best science.
As I said, that rule was finalized today. So I thank the EPA. I
commend the EPA for finalizing that cross-State air pollution rule. I
also urge EPA to update the national ozone air quality standard based
on the recommendations from the CASAC--the Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee. This will lead to further pollution reductions in States
upwind of Rhode Island and further benefit Rhode Islanders.
These rules will bring us closer to the day when the coal powerplants
on this chart start taking responsibility for their pollution and stop
exporting that pollution into Rhode Island and other States, when they
install pollution control equipment rather than sending their pollution
to where it becomes someone else's problem, and to when Rhode Island
children can play outdoors safely without the risk of an asthma attack.
I am looking forward to that day, and I know the people of Rhode Island
are too.
When you drive in and that morning radio tells you today is another
bad air day and that children and seniors should stay indoors and can't
play, can't take a walk, can't engage in anything that involves any
exertion, it is frustrating when there is nothing you can do about it.
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management could pass
regulations until it was blue in the face. The Rhode Island General
Assembly could write new laws all day long and it would make no
difference because the bombardment of outside pollution on our State is
what is driving these health problems. That is why EPA is so important.
We would have no voice in this if it were not for a National
Environmental Protection Agency that can look out for small States such
as ours that are on the receiving end of this kind of a pollution dump
from the uncontrolled coal-fired plants in the Midwest.
I thank very much the Presiding Officer, I yield the floor, and I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would like to add a few words this
afternoon about the ongoing negotiations on the Federal budget and on
our rapidly approaching debt ceiling.
I think we all agree that the situation we face is one of enormous
importance and complexity. I believe every responsible person also
agrees a failure to act would have awful repercussions that would
jeopardize or worsen our fragile and tentative economic recovery. So I
think the responsible view is, it is imperative we act and it is also
clear to do so will require every side to make concessions.
I rise this afternoon, however, because it is my strong belief that
any agreement we reach must be based on real savings and must not be
made at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. That is why I am
so concerned about reports that Social Security and Medicare have been
raised as possible sources of deficit reduction. Cuts to Social
Security and to Medicare benefits should not be on the table. Social
Security is not the cause of the deficit, never has been the cause of
the deficit, and beneficiaries of Social Security should not be made to
shoulder the burden of deficit reduction.
Social Security is funded through the contributions of our Nation's
workers and businesses. It has an enormous surplus and is projected to
be fully solvent for another quarter century. So while I would agree
with steps to strengthen Social Security, any changes should be
considered independent of our effort to reduce the deficit, and we
should not cut Social Security benefits.
I helped cofound the Senate defending Social Security caucus for this
very reason. The solvency of the Social Security program can be
extended significantly just by applying payroll taxes to a greater
portion of the earnings of millionaires and billionaires. What we have
seen in this country is a huge shift of income going more and more to
the uppermost economic reaches and less and less to the middle class.
The middle class has actually lost income in the last decade. So the
contributions to Social Security are lower because there is less income
to draw it off of and the income that is above the $106,000 Social
Security cap is where the explosion of income has been and they
contribute not a nickel from that income to Social Security.
So there is a lot we can do to support Social Security, but what we
should not do is give in to any of the calls to put our seniors'
security at risk in the stock market by privatizing Social Security or
increasing the retirement age so that a construction worker or a
waitress who works on their feet all day long has to put in more years
of service at that age--when their body, frankly, might not be up to it
any longer--or to cut benefits through backdoor methods by lowering the
cost-of-living adjustment.
The Rhode Island seniors I have heard from at my community dinners
and senior centers around the State I have visited are very concerned
what would happen if their benefits were cut.
Audrey, from Middletown, told me that after her husband died, she had
many expenses but, as she said, ``no income except for his Social
Security check which enabled me to go on living--simply but adequately
without being a burden on my sons and losing my dignity as well.''
Two very important points Audrey makes. One is that Social Security
is not just a benefit to Social Security recipients. It is a benefit to
the children of Social Security recipients, on whom their parents might
otherwise be a burden. It is an American value that senior citizens who
have worked hard all their lives, who have played by the rules, who
have built the America we now enjoy should be able to draw on so as not
to lose their dignity at the end of their life.
That is a principle that is worth defending.
Ronald from Cumberland, RI, had been on Social Security for a number
of years. He wrote to say: It seems that it's always the people who
need the help the most who get cut from the Federal Government. Why is
this? No Social Security cost of living adjustment for 2 years, yet
prices for the basic needs still rise. In a country like the United
States of America, this should not happen.
These people who are living on Social Security income are not living
high off the hog, and they should not be the targets of our cost-
cutting zeal.
The threat to the Medicare Program is just as real. Earlier this
year, Republicans over in the House of Representatives passed a budget
that would end the Medicare Program as we have come to know it for
future generations. I can remember being at a senior center in North
Providence, and a gentleman sitting at a table said to me: You know, I
have helped build this country; I have fought in its wars; And I
understand that the Republican proposal will protect Medicare for me;
but I am not willing to let Medicare for my children be thrown under
the bus. That would make me feel awful. It simply isn't right for me to
stay on it and stand for the program to be taken apart and dismembered
for everybody else.
That was a moving statement for me to hear, and we need to honor
that.
Estimates suggest that the House Republicans' proposal would end up
forcing a typical 65-year-old senior to pay, on average, $12,500 each
year in out-of-pocket expenses starting in 2022. That is more than
double what a senior is estimated to pay than if the current system of
Medicare stayed in place.
[[Page 10553]]
In Rhode Island, the average senior only gets about $14,200 per year
from Social Security to begin with. So if you are going to ask people
who now have $14,200 a year, who aren't getting cost-of-living
adjustments by 2022 to pay $12,500 for Medicare, that would be a
massive exercise in poverty creation, and what Medicare and Social
Security have done is lifted the burden of poverty from America's
seniors. I think sometimes we are blind to what life might be like
without them, when some of our colleagues so cavalierly suggest that we
should do away with these programs, privatize them, or turn them over
to the insurance industry.
The Republican budget would also reopen the Medicare prescription
drug doughnut hole. We went through a lot of effort to close that
doughnut hole in the Affordable Care Act. That doughnut hole will be
gone in 10 years, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans
all voted against the Affordable Care Act. They all voted against
closing the doughnut hole. And now in their budget on the other side
they want to unwind that part of the bill and take away the protections
we have provided for seniors in the doughnut hole. That would cost
millions of dollars to seniors in Rhode Island starting next year if it
were put into law. That is not something off in the future. That is
right now, thousands of Rhode Island seniors having to cough up
millions of dollars because of this Republican House budget plan. That
is something I think we need to defend against. That is the wrong place
to look.
It is especially the wrong place to look as we find our Republican
colleagues fighting so hard to protect tax breaks for millionaires and
billionaires. I have given the speech repeatedly already, so I won't
dwell on it now. But when our Republican colleagues stand and say, We
are against tax hikes, it is important for Americans to look behind the
curtain and see who they are defending, because I will tell you,
everybody in this Chamber, Republican and Democrat alike, believes that
ordinary American families earning ordinary levels of income should be
exempt from any tax hikes. That is not even on the table.
When our Republican colleagues talk about defending against tax
hikes, they are talking about defending the oil industry from having
subsidies they don't need and that taxpayers pay for taken away. They
are talking about protecting the top 400 income earners in the country
who, on average, pay Federal taxes, actually paid in--this isn't a
theory, this isn't a rate; this is what they actually paid in,
according to the IRS--18.2 percent. These are people who made on
average more than $\1/4\ billion, with a B--$1 billion with a B, in 1
year. And God bless them. What a wonderful thing it is to make more
than $\1/4\ billion in 1 year. But they pay taxes at lower rate than a
truckdriver in Rhode Island does on average; the guy who wakes up every
morning and gets into his clothes and puts on his boots and gets in the
truck and goes out there and works all day, pays the same tax rate as
the person earning over $\1/4\ billion.
They can talk about tax hikes until they are blue in the face. It
won't take away the fact that is the way it actually works in this
country, and they are defending that and going after Audrey and the
folks on Medicare in Rhode Island and Ronald from Cumberland. That is
not right, and we need to argue about that and fight back.
We can never overlook what Medicare and Social Security have
contributed to our Nation's prosperity. It is not just the benefit for
the Medicare beneficiary, it is not just the benefit for the Social
Security recipient. It is the freedom we all feel knowing we will have
a dignified old age; that we won't be at the mercy of Wall Street, that
we won't be at the mercy of a private insurance company; that we will
have the efficient and effective services that Medicare and Social
Security deliver. We can know that now and enjoy that. We have more
freedom as Americans now because we can make bolder choices in our
lives knowing that we don't have to defend ourselves against that kind
of poverty and that kind of misery in our old age. Our children can
make bolder choices in their lives knowing that they don't have to
safeguard against a parent's illness ruining their own financial
futures, ruining their family's financial futures.
Imagine how awful it must feel for a parent in that circumstance, if
in your old age you become grievously ill and the only resource you
have is to essentially wipe out your children who feel a moral
obligation to take care of your medical expenses and put themselves
into poverty and misery as a result of your illness. What an awful
human tragedy that is for the people involved. And we don't experience
that tragedy in America. We don't experience it because Medicare and
Social Security are there.
The challenge before us is a formidable one, but I truly believe we
can reach an agreement on the deficit and the debt ceiling without
compromising the security and the well-being of our seniors. I believe
the Democratic Budget Committee's proposed budget is a good model for
how we can actually do it, and I look forward to continuing this
discussion. It is not necessary, in order to solve our immediate
deficit problems and to get through this debt limit fight, to take our
seniors and put Social Security and Medicare that they have relied on
at risk; to take this country whose prosperity Social Security and
Medicare do so much to support, and knock that down with a tax on
Social Security and Medicare. It is not right, it is not necessary, and
we should stand against it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
THANKING SENATE PAGES
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I express my appreciation to
you, presiding all these hours you have this afternoon, but I also wish
to take just a minute and thank these pages. This is the first time
since 1974 the Senate has been in session during a July 4 recess
period--since 1974. These young pages had places to be with their
families during the summer vacation period. They are juniors in high
school. They have some plans, I am sure, that we interfered with. But
regarding the work we have done this week, while there has not been a
lot of time on the floor, there are a lot of things going on all over
Washington. There have been meetings at the White House, there have
been meetings with the Vice President, with the President, with the
Speaker, and others, working on this very important issue.
When these eight pages in later years reflect back on the fact that
they were here the first time since 1974 when we were in session over a
July 4 recess period, they should reflect that we were here for
important reasons. If we do what is right, we will rein in this debt
the country has and protect the most needy of our country.
I apologize for keeping them here. They should not have had to be
here this week, but they have stayed because they have an obligation as
pages to be here and they accepted that. They have kept the Senate
running smoothly. We need them. They are helpful to us. They didn't
have to be asked; each one of these eight pages volunteered: Naomi
Biden, Brynn DiNino, Claire Karsting, William Maas, Aliza Reisner,
Morgan Wissel, Keira Harris, and Chaffee Duckers.
I appreciate very much their service and wish them the best in their
educational endeavors in the years to come.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for
up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 10554]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BARRY MANILOW
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for nearly 40 years, legendary singer and
songwriter Barry Manilow has inspired and dazzled millions of people
with his musical talents. He has sold more than 80 million records
worldwide and has written countless iconic hits.
However, I come to the floor today not to discuss his talent but to
recognize my friend for another one of his remarkable accomplishments--
his ongoing efforts to help preserve music education in public schools
in Nevada and across this country.
In recent years, significant budget cuts to public education have
forced schools to eliminate a number of important programs. Sadly,
music programs are often one of the first casualties. In response to
this disturbing trend, Mr. Manilow started the Manilow Music Project,
which helps public schools continue their music programs. The project
donates instruments and materials to public schools and provides music
scholarships to high school students to further their music education
at the college level. Since 2008, the organization has donated hundreds
of thousands of dollars worth of instruments and materials to secondary
and high school music programs across the country.
A wonderful example of the impact of the Manilow Music Project
occurred last year in Nevada. During one of Mr. Manilow's recent tours
in Las Vegas, in exchange for donations of new or gently used musical
instruments, he offered tickets to attend one of his concerts. The
collected instruments, valued at more than $500,000, were then donated
to fifteen schools in the Clark County School District, the school
district that serves the Las Vegas Valley. This gift--the largest
donation of its kind for Clark County--has provided more than 600
students with the opportunity to experience the joys of playing a
musical instrument.
In addition to his donations to the district, Mr. Manilow has also
helped foster music appreciation. He recently invited four different
Clark County School District school choirs to perform in his holiday
shows and provided show tickets valued at more than $30,000 for nearly
500 students and their parents or chaperones.
I would like to thank Barry for his dedication to the Las Vegas
community and his efforts to keep music alive in Nevada's schools. I am
so pleased that he has been able to share his love of music with
thousands of aspiring musicians.
____________________
VA'S MENTOR--PROTEGE PROGRAM
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the
accomplishments of the 24 participants in the Department of Veterans
Affairs' Mentor-Protege Program who are working to help veteran small
business owners. In these hard economic times, it is more important
than ever to provide this critical support to our veteran
entrepreneurs.
The goal of the Mentor-Protege Program, which was started in 2010, is
to bring together established companies with service-disabled and other
veteran-owned businesses. Through these partnerships with established
regional businesses, veteran business owners receive guidance on
financial and organizational management, business planning and
technical aid. They also develop long-term business relationships with
their mentor partners.
Veterans hire veterans because they know what they are getting.
Veterans are well trained, disciplined team players who can deliver
results in challenging conditions. At a time when the Department of
Labor reports almost 10 percent of all veterans are unemployed, and 27
percent of veterans between the ages of 20 and 24 are unemployed, it is
imperative we do everything in our power to tackle this issue. The
Mentor-Protege program holds the promise of fostering an environment
where veteran-owned businesses can succeed in helping to revitalize our
economy while hiring veterans in the process. These veteran-owned small
businesses are exactly what our Nation needs to continue on the road to
economic recovery while getting our country's heroes the jobs they
deserve.
While I am optimistic about the potential of the VA's Mentor-Protege
Program, I have heard from several companies participating in the
program who have expressed concerns with delays in VA's verification
process. I urge VA's Center for Veterans Enterprise to expedite the
verification process so that these companies can get to work in
repairing our economy as quickly as possible.
Businesses in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama,
Texas, New Mexico, and California are serving as a model of just how
successful a program of this nature can be. The names of the businesses
that are participating in the program, both as mentors and proteges,
are:
ASM Research, Inc. of Fairfax, VA, and Coley & Associates of San
Antonio, TX, AUI Contractors, LLC of Fort Worth, TX, and Unified
Services of Texas, of South Lake, TX, Bear Construction Company of
Rolling Meadows, IL, and Opcon Inc. of Chicago, IL, Booz Allen Hamilton
of McLean, VA, and MBL Technologies, Inc., of Rockville, MD, Creative
Computing Solutions, Inc. of Rockville, MD, and CPS Professional
Services of Fairfax, VA, EMJ Corporation of Sacramento, CA, and 347
Group Construction of Roseville, CA, The George Solitt Construction Co.
of Wood Dale, IL, and Industria, Inc. of Chicago, IL, The GRD
Contractors, Inc. of Costa Mesa, CA, and Hubzone Corp. of Rancho
Cucamonga, CA, Harris Corporation GCSD of Melbourne, FL, and Delta
Corporation of Fulton, MD, Health Net Federal Services of Rancho
Cordova, CA, and Three Wire Systems of Vienna, VA, ICF Incorporated of
Fairfax, VA, and Nova Technology Solutions of Fairborn, OH, JOB
Options, Inc. of San Diego, CA, and VETSUSA, LLC. of Falls Church, VA,
Leopardo Companies, Inc. of Hoffman Estates, IL, and Segovia Group
Corporation of San Antonio, TX, Lockheed Martin Corporation of Fairfax,
VA, and Fulcrum Vets, LLC of Fairfax, VA, Marous Brothers Construction
of Willoughby, OH, and Northstar Contracting, Inc. of North Olmstead,
OH, McKesson Corporation of San Francisco, CA, and The Stay Safe Store
of El Dorado Hills, CA, Metters Industries of McLean, VA, and Global
Technology Solutions, LLC. of Corrales, NM, Northrup Grumman
Corporation of Rockville, MD, and Heitech Services, Inc. of Landover,
MD, Reva, Inc. of Newark, NJ, and M.E.R.I.T. Inc. of Newark, NJ, The
Robins and Morton Group of Birmingham, AL, and Coburn Contractors of
Montgomery, AL, Roy Anderson Corp. of Gulfport, MI, and the Bacik
Group, LLC. of Columbus, GA, Sargent Electric Co. of Pittsburg, PA, and
SGT LLC. Of Pittsburgh, PA, Secom Technical Services of Oak Ridge, TN,
and Clauss Construction of Lakeside, CA, Simplex Grinnel of Columbia,
MD, and Emergency Planning Management of Stafford, VA, Swinerton
Government Services of Arvada, CO, and R.E.M. Engineering Company, Inc.
of Pasadena, CA.
By fostering an environment where veteran entrepreneurs can grow
their businesses, we affirm our commitment to those who have sacrificed
so much. I encourage VA to strengthen the growing Mentor-Protege
Program and look forward to working with them to achieve their goals.
____________________
RESPONSIBLE ELECTRONICS RECYCLING ACT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to make remarks on the
introduction of the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act. I would like
to thank Senators Sherrod Brown and Lisa Murkowski for joining me in
this bipartisan effort, as well as the House sponsors, Representatives
Gene Green, Mike Thompson, Steven LaTourette, and Lee Terry.
Significant amounts of U.S. electronic waste are currently exported
to developing countries that handle the waste in an unsafe manner. Much
of this waste contains toxic materials, such as lead and mercury, and
the workers who disassemble and process the electronics use crude,
unsafe methods that can lead to health problems. This legislation would
put an end to
[[Page 10555]]
these dangerous practices. The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act
would restrict the export of electronic waste, help boost the U.S.
recycling industry, and support efforts to domestically recover rare
earth materials found in electronics.
The United States is the only developed country that has not ratified
the Basel Convention, which prohibits exports of hazardous waste to
developing countries. Under the convention, much of the U.S.
exportation of electronic waste to developing countries is illegal
under the laws of the receiving countries but unfortunately, these laws
are poorly enforced.
If we recycled these materials in the U.S., it would create recycling
jobs for U.S. workers. Companies recycling in the U.S. often operate
under capacity because they cannot compete with the cheaper option of
exporting electronic waste to developing countries. We should be
processing this waste using U.S. workers, and many companies stand at
the ready to begin recycling additional electronic waste.
Moreover, the dumping of used electronics in the developing world can
come back to haunt us. Some countries have active underground markets
for U.S. hard drives, contributing to identity theft, as documented in
a 2009 Frontline investigation. Business Week reported in 2010 that
used computer chips from old personal computers are fraudulently re-
marked in China as ``military grade'' chips and sold to U.S. military
suppliers. Given the risks to our armed forces from defective
equipment, I have also introduced the Combating Military Counterfeits
Act to enhance the ability of prosecutors to keep counterfeit goods out
of the military supply chain.
One of the benefits of recycling electronic waste domestically is the
potential to recover rare elements in the process. Rare earth materials
are vital to a number of manufacturing processes, including for
products such as hybrid car batteries and solar panels, yet prices have
skyrocketed as global supply has tightened. According to the Department
of Energy, recycled content from electronics could be a valuable
secondary source of rare earth materials, but additional research is
required on recovery techniques and collection of electronic waste.
This act would establish the Rare Earth Materials Recycling Research
Initiative at the Department of Energy to coordinate research into the
recovery of rare earth materials used in electronics.
The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act would also address the
health, environmental, and national security concerns by amending the
Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit the export of electronic waste to
developing countries, with certain exceptions. These exceptions include
legitimate exports of tested and working equipment, warranty returns,
and recalls. There is also a de minimis exception to allow the export
of materials that have so little toxicity they would not pose a risk to
human health or the environment. Exporting under the exceptions would
require a license and notice to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Additional restrictions apply to exports for warranties or recalls,
including written consent from the receiving country. The act creates a
criminal penalty for knowingly exporting electronic waste, and provides
the EPA the authority to inspect establishments handling electronic
waste.
Twenty-five States, including Rhode Island, have passed electronic
waste recycling laws. States such as Rhode Island already seek to
ensure that their downstream recyclers do not export the electronic
waste but instead responsibly recycle it here in the U.S. But States
can only do so much and a federal law is needed to restrict these
harmful exports.
We are pleased to have the support of a number of electronics
manufacturers and retailers, including Hewlett Packard, Dell, Apple,
Samsung, and Best Buy. We are also pleased to have the endorsement of
29 recyclers representing 74 recycling operations in 34 states. The
breadth of our coalition is a testament to the consensus that the
harmful export of these products must stop.
With more and more Americans relying on new technologies and
generating a growing amount of electronic waste each year, we must take
steps to properly dispose of this material. This legislation will crack
down on the dumping of electronic waste on developing countries,
protect American consumers from counterfeit schemes and identity theft,
and support the growth of electronic waste recycling jobs in Rhode
Island and across the country.
____________________
REMEMBERING JOHN MACKEY
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Baltimore lost one of its most beloved
adopted sons last night, former Baltimore Colt tight end John Mackey.
John revolutionized the position and was the second tight end to be
enshrined in the National Football League's, NFL, Hall of Fame. He
became the first president of the NFL Players Association, NFLPA, after
the NFL merged with the old American Football League. He was a
tenacious and effective advocate for the players, bargaining for higher
salaries and better benefits. He organized a 3-day strike early in his
tenure that generated an additional $11 million in pensions and
benefits. Mackey also filed and won an antitrust lawsuit against the
NFL which eliminated the so-called ``Rozelle Rule'' and ultimately
paved the way for players' union to secure full free agency for its
members. For the last 10 years, he suffered from dementia and had to
move into an assisted living facility that cost much more than his
pension. So he and his beloved wife Sylvia led the fight to convince
the NFLPA and the NFL to establish the ``88 Plan,'' named for his
uniform number, which provides adult day care and nursing home care for
retired players suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Even in
death, John continues to give: Sylvia has announced that his brain will
be donated to a Boston University School of Medicine study of brain
damage in athletes. Researchers at the university's Center for the
Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy are examining potential links between
repeated concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, CTE, a
condition which mirrors symptoms of dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
John Mackey grew up in Roosevelt, NY. He was a man of strong
convictions, a character trait he inherited from his father, who was a
Baptist minister. John was offered an appointment to the U.S. Naval
Academy but turned it down to attend Syracuse University, where he
studied economics, became an All-American football player, and roomed
with Ernie Davis, who became the first African American to win the
Heisman Trophy. The Colts drafted him in 1963 and he caught more
touchdown passes and gained more yards as a rookie than the team's two
wide receivers, Hall of Famer Raymond Berry and Jimmy Orr. John was big
and strong, like other tight ends of his era, but he could run after
catching a pass like no other tight end before him. As Hall of Fame
coach Don Shula said, ``Mackey gave us a tight end who weighed 230, ran
a 4.6 and could catch the bomb. It was a weapon other teams didn't
have.''
John was a three-time All-NFL selection. He played in five Pro Bowls.
In 1969, while still playing, he made the NFL's 50th anniversary team
as pro football's all-time tight end. Over the course of his career, he
caught 38 touchdown passes, 13 of which were for 50 yards or more,
including an 89-yarder against the Los Angeles Rams in 1966. That
particular touchdown pass was the longest of the 290 scoring passes in
Hall of Fame legend Johnny Unitas's career. In a 10-year career, John
caught 331 passes for 5,236 yards. Perhaps the biggest and most
memorable play in John's career came in the 1971 Super Bowl, when he
caught a pass from Unitas that had been deflected by two other
players--Colts receiver Eddie Hinton and Dallas Cowboys defender Mike
Renfro--and scored a touchdown on the 75-yard play. The Colts went on
to win that game in dramatic fashion on Jim O'Brien's field goal with 5
seconds left in the game.
By the time John retired, he had already endeared himself to the
people of
[[Page 10556]]
Baltimore, but he wasn't finished. He was elected to the Hall of Fame
in 1992, but he refused to accept his ceremonial ring in Indianapolis,
where the Colts had moved in 1984. He said, ``I will do it in
Baltimore. That is where I played.'' And so he received his Hall of
Fame ring in Memorial Stadium, at half-time of an exhibition game
between Miami and New Orleans.
I send my deepest condolences to John's wife Sylvia, to whom he was
married for 47 years; his son John Kevin Mackey of Atlanta; two
daughters Lisa Mackey Hazel of Bowie and Laura Mackey Nattans of
Baltimore; and John and Sylvia's six grandchildren. John Mackey has
been taken from us much too soon, but what a life he lived. He was one
of the greatest collegiate and professional football players of all
time. The Mackey Award is given annually to the best tight end in
college. He is enshrined in the Hall of Fame. He led the NFLPA and then
courageously led the fight for retired players which culminated in the
``88 Plan.'' His accomplishments and legacy will endure in the hearts
and minds of his fellow players and Baltimore Colts fans and football
fans forever.
____________________
EPA RULING
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Environmental Protection
Agency took steps to make the air in Vermont cleaner by issuing the
final cross-State air pollution rule.
In Vermont, we pride ourselves on our bucolic views, unspoiled
waterways, and our connection to the land. Yet, all of this is
threatened by pollution that is beyond our control, and coming from
beyond our borders. Vermont has always been a dumping ground, so to
speak, for emissions from coal-fired powerplants from other States.
Toxic pollution, generated in other parts of the country, blows into
Vermont and damages our State's scenic beauty, decreases the value of
conservation investments, and damages our forests, lakes, rivers, and
wetlands.
These powerplant emissions and air pollution are transported long
distances and not only mars our landscapes and threatens our health,
but it also costs downwind States and businesses billions of dollars
annually. Our only defense against such activity is the Federal Clean
Air Act. Today, with the implementation of the EPA's cross-State air
pollution rule, powerplants will be required to install new pollution
controls that reduce the amount of dangerous emissions crossing State
lines and entering Vermont. This will level the playing field by
requiring powerplants to make long overdue investments in proven,
readily available pollution control technologies that are already in
place at many powerplants.
The cross-State air pollution rule requires many fossil fuel-fired
powerplants to slash emissions that cross State lines and contribute to
ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution in other States. These
pollutants contribute to smog and air pollution which causes tens of
thousands of Americans to become sick each year. Those most susceptible
to illnesses related to poor air quality are often our most vulnerable
citizens. The elderly and children, especially those already suffering
from respiratory disorders like asthma, are routinely forced to stay
inside on poor air quality days.
Pollution is also responsible for thousands of new respiratory
illnesses each year, adding more unnecessary costs to our health care
system. In fact, the reductions contained in this rule would prevent
14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths each year, 23,000 nonfatal heart
attacks, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 240,000 cases of aggravated
asthma, and 1.9 million missed school and work days. The total benefits
of this rule are estimated to be $120-290 billion.
Some believe these benefits are not worth the costs to industry.
However, the cross-State air pollution rule is projected to cost
industry from $10-30 billion, a very modest amount compared to the
financial benefits and deaths prevented by this rule. In addition, a
utility-funded report recently contradicted arguments that the rule
will threaten U.S. electricity reliability. The reason for this is that
a majority of utilities have already taken steps to adapt to Federal
rules. In fact, over half of the country's coal-fired powerplants have
already installed sulfur dioxide scrubbers or plan to install them. Of
those that had plans to retire units, they are doing so because they
are inefficient and cannot compete in today's market, not because of
these rules.
In the end, only about one-fourth of the Nation's powerplants need to
take action. Are we going to let these plants, which have dragged their
feet, refusing to install new technology that would prevent pollution
and prevent deaths and serious illness, continue to poison our air on
the public's dime?
No, instead we should encourage the use of cleaner technologies that
will lead to healthier air, increased efficiency, and a boost in jobs.
Overall, regulations under the Clean Air Act have dramatically reduced
air pollution while creating jobs and spurring American innovation in
new industries and technology. Reports show the creation of 1.5 million
jobs over the next 5 years and increased global exports of domestically
produced clean technologies. History has demonstrated that since 1970,
every dollar spent on compliance with the Clean Air Act has led to $4-
$8 in economic benefits. By 2020, the total benefits of the Clean Air
Act will reach $2 trillion.
Coming from a State with no coal-fired powerplants that has been on
the receiving end of these pollutants for far too long, I fully welcome
the final cross-State air pollution rule because I know that it will
improve the quality of life for Vermonters who are subject to the
impacts, and costs, of pollution from far beyond our borders. This rule
is good for Vermont. It is good for the country. The Clean Air Act has
been cleaning our air for over four decades, while continuing to grow
our economy. The final cross-State air pollution rule that was
published today will encourage innovation and cost-savings and help
powerplants achieve their mission of providing clean, affordable, and
reliable energy. I am happy to see the EPA use this tool, given to it
by Congress, to protect the people and the environment of Vermont and
the rest of the country from pollution generated by distant
industries.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
REMEMBERING DAVID GETCHES
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I recognize the important
contributions of David Getches, who died earlier this week. He leaves
behind not only a family to whom he was intensely devoted, but also an
impressive legacy of public service, scholarship, mentorship, and
friendship.
Having served as both chairman and ranking member of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, I am particularly appreciative of his
remarkable scholarship and public service in the areas of natural
resources law and policy. He was a prolific writer on water, public
land, and Indian law and policy, and there are no doubt many dog-eared
copies of his books and articles on those subjects in our committee
files. He was called on to testify as an expert in both the Senate and
the House of Representatives, and his insight and creativity on those
issues have had a positive impact on the legislation and oversight that
are the responsibility of our committee and others.
While his resume of government service is notable--including special
consultant to Department of the Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and
director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources--it does not
reflect the countless hours of knowledge and wisdom that David freely
shared with government officials and staff who regularly sought his
counsel.
David was a dedicated teacher of many thousands of students at the
University of Colorado School of Law and a mentor to two of our
committee staff who have worked on water and public lands issues. He
was returning to the faculty this summer after serving 8 years as dean
of the School of Law.
David Getches distinguished himself throughout his career. But what I
understand set him apart, was that, at
[[Page 10557]]
the same time, he distinguished himself as a father to his three
children Liza, Catie, and Matthew and as a husband to his wife Ann.
They have our deep sympathy as they endure this loss. He is greatly
missed.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 12:05 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. 515. An act to reauthorize the Belarus Democracy Act
of 2004.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bill was read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 515. An act to reauthorize the Belarus Democracy Act
of 2004; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bill was read the first time:
S. 1340. A bill to cut, cap, and balance the Federal
budget.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-2408. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting, pursuant to
law, a semi-annual report relative to Reserve component
equipment delivery; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-2409. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report relative to the implementation of the
discretionary special compensation provided in section 603 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-2410. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller), transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to a violation of the Antideficiency Act that
occurred within the Department of the Air Force and was
assigned case number 08-07; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
EC-2411. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Secretary of the
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, a joint
report entitled ``Implementation Proposal for the National
Action Plan for Demand Response''; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
EC-2412. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report on the
activities of the U.S. Economic Development Administration
(EDA), Department of Commerce, for fiscal year 2010; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-2413. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``West
Virginia Regulatory Program'' (Docket No. WV-117-FOR)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July
6, 2011; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-2414. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Partial Exchange of Annuity Contracts''
(Rev. Proc. 2011-38) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on July 6, 2011; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-2415. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Notice: Suspension of Reporting
Requirements Under Sections 6038D and 1298(f)'' (Notice 2011-
55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
July 6, 2011; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-2416. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-79 ``Housing Production Trust Fund
Dedicated Tax Appropriations Authorization Temporary Act of
2011''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-2417. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-80 ``Housing Production Trust Fund
Pollin Memorial Community Dedicated Tax Appropriations
Authorization Temporary Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2418. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-81 ``Unemployment Compensation Extended
Benefits Continuation Temporary Amendment Act of 2011''; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2419. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-82 ``Brewery Manufacturer's Tasting
Permit Temporary Amendment Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2420. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-89 ``Department of Forensic Sciences
Establishment Act of 2011''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2421. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-90 ``Closing of Water Street, S.W.,
S.O. 10-15906, Act of 2011''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2422. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-91 ``Closing of Public Street adjacent
to Square 4376 Act of 2011''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2423. A communication from the Secretary of the
Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Automotive Fuel Ratings Certification and
Posting'' (RIN3084-AB14) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 6, 2011; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2424. A communication from the Assistant Chief Counsel
for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Revision to the List
of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities'' (RIN2137-
AE74) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on July 7, 2011; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2425. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Marketing Meteorological Evaluation
Towers'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2010-1326)) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 7, 2011;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2426. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Operations, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to Framework
Adjustment 45 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan and Sector Annual Catch Entitlements; Updated
Annual Catch Limits for Sectors and the Common Pool for
Fishing Year 2011'' (RIN0648-BA27) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on June 30, 2011; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2427. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Operations, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Halibut
Fisheries; Limited Access for Guided Sport Charter Vessels in
Alaska'' (RIN0648-BA99) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 6, 2011; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2428. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Alaska
Plaice in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area'' (RIN0648-XA482) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 6, 2011; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2429. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, and 702),
Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-
600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2011-0159)) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on July 7, 2011; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2430. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2011-
0028)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on July 7, 2011; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
[[Page 10558]]
EC-2431. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-
200F Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2010-
1272)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on July 7, 2011; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2432. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Robinson
Helicopter Company Model (Robinson) R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta,
R22 Mariner, R44, and R44 II Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)
(Docket No. FAA-2011-0588)) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 7, 2011; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2433. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter
Textron, Inc. Model 205A, 205A-1, 205B, 212, 412, 412CF and
412EP Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2011-
0561)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on July 7, 2011; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2434. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France
Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, SA-365C2, SA365N, SA-365N1, AS-
365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)
(Docket No. FAA-2011-0551)) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 7, 2011; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2435. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
proposed transfer of major defense equipment from the
Government of Norway to the Government of Chile with an
original acquisition cost of more than $25,000,000; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-2436. A communication from the Deputy Associate Director
for Management and Administration and Designated Reporting
Official, Office on National Drug Control Policy, Executive
Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to a vacancy in the position of Deputy
Director for Supply Reduction, received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 6, 2011; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was
referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-55. A resolution adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Miami-Dade County of the State of Florida
urging Congress to refrain from eliminating funding for
federal programs under the Workforce Investment Act, to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER, from the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute:
S. 275. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
provide for enhanced safety and environmental protection in
pipeline transportation, to provide for enhanced reliability
in the transportation of the Nation's energy products by
pipeline, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 112-30).
By Mrs. MURRAY, from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 951. A bill to improve the provision of Federal
transition, rehabilitation, vocational, and unemployment
benefits to members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for
other purposes.
____________________
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 Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1336. A bill to prevent immigration fraud and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 1337. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to permanently extend existing elective tax treatment for
Alaska Native Settlement Trusts; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
S. 1338. A bill to amend chapter 5 of title 31, United
States Code, to establish the Office of Regulatory Integrity
within the Office of Management and Budget; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
S. 1339. A bill to provide for the compilation and
reporting of participation data relating to Federal
rulemaking; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Paul, Mr.
DeMint, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Hatch, Ms.
Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr.
Coburn, Mr. Corker, Mr. Graham, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Portman, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Thune, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Wicker):
S. 1340. A bill to cut, cap, and balance the Federal
budget; read the first time.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. McCain, Ms.
Ayotte, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Coats, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Johanns,
Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Risch):
S. Res. 226. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate that the President does not have the authority to
ignore the statutory debt limit by ordering the Secretary of
the Treasury to continue issuing debt on the full faith and
credit of the United States; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Lugar):
S. Res. 227. A resolution calling for the protection of the
Mekong River Basin and increased United States support for
delaying the construction of mainstream dams along the Mekong
River; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Casey, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Toomey, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Webb, and Mr.
Warner):
S. Res. 228. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding coming together as a Nation and ceasing all
work or other activity for a moment of remembrance beginning
at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 11, 2011, in
honor of the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks
committed against the United States on September 11, 2001; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Bennet, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Wyden, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs.
Feinstein):
S. Res. 229. A resolution recognizing the heroic efforts of
firefighters to contain numerous wildfires that have affected
thousands of people throughout the United States; considered
and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 201
At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Carper) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) were added as
cosponsors of S. 201, a bill to clarify the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Interior with respect to the C.C. Cragin Dam and
Reservoir, and for other purposes.
S. 312
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) was added as a cosponsor of S. 312, a bill to
amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to repeal certain
limitations on health care benefits.
S. 344
At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 344, a bill to amend
title 10, United States Code, to permit certain retired members of the
uniformed services who have a service-connected disability to receive
both disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs
for their disability and either retired pay by reason of their years of
military service or Combat-Related Special Compensation, and for other
purposes.
S. 362
At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from
Michigan
[[Page 10559]]
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 362, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to provide for a Pancreatic Cancer
Initiative, and for other purposes.
S. 418
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 418, a bill to award a
Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of the Civil Air
Patrol.
S. 497
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 497, a bill to
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the requirements of
the visa waiver program and for other purposes.
S. 504
At the request of Mr. DeMint, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 504, a bill to preserve and
protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.
S. 571
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 571, a bill to amend
subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
to provide education for homeless children and youths, and for other
purposes.
S. 585
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 585, a
bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants for the
support of full-service community schools, and for other purposes.
S. 641
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 641, a bill to
provide 100,000,000 people with first-time access to safe drinking
water and sanitation on a sustainable basis within six years by
improving the capacity of the United States Government to fully
implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005.
S. 726
At the request of Mr. Rubio, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 726, a bill to rescind $45
billion of unobligated discretionary appropriations, and for other
purposes.
S. 769
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 769, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to prevent the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs from prohibiting the use of service dogs on Department of
Veterans Affairs property.
S. 834
At the request of Mr. Casey, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. 834, a bill to amend the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve education and prevention
related to campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence,
and stalking.
S. 853
At the request of Mrs. Hagan, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of S. 853, a bill to provide for
financial literacy education.
S. 929
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 929, a bill to
establish a comprehensive literacy program.
S. 951
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 951, a bill to improve the
provision of Federal transition, rehabilitation, vocational, and
unemployment benefits to members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and
for other purposes.
S. 968
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Udall) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) were added
as cosponsors of S. 968, a bill to prevent online threats to economic
creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes.
S. 973
At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 973, a bill to
create the National Endowment for the Oceans to promote the protection
and conservation of the United States ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
ecosystems, and for other purposes.
S. 1025
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) were added
as cosponsors of S. 1025, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code,
to enhance the national defense through empowerment of the National
Guard, enhancement of the functions of the National Guard Bureau, and
improvement of Federal-State military coordination in domestic
emergency response, and for other purposes.
S. 1240
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1240, a bill to
support the establishment and operation of Teachers Professional
Development Institutes.
S. 1261
At the request of Mr. Kirk, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1261, a bill
to amend title 5, United States Code, to deny retirement benefits
accrued by an individual as a Member of Congress if such individual is
convicted of certain offenses.
S. 1280
At the request of Mr. Isakson, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Brown) and the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) were added as cosponsors of S. 1280, a bill to amend the
Peace Corps Act to require sexual assault risk-reduction and response
training, and the development of sexual assault protocol and
guidelines, the establishment of victims advocates, the establishment
of a Sexual Assault Advisory Council, and for other purposes.
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1280, supra.
S. 1281
At the request of Mr. Kirk, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1281, a bill to amend
title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses
in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing two or more
levels stacked on top of one another.
S. 1297
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1297, a bill to preserve State
and institutional authority relating to State authorization and the
definition of credit hour.
S. 1301
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1301, a bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2012 to 2015 for the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, to enhance measures to
combat trafficking in persons, and for other purposes.
S. 1313
At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1313, a bill
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the
National Estuary Program, and for other purposes.
S. 1317
At the request of Mr. DeMint, the names of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe)
were added as cosponsors of S. 1317, a bill to allow individuals to
choose to opt out of the Medicare part A benefit.
S. 1323
At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1323, a bill to
express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the
budget deficit.
[[Page 10560]]
S.J. RES. 19
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) were
added as cosponsors of S.J. Res. 19, a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress
to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
S. RES. 80
At the request of Mr. Kirk, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 80, a resolution
condemning the Government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution
of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the International
Covenants on Human Rights.
S. RES. 175
At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 175, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to ongoing violations
of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and the
importance of a peaceful and just resolution to the conflict within
Georgia's internationally recognized borders.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1336. A bill to prevent immigration fraud and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Immigration
Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation would provide a much-
needed tool for prosecutors to use to combat the exploitative actions
of fraudulent lawyers and consultants who take advantage of individuals
seeking immigration assistance.
The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would punish fraud and
misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act
would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in
schemes to defraud immigrants.
Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to knowingly and
falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited
representative authorized to represent aliens in immigration
proceedings; and to knowingly defraud or receive money or anything of
value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences,
representations, or promises.
Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of
not more than 5 years, or both.
The bill would also work to combat immigration fraud by increasing
the awareness of notario fraud to immigrants.
The bill would require immigration courts to provide immigrants in
removal proceedings with information about notario fraud.
The bill would require the Justice Department to compile and make
available to the public a list of individuals and organizations that
have been convicted of immigration fraud; and permit only people who
have, within a 12-month period, represented immigrants pro bono appear
on the Justice Department's list of pro bono legal services.
By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like
Mr. Ibarra, a Mexican national and father of four, who has resided in
Los Angeles since 1988. Mr. Ibarra hired a so-called ``immigration
specialist'' and paid him over $7,500. In his apartment, Mr. Ibarra
keeps reams of documents that the immigration consultant claimed to
have filed on his behalf but never did--as Mr. Ibarra subsequently
learned from immigration authorities when he was placed into removal
proceedings. I wish I could tell you that this kind of egregious
behavior is uncommon, but sadly, that is not the case.
Last November, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a lawsuit
against a former lawyer who ran an illicit immigration law practice. In
the three decades in which the lawyer was licensed to practice law, he
was reported on numerous occasions to the California bar for his
unethical behavior that included collecting exorbitant fees;
representing clients in a negligent manner; and misleading immigrants
with assurances of favorable outcomes.
Eventually, the lawyer resigned from the legal profession and was
prohibited from representing clients before the Board of Immigration
Appeals. The terms of his resignation prevented him from practicing law
or portraying himself as eligible to practice law. Instead of abiding
by these terms, the lawyer proceeded to set up another law practice
through which he defrauded over two hundred immigrants, depleting many
of these victims of their entire life savings.
I am pleased that last month the Federal Government partnered with
State prosecutors and immigration advocacy organizations to launch a
nationwide campaign to combat these harmful schemes. The enactment of
this bill would enhance the government's ability to achieve the goals
of this national campaign by providing prosecutors with a tough new
Federal criminal law that could be used to convict fraudulent-lawyers
and consultants who prey on immigrants.
Mr. President, I urge support for the Immigration Fraud Prevention
Act of 2011.
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. 1336
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 ``Immigration Fraud Prevention
Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. MISREPRESENTATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 1041. Misrepresentation
``Any person who knowingly and falsely represents that such
person is, or holds himself or herself out as, an attorney,
an accredited representative, or any person authorized to
represent any other person before any court or agency of the
United States in any removal proceeding or any other case or
matter arising under the immigration laws (as defined in
section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
(b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding after the item relating to section 1040 the following:
``Sec. 1041. Misrepresentation.''.
SEC. 3. IMMIGRATION SCHEMES TO DEFRAUD ALIENS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 1352. Immigration schemes to defraud aliens
``Any person who, in connection with any matter arising
under the immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))
or any matter the offender claims or represents to arise
under such immigration laws, knowingly executes a scheme or
artifice to--
``(1) defraud any person; or
``(2) obtain or receive money or anything else of value
from any person by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.''.
(b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1352. Immigration schemes to defraud aliens.''.
SEC. 4. LISTS OF COUNSEL FOR ALIENS.
Section 239(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1229(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Current lists of counsel.--The Attorney General shall
compile and update, not less frequently than quarterly, lists
of persons who, during the most recent 12 months, have
provided pro bono representation of aliens in proceedings
under section 240 that--
``(A) include a description of who may represent the alien
in the proceedings, including a notice that immigration
consultants, visa consultants, and other unauthorized
individuals may not provide such representation; and
``(B) shall be provided in accordance with subsection
(a)(1)(E) and otherwise made generally available.''.
SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATION.
Section 239(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1229(b)) is amended--
[[Page 10561]]
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) List of prohibitions.--The Attorney General shall--
``(A) compile a list of specific individuals,
organizations, and practices that the Attorney General has
determined are prohibited in the provision of representation
in immigration proceedings, including individuals who have
been convicted for a violation of section 1041 or 1352 of
title 18, United States Code;
``(B) update the list compiled pursuant to subparagraph (A)
not less frequently than quarterly; and
``(C) make such list available to the general public.''.
______
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
S. 1338. A bill to amend chapter 5 of title 31, United States Code,
to establish the Office of Regulatory Integrity within the Office of
Management and Budget; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about two bills that I
am introducing today to address a serious and persistent threat to the
integrity of our government: regulatory capture.
Over the last 50 years, Congress has tasked an alphabet soup of
regulatory agencies to administer our laws through rule-making,
adjudication, and enforcement. Protecting the proper functioning of
these regulatory agencies has led me to the topic of regulatory
capture. I held a hearing on the subject last year in the Senate
Judiciary Committee and now am filing two bills that will make our
government more resistant to the ever-growing power of special
interests. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing these important
good-government measures.
At bottom, regulatory capture is a threat to democratic government.
``We the People'' pass laws through a democratic and open process.
Powerful interests then seek to ``capture'' the regulatory agencies
that enforce those laws so that they can avoid their intended effect,
turning laws passed to protect the public interest into regulations and
enforcement practices that benefit limited private interests.
This concept of ``regulatory capture'' is well-established in
regulatory and economic theory.
In 1913, Woodrow Wilson wrote this: ``If the government is to tell
big business men how to run their business, then don't you see that big
business men . . . must capture the government, in order not to be
restrained too much by it?''
The first dean of the Woodrow Wilson School, Marver Bernstein, wrote
that a regulatory commission will tend over time to ``become more
concerned with the general health of the industry,'' and try ``to
prevent changes which will adversely affect'' the industry. This, he
said, ``is a problem of ethics and morality as well as administrative
method''; ``a blow to democratic government and responsible political
institutions.'' Ultimately he said it leads to ``surrender'': ``The
commission finally becomes a captive of the regulated groups.''
Regulatory capture has been the subject of work by Nobel laureate
George Stigler in his article ``The Theory of Economic Regulation.''
Students of administrative law know how well established the doctrine
of ``regulatory capture'' or ``agency capture'' is in that field.
Last year, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute wrote in the Wall
Street Journal about ``a striking example of regulatory capture.'' He
described the phenomenon this way: ``Agencies tasked with protecting
the public interest come to identify with the regulated industry and
protect its interests against that of the public. The result:
Government fails to protect the public.'' His example was the Minerals
Management Service, in relation to the BP oil spill.
The failures of MMS in the lead up to the oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico, the cozy relationship between MMS officials and industry
executives, and the shameful behavior of some MMS employees are
archetypal symptoms of regulatory capture. But the report of the
commission on the Gulf oil spill never mentioned ``regulatory
capture.''
That is a pretty strong signal that regulatory capture isn't getting
the attention it deserves.
When you think about the century-long academic and policy debate
about regulatory capture, and when you look at the cost of recent
disasters in areas regulated by the Minerals Management Service, the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the Securities Exchange
Commission, it seems pretty evident that Congress should be concerned
not only about those prior incidents, but about addressing the threat
of future regulatory capture. The experts I have spoken with in my home
state of Rhode Island certainly understand that regulatory capture
matters. They don't want a captured agency to allow the next oil spill
or other man-made disaster to happen in our state, or for a financial
agency to allow speculators to wipe out the savings of our citizens.
Surely constituents of each of the members of this body would agree
whole-heartedly.
That is why I am introducing two pieces of legislation today.
The first bill is called the Regulatory Capture Prevention Act. It
would create an office within the Office of Management and Budget with
the authority to investigate and report regulatory capture. The office
would ensure that abuses were not overlooked, and sound the alarm if a
regulatory agency were overwhelmed by a more sophisticated and better-
resourced regulated industry. Scrutiny and publicity are powerful tools
for protecting the integrity of our regulatory agencies. This bill
would employ them to prevent powerful interests from coopting our laws.
The second bill is called the Regulatory Information Reporting Act.
It would shed extra sunlight into regulatory agencies by requiring them
to report to a public Web site the following: first, the name and
affiliation of each party that comments on an agency regulation;
second, whether that party affected the regulatory process; and
finally, whether that party is an economic, noneconomic, or citizen
interest. By centralizing this information for public and congressional
scrutiny, the bill would create a simple dashboard for hints of
regulatory capture in agency rulemaking.
As the Senate considers these bills, we should remember how much
agreement exists about regulatory capture. During the hearing I chaired
on regulatory capture last year, all of the witnesses, from across the
ideological spectrum, agreed on each of the following 7 propositions.
First, regulatory capture is a real phenomenon and a threat to the
integrity of government. Second, regulated entities have a concentrated
incentive to gain as much influence as possible over regulators,
opposed by a diffuse public interest. Third, regulated industries
ordinarily have substantial organizational and resource advantages in
the regulatory process when compared to public interest groups. Fourth,
some regulatory processes lend themselves to gaming by regulated
entities seeking undue control over regulation. Fifth, regulatory
capture by its nature happens in the dark--done as quietly as possible;
no industry puts up a flag announcing its capture of a regulatory
agency. Sixth, the potential damage from regulatory capture is
enormous. Finally, effective congressional oversight is key to keeping
regulators focused on the public interest.
With that as a starting point, I am hopeful that the Senate can agree
on legislation to address this very real problem. Administrative law
may not be the most glamorous subject, but I hope to work with
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to eliminate regulatory capture.
This is so important because for as long as there are regulatory
agencies, regulated industries, and money, there will be efforts at
regulatory capture. We owe it to our country to do everything possible
to defeat such efforts to capture our government of the people, by the
people, and for the people.
[[Page 10562]]
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 226--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE
PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE THE STATUTORY DEBT
LIMIT BY ORDERING THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO CONTINUE ISSUING
DEBT ON THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. McCain, Ms. Ayotte, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Coats, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Johanns, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Risch) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance:
S. Res. 226
Whereas clause 2 of section 8 of article I of the
Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power
``[t]o borrow Money on the credit of the United States'';
Whereas the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States says, ``The validity of the public debt of the
United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred
for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned.'';
Whereas Congress has historically limited the Federal debt,
either by specifically authorizing the issuance of new debt
instruments, or through imposing an aggregate limit on
Federal debt;
Whereas the statutory debt limit was established by an Act
of Congress and signed into law by the President in 1982; and
Whereas the debt subject to limit has been increased
through an Act of Congress and Presidential signature 38
times since 1982: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the Sense of the Senate that the
President does not have the authority to ignore the statutory
debt limit by ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to
continue issuing debt on the full faith and credit of the
United States.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 227--CALLING FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MEKONG RIVER
BASIN AND INCREASED UNITED STATES SUPPORT FOR DELAYING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF MAINSTREAM DAMS ALONG THE MEKONG RIVER
Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Lugar) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations:
S. Res. 227
Whereas the Mekong River is the world's 12th longest river,
originating on the Tibetan Plateau and flowing nearly 3,000
miles down through China into Burma, Thailand, Laos,
Cambodia, and Vietnam;
Whereas the Lower Mekong River in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia,
and Vietnam is a source of fresh water, food, and economic
opportunity for more than 60,000,000 people;
Whereas the Mekong River is second in biodiversity only to
the Amazon River, with an estimated 1,500 different species
of fish, of which at least a third migrate up the river and
tributaries in their life cycle, including the majority of
the commercial fish catch;
Whereas the Mekong River supports the world's two largest
rice exporters, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as the world's
largest inland fishery of 4,000,000 tons of freshwater fish
per year, providing up to $9,000,000,000 annual income and
approximately 80 percent of the animal protein consumed in
the Lower Mekong Basin;
Whereas China is constructing a cascade of up to 15 dams
along the mainstream of the Upper Mekong River, and Thailand,
Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam are planning to construct or
finance the construction of up to 11 dams on the lower half
of the river's mainstream;
Whereas scientific studies have cautioned that mainstream
dam construction will negatively affect the river's water
flow, fish population, and wildlife;
Whereas the Mekong River Commission is a river basin
management organization including the governments of
Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam that have signed the
Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development
of the Mekong River Basin, done at Chiang Rai, Thailand,
April 5, 1995, and agreed to cooperate on management of the
river and ``development of the full potential of sustainable
benefits to all riparian States'';
Whereas the members of the Commission have also agreed to
``make every effort to avoid, minimize and mitigate harmful
effects that might occur to the environment, especially the
water quantity and quality, the aquatic (eco-system)
conditions, and ecological balance of the river system, from
the development and use of the Mekong River Basin water
resources or discharge of wastes and return flows'';
Whereas the Mekong River Commission sponsored a Strategic
Environmental Assessment of the proposed series of mainstream
dams along the Lower Mekong River, concluding that the
decision to move forward with even one dam would result in
permanent and irreversible changes to the river's
productivity and regional environment;
Whereas such changes could threaten the region's food
security, block fish migration routes, increase risks to
aquatic biodiversity, reduce sediment flows, increase saline
intrusion, reduce agricultural production, and destabilize
the river channels and coastline along the Mekong Delta;
Whereas the United States has significant economic and
strategic interests in the Mekong River subregion that may be
jeopardized if the construction of mainstream dams places the
region's stability at risk;
Whereas the Department of State initiated the Lower Mekong
Initiative in July 2009 to engage Thailand, Laos, Cambodia,
and Vietnam on water security issues, to build regional
capacity, and to facilitate multilateral cooperation on
effective water resources management;
Whereas funding for the Lower Mekong Initiative has
primarily focused on the environment, health, and education,
leaving the fourth pillar--infrastructure--largely unfunded;
Whereas attention to infrastructure development is a
critical element of promoting the sustainable, coordinated
construction of hydropower dams in the region;
Whereas, on September 22, 2010, Laos submitted for review
to the Mekong River Commission the proposal for the Xayaburi
Dam, the first of nine mainstream dams planned by Laos along
the Lower Mekong River;
Whereas, on April 19, 2011, the Mekong River Commission's
Joint Committee representatives met to discuss the Xayaburi
project without reaching consensus on whether the project
should proceed, but agreed during the meeting to table the
decision and consider it at a later date at a higher,
ministerial level; and
Whereas, on May 8, 2011, the Government of Laos agreed to
temporarily suspend work on the Xayaburi dam and announced
plans to conduct further environmental assessments on the
project in response to regional concerns: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) calls on United States representatives at multilateral
development banks to use the voice and vote of the United
States to support strict adherence to international
environmental standards for any financial assistance to
hydropower dam projects on the mainstream of the Mekong
River;
(2) encourages greater United States engagement with the
Mekong River countries through the Lower Mekong Initiative
and increased support for sustainable infrastructure and
water security in Southeast Asia;
(3) calls on the United States Government in leading the
Lower Mekong Initiative to devote greater attention to and
funding for capacity building projects on infrastructure and
to assist in identifying sustainable economic, water, and
energy alternatives to mainstream hydropower dams on the
Mekong River;
(4) applauds the decision of the Mekong River Commission to
delay endorsement of the Xayaburi Dam;
(5) supports further delay of the construction of
mainstream hydropower dams along the Mekong River until the
studies by the Government of Laos have been completed and
adequate planning and multilateral coordination can be
guaranteed;
(6) encourages members of the Mekong River Commission to
adhere to the prior consultation process for dam construction
under the Commission's Procedures for Notification, Prior
Consultation and Agreement;
(7) calls on all riparian states along the Mekong River,
including China, to respect the rights of other river basin
countries and take into account any objection or concerns
regarding the construction of hydropower dams;
(8) calls on the Governments of Burma and China to improve
cooperation with the Mekong River Commission and information
sharing on water flows and engage in regional decision making
processes on the development and use of the Mekong River; and
(9) supports assistance to the Lower Mekong River riparian
states to gather data and analyze the impacts of proposed
development along the river.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 228--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING
COMING TOGETHER AS A NATION AND CEASING ALL WORK OR OTHER ACTIVITY FOR
A MOMENT OF REMEMBRANCE BEGINNING AT 1:00 PM EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 2011, IN HONOR OF THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TERRORIST
ATTACKS COMMITTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Casey,
[[Page 10563]]
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Toomey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Webb,
and Mr. Warner) submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 228
Whereas at 8:46 AM, on September 11, 2001, hijacked
American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the upper portion of
the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City,
New York;
Whereas 17 minutes later, at 9:03 AM, hijacked United
Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World
Trade Center;
Whereas at 9:37 AM, the west wall of the Pentagon was hit
by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, the impact of which
caused immediate and catastrophic damage to the headquarters
of the Department of Defense;
Whereas at approximately 10:00 AM, the passengers and crew
of hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 acted heroically to
retake control of the airplane and thwart the taking of
additional American lives by crashing the airliner in
Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and, in doing so, gave their lives
to save countless others;
Whereas nearly 3,000 innocent civilians were killed in the
heinous attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas tens of thousands of individuals narrowly escaped
the attacks at the Pentagon and World Trade Center and, as
witnesses to this tragedy, are forever changed;
Whereas countless fire departments, police departments,
first responders, governmental officials, workers, emergency
medical personnel, and volunteers responded immediately and
heroically to those horrific events;
Whereas the Fire Department of New York suffered 343
fatalities on September 11, 2001, the largest loss of life of
any emergency response agency in United States history;
Whereas the Port Authority Police Department suffered 37
fatalities in the attacks, the largest loss of life of any
police force in United States history in a single day;
Whereas the New York Police Department suffered 23
fatalities as a result of the terrorist attacks;
Whereas the impact of that day on public health continues
through 2011, as nearly 90,000 people are at risk of or
suffering from negative health effects as a result of the
events of September 11, 2001, including 14,000 workers and
2,400 community residents who are sick, and tens of thousands
of others whose health is being monitored;
Whereas 10 years later, the people of the United States and
people around the world continue to mourn the tremendous loss
of innocent life on that fateful day;
Whereas 10 years later, thousands of men and women in the
United States Armed Forces remain in harm's way defending the
United States against those who seek to threaten the United
States;
Whereas on the 10th anniversary of this tragic day, the
thoughts of the people of the United States are with all of
the victims of the events of September 11, 2001 and their
families;
Whereas the lives of Americans were changed forever on
September 11, 2001, when events threatened the American way
of life;
Whereas in 2009, Congress and the President joined together
to designate September 11 as a National Day of Service and
Remembrance under the Serve America Act (Public Law 111-13;
123 Stat. 1460);
Whereas in September 2009 and 2010, President Obama issued
Proclamation 8413 (74 Fed. Reg. 47045) and Proclamation 8559
(75 Fed. Reg. 56463) proclaiming September 11, 2009, and
September 11, 2010, respectively, as Patriot Day and National
Day of Service and Remembrance; and
Whereas September 11 will never, and should never, be just
another day in the hearts and minds of all people of the
United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes September 11, 2011, as a day of solemn
commemoration of the events of September 11, 2001, and a day
to come together as a Nation;
(2) offers its deepest and most sincere condolences to the
families, friends, and loved ones of the innocent victims of
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks;
(3) honors the heroic service, actions, and sacrifices of
first responders, law enforcement personnel, State and local
officials, volunteers, and countless others who aided the
innocent victims of those attacks and, in doing so, bravely
risked and often gave their own lives;
(4) recognizes the valiant service, actions, and sacrifices
of United States personnel, including members of the United
States Armed Forces, the United States intelligence agencies,
the United States diplomatic service, homeland security and
law enforcement personnel, and their families, who have given
so much, including their lives and well-being, to support the
cause of freedom and defend the security of the United
States;
(5) reaffirms that the people of the United States will
never forget the challenges our country endured on and since
September 11, 2001, and will work tirelessly to defeat those
who attacked the United States; and
(6) on the 10th anniversary of this tragic day in United
States history--
(A) calls upon all of the people and institutions of the
United States to observe a moment of remembrance on September
11, 2011, including--
(i) media outlets;
(ii) houses of worship;
(iii) military organizations;
(iv) veterans organizations;
(v) airlines;
(vi) airports;
(vii) railroads;
(viii) sports teams;
(ix) the Federal Government;
(x) State and local governments;
(xi) police, fire, and other public institutions;
(xii) educational institutions;
(xiii) businesses; and
(xiv) other public and private institutions; and
(B) encourages the observance of the moment of remembrance
to last for 1 minute beginning at 1:00 PM Eastern Daylight
Time by, to the maximum extent practicable--
(i) ceasing all work or other activity; and
(ii) marking the moment in an appropriate manner, including
by ringing bells, blowing whistles, or sounding sirens.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 229--RECOGNIZING THE HEROIC EFFORTS OF FIREFIGHTERS
TO CONTAIN NUMEROUS WILDFIRES THAT HAVE AFFECTED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES
Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennet, Mr.
Begich, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Udall of New
Mexico, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs.
Feinstein) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and
agreed to:
S. Res. 229
Whereas every State in the United States has been affected
by wildfire in 2011;
Whereas firefighters and residents have had to contend with
extreme and erratic fire behavior and rapid rates of fire
spread;
Whereas, as of June 12, 2011, more than 32,189 wildfires
have burned more than 4,700,000 acres of land, which
represents more acres burned than in all of 2010 and
approximately 600,000 more acres than the 50-year average of
total acres burned in the United States in an entire year;
Whereas, as of June 12, 2011--
(1) the Southwestern States have reported more than 1,600
fires that have burned more than 1,700,000 acres;
(2) the Southern States have reported more than 27,000
fires that have burned more than 2,400,000 acres;
(3) the Northern and Central Rocky Mountain States have
reported 818 fires that have burned more than 250,000 acres;
(4) the State of California and Great Basin Region have
reported more than 7,200 fires that have burned more than
21,000 acres;
(5) the Northwestern States and Alaska have reported more
than 400 fires that have burned more than 260,000 acres; and
(6) the Eastern States have reported more than 3,500 fires
that have burned more than 41,000 acres;
Whereas, as of June 29, 2011, firefighters and personnel
from the Federal, State, and county levels have responded
overwhelmingly to battle wildfires throughout the United
States, filling more than 95,600 requests for firefighter
crew members; and
Whereas the brave men and women who answered the calls for
assistance have worked to minimize the displacement of
thousands of residents and to protect against loss of life
and property: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the heroic efforts of firefighters to
contain wildfires and protect lives, homes, natural
resources, and rural economies throughout the United States;
(2) encourages the people and government officials of the
United States to express their appreciation to the brave men
and women serving in the firefighting services throughout the
United States;
(3) encourages the people and communities of the United
States to be diligent in preventing and preparing for
wildfires; and
(4) encourages the people of the United States to keep in
their thoughts those who have experienced loss as a result of
wildfire.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 524. Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1323, to
express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in
resolving the budget deficit; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 525. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1323, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 526. Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Rubio) submitted an
amendment intended to
[[Page 10564]]
be proposed by him to the bill S. 1323, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 524. Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 1323, to express the sense of the
Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. _. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PROTECTING SMALL
BUSINESS FROM ADDITIONAL TAX BURDENS.
It is the sense of the Senate that small businesses, as
defined by the Small Business Administration, should be
exempt from any net tax increase that is proposed or included
in legislation that raises the statutory borrowing authority
of the United States.
______
SA 525. Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1323, to express the sense of the Senate on shared
sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE__--REDUCTION OF UNNECESSARY SPENDING
SECTION __1. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSES.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Reduce
Unnecessary Spending Act of 2011''.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to create an
optional fast-track procedure the President may use when
submitting rescission requests, which would lead to an up-or-
down vote by Congress on the President's package of
rescissions, without amendment.
SEC. __2. RESCISSIONS OF FUNDING.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking
part C and inserting the following:
``PART C--EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESCISSIONS
``SEC. 1021. APPLICABILITY AND DISCLAIMER.
``The rules, procedures, requirements, and definitions in
this part apply only to executive and legislative actions
explicitly taken under this part. They do not apply to
actions taken under part B or to other executive and
legislative actions not taken under this part.
``SEC. 1022. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) The terms `appropriations Act', `budget authority',
and `new budget authority' have the same meanings as in
section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
``(2) The terms `account', `current year', `CBO', and `OMB'
have the same meanings as in section 250 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as in effect
on September 30, 2002.
``(3) The term `days of session' shall be calculated by
excluding weekends and national holidays. Any day during
which a chamber of Congress is not in session shall not be
counted as a day of session of that chamber. Any day during
which neither chamber is in session shall not be counted as a
day of session of Congress.
``(4) The term `entitlement law' means the statutory
mandate or requirement of the United States to incur a
financial obligation unless that obligation is explicitly
conditioned on the appropriation in subsequent legislation of
sufficient funds for that purpose, and the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.
``(5) The term `funding' refers to new budget authority and
obligation limits except to the extent that the funding is
provided for entitlement law.
``(6) The term `rescind' means to eliminate or reduce the
amount of enacted funding.
``(7) The terms `withhold' and `withholding' apply to any
executive action or inaction that precludes the obligation of
funding at a time when it would otherwise have been available
to an agency for obligation. The terms do not include
administrative or preparatory actions undertaken prior to
obligation in the normal course of implementing budget laws.
``SEC. 1023. TIMING AND PACKAGING OF RESCISSION REQUESTS.
``(a) Timing.--If the President proposes that Congress
rescind funding under the procedures in this part, OMB shall
transmit a message to Congress containing the information
specified in section 1024, and the message transmitting the
proposal shall be sent to Congress not later than 45 calendar
days after the date of enactment of the funding.
``(b) Packaging and Transmittal of Requested Rescissions.--
Except as provided in subsection (c), for each piece of
legislation that provides funding, the President shall
request at most 1 package of rescissions and the rescissions
in that package shall apply only to funding contained in that
legislation. OMB shall deliver each message requesting a
package of rescissions to the Secretary of the Senate if the
Senate is not in session and to the Clerk of the House of
Representatives if the House is not in session. OMB shall
make a copy of the transmittal message publicly available,
and shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the
message and information on how it can be obtained.
``(c) Special Packaging Rules.--After enactment of--
``(1) a joint resolution making continuing appropriations;
``(2) a supplemental appropriations bill; or
``(3) an omnibus appropriations bill;
covering some or all of the activities customarily funded in
more than 1 regular appropriations bill, the President may
propose as many as 2 packages rescinding funding contained in
that legislation, each within the 45-day period specified in
subsection (a). OMB shall not include the same rescission in
both packages, and, if the President requests the rescission
of more than one discrete amount of funding under the
jurisdiction of a single subcommittee, OMB shall include each
of those discrete amounts in the same package.
``SEC. 1024. REQUESTS TO RESCIND FUNDING.
``For each request to rescind funding under this part, the
transmittal message shall--
``(1) specify--
``(A) the dollar amount to be rescinded;
``(B) the agency, bureau, and account from which the
rescission shall occur;
``(C) the program, project, or activity within the account
(if applicable) from which the rescission shall occur;
``(D) the amount of funding, if any, that would remain for
the account, program, project, or activity if the rescission
request is enacted; and
``(E) the reasons the President requests the rescission;
``(2) designate each separate rescission request by number;
and
``(3) include proposed legislative language to accomplish
the requested rescissions which may not include--
``(A) any changes in existing law, other than the
rescission of funding; or
``(B) any supplemental appropriations, transfers, or
reprogrammings.
``SEC. 1025. GRANTS OF AND LIMITATIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL
AUTHORITY.
``(a) Presidential Authority To Withhold Funding.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and if the
President proposes a rescission of funding under this part,
OMB may, subject to the time limits provided in subsection
(c), temporarily withhold that funding from obligation.
``(b) Expedited Procedures Available Only Once Per Bill.--
The President may not invoke the procedures of this part, or
the authority to withhold funding granted by subsection (a),
on more than 1 occasion for any Act providing funding.
``(c) Time Limits.--OMB shall make available for obligation
any funding withheld under subsection (a) on the earliest
of--
``(1) the day on which the President determines that the
continued withholding or reduction no longer advances the
purpose of legislative consideration of the rescission
request;
``(2) starting from the day on which OMB transmitted a
message to Congress requesting the rescission of funding, 25
calendar days in which the House of Representatives has been
in session or 25 calendar days in which the Senate has been
in session, whichever occurs second; or
``(3) the last day after which the obligation of the
funding in question can no longer be fully accomplished in a
prudent manner before its expiration.
``(d) Deficit Reduction.--
``(1) In general.--Funds that are rescinded under this part
shall be dedicated only to reducing the deficit or increasing
the surplus.
``(2) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent resolution on
the budget.--Not later than 5 days after the date of
enactment of an approval bill as provided under this part,
the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and
the House of Representatives shall revise allocations and
aggregates and other appropriate levels under the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect the repeal or
cancellation, and the applicable committees shall report
revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b), as
appropriate.
``SEC. 1026. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF RESCISSION
REQUESTS.
``(a) Preparation of Legislation To Consider a Package of
Expedited Rescission Requests.--
``(1) In general.--If the House of Representatives receives
a package of expedited rescission requests, the Clerk shall
prepare a House bill that only rescinds the amounts requested
which shall read as follows:
```There are enacted the rescissions numbered [insert
number or numbers] as set forth in the Presidential message
of [insert date] transmitted under part C of the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 as amended.'
``(2) Exclusion procedure.--The Clerk shall include in the
bill each numbered rescission request listed in the
Presidential package in question, except that the Clerk shall
omit a numbered rescission request if the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House, after consulting with
the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate,
CBO, GAO, and the House and Senate committees that have
jurisdiction over the funding, determines that the numbered
rescission does not refer to funding or includes matter not
permitted under a request to rescind funding.
[[Page 10565]]
``(b) Introduction and Referral of Legislation To Enact a
Package of Expedited Rescissions.--The majority leader or the
minority leader of the House or Representatives, or a
designee, shall (by request) introduce each bill prepared
under subsection (a) not later than 4 days of session of the
House after its transmittal, or, if no such bill is
introduced within that period, any member of the House may
introduce the required bill in the required form on the fifth
or sixth day of session of the House after its transmittal.
If such an expedited rescission bill is introduced in
accordance with the preceding sentence, it shall be referred
to the House committee of jurisdiction. A copy of the
introduced House bill shall be transmitted to the Secretary
of the Senate, who shall provide it to the Senate committee
of jurisdiction.
``(c) House Report and Consideration of Legislation To
Enact a Package of Expedited Rescissions.--The House
committee of jurisdiction shall report without amendment the
bill referred to it under subsection (b) not more than 5 days
of session of the House after the referral. The committee may
order the bill reported favorably, unfavorably, or without
recommendation. If the committee has not reported the bill by
the end of the 5-day period, the committee shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of the
bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
``(d) House Motion To Proceed.--
``(1) In general.--After a bill to enact an expedited
rescission package has been reported or the committee of
jurisdiction has been discharged under subsection (c), it
shall be in order to move to proceed to consider the bill in
the House. A Member who wishes to move to proceed to
consideration of the bill shall announce that fact, and the
motion to proceed shall be in order only during a time
designated by the Speaker within the legislative schedule for
the next calendar day of legislative session or the one
immediately following it.
``(2) Failure to set time.--If the Speaker does not
designate a time under paragraph (1), 3 or more calendar days
of legislative session after the bill has been reported or
discharged, it shall be in order for any Member to move to
proceed to consider the bill.
``(3) Procedure.--A motion to proceed under this subsection
shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a prior
motion to proceed with respect to that package of expedited
rescissions. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to proceed, without intervening motion.
A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion to
proceed has been disposed of shall not be in order.
``(4) Removal from calendar.--If 5 calendar days of
legislative session have passed since the bill was reported
or discharged under this subsection and no Member has made a
motion to proceed, the bill shall be removed from the
calendar.
``(e) House Consideration.--
``(1) Considered as read.--A bill consisting of a package
of rescissions under this part shall be considered as read.
``(2) Points of order.--All points of order against the
bill are waived, except that a point of order may be made
that 1 or more numbered rescissions included in the bill
would enact language containing matter not requested by the
President or not permitted under this part as part of that
package. If the Presiding Officer sustains such a point of
order, the numbered rescission or rescissions that would
enact such language are deemed to be automatically stripped
from the bill and consideration proceeds on the bill as
modified.
``(3) Previous question.--The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to its passage without
intervening motion, except that 4 hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent are
allowed, as well as 1 motion to further limit debate on the
bill.
``(4) Motion to reconsider.--A motion to reconsider the
vote on passage of the bill shall not be in order.
``(f) Senate Consideration.--
``(1) Referral.--If the House of Representatives approves a
House bill enacting a package of rescissions, that bill as
passed by the House shall be sent to the Senate and referred
to the Senate committee of jurisdiction.
``(2) Committee action.--The committee of jurisdiction
shall report without amendment the bill referred to it under
this subsection not later than 3 days of session of the
Senate after the referral. The committee may order the bill
reported favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation.
``(3) Discharge.--If the committee has not reported the
bill by the end of the 3-day period, the committee shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of the
bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
``(4) Motion to proceed.--On the following day and for 3
subsequent calendar days in which the Senate is in session,
it shall be in order for any Senator to move to proceed to
consider the bill in the Senate. Upon such a motion being
made, it shall be deemed to have been agreed to and the
motion to reconsider shall be deemed to have been laid on the
table.
``(5) Debate.--Debate on the bill in the Senate under this
subsection, and all debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith, shall not exceed 10 hours, equally
divided and controlled in the usual form. Debate in the
Senate on any debatable motion or appeal in connection with
such a bill shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be
equally divided and controlled in the usual form. A motion to
further limit debate on such a bill is not debatable.
``(6) Motions not in order.--A motion to amend such a bill
or strike a provision from it is not in order. A motion to
recommit such a bill is not in order.
``(g) Senate Point of Order.--It shall not be in order
under this part for the Senate to consider a bill approved by
the House enacting a package of rescissions under this part
if any numbered rescission in the bill would enact matter not
requested by the President or not permitted under this Act as
part of that package. If a point of order under this
subsection is sustained, the bill may not be considered under
this part.''.
SEC. __3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Table of Contents.--Section 1(b) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by
striking the matter for part C of title X and inserting the
following:
``PART C--Expedited Consideration of Proposed Rescissions
``Sec. 1021. Applicability and disclaimer.
``Sec. 1022. Definitions.
``Sec. 1023. Timing and packaging of rescission requests.
``Sec. 1024. Requests to rescind funding.
``Sec. 1025. Grants of and limitations on presidential authority.
``Sec. 1026. Congressional consideration of rescission requests.''.
(b) Temporary Withholding.--Section 1013(c) of the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking
``section 1012'' and inserting ``section 1012 or section
1025''.
(c) Rulemaking.--
(1) 904(a).--Section 904(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is amended by striking ``and 1017'' and inserting
``1017, and 1026''.
(2) 904(d)(1).--Section 904(d)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``1017'' and
inserting ``1017 or 1026''.
SEC. __4. AMENDMENTS TO PART A OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL
ACT.
(a) In General.--Part A of the Impoundment Control Act of
1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``SEC. 1002. SEVERABILITY.
``If the judicial branch of the United States finally
determines that 1 or more of the provisions of parts B or C
violate the Constitution of the United States, the remaining
provisions of those parts shall continue in effect.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--Section 1(b) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by
inserting at the end of the matter for part A of title X the
following:
``Sec. 1002. Severability.''.
SEC. __5. EXPIRATION.
Part C of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended
by this Act) shall expire on December 31, 2015.
______
SA 526. Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Rubio) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1323, to express the
sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget
deficit; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE II--DEBT BUY-DOWN
SECTION 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Debt Buy-Down Act''.
SEC. 202. DESIGNATION OF AMOUNTS FOR REDUCTION OF PUBLIC
DEBT.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to returns and records) is
amended by adding at the end the following new part:
``PART IX--DESIGNATION FOR REDUCTION OF PUBLIC DEBT
``Sec. 6097. Designation.
``SEC. 6097. DESIGNATION.
``(a) In General.--Every individual with adjusted income
tax liability for any taxable year may designate that a
portion of such liability (not to exceed 10 percent thereof)
shall be used to reduce the public debt.
``(b) Manner and Time of Designation.--A designation under
subsection (a) may be made with respect to any taxable year
only at the time of filing the return of tax imposed by
chapter 1 for the taxable year. The designation shall be made
on the first page of the return or on the page bearing the
taxpayer's signature.
``(c) Adjusted Income Tax Liability.--For purposes of this
section, the adjusted income tax liability of an individual
for any taxable year is the income tax liability of the
individual for the taxable year determined under section
6096(b), reduced by any amount designated under section
6096(a).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of parts for such
subchapter A is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
[[Page 10566]]
``Part IX. Designation for Reduction of Public Debt''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 203. PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to trust fund code) is amended
by adding at the end the following section:
``SEC. 9511. PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION TRUST FUND.
``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`Public Debt Reduction Trust Fund', consisting of any amount
appropriated or credited to the Trust Fund as provided in
this section or section 9602(b).
``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Public Debt Reduction Trust Fund amounts
equivalent to the amounts designated under section 6097
(relating to designation for public debt reduction).
``(c) Expenditures.--Amounts in the Public Debt Reduction
Trust Fund shall be used by the Secretary for purposes of
paying at maturity, or to redeem or buy before maturity, any
obligation of the Federal Government included in the public
debt (other than an obligation held by the Federal Old-Age
and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund or the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund). Any obligation which is
paid, redeemed, or bought with amounts from the Public Debt
Reduction Trust Fund shall be canceled and retired and may
not be reissued.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Sec. 9511. Public Debt Reduction Trust Fund.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts received after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. TAXPAYER-GENERATED SEQUESTRATION OF FEDERAL
SPENDING TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT.
(a) Sequestration To Reduce the Public Debt.--Part C of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is
amended by inserting after section 253 the following new
section:
``SEC. 253A. SEQUESTRATION TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT.
``(a) Sequestration.--Notwithstanding sections 255 and 256,
within 15 days after Congress adjourns to end a session, and
on the same day as sequestration (if any) under sections 251,
252, and 253, and under section 5(b) of the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2010, but after any sequestration required by
those sections, there shall be a sequestration equivalent to
the estimated aggregate amount designated under section 6097
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the last taxable
year ending one year before the beginning of that session of
Congress, as estimated by the Department of the Treasury on
October 1 and as modified by the total of--
``(1) any amounts by which net discretionary spending is
reduced by legislation below the discretionary spending
limits enacted after the enactment of this section related to
the fiscal year subject to the sequestration (or, in the
absence of such limits, any net deficit change from the
baseline amount calculated under section 257; and
``(2) the net deficit change that has resulted from all
direct spending legislation enacted after the enactment of
this section related to the fiscal year subject to the
sequestration, as estimated by OMB.
If the reduction in spending under paragraphs (1) and (2) for
a fiscal year is greater than the estimated aggregate amount
designated under section 6097 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 respecting that fiscal year, then there shall be no
sequestration under this section.
``(b) Applicability.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2),
each account of the United States shall be reduced by a
dollar amount calculated by multiplying the level of
budgetary resources in that account at that time by the
uniform percentage necessary to carry out subsection (a). All
obligational authority reduced under this section shall be
done in a manner that makes such reductions permanent.
``(2) Exempt accounts.--No order issued under this part
may--
``(A) reduce benefits payable to the old-age and survivors
insurance program established under title II of the Social
Security Act;
``(B) reduce retired or retainer pay payable to a member or
former member of the uniformed services; or
``(C) reduce payments for net interest (all of major
functional category 900).''.
(b) Reports.--Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end of the table
the following new item:
Department of Treasury report to Congress estimating amount of income .
tax designated pursuant to section 6097 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.'';
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, and
sequestration to reduce the public debt,'' after
``sequestration'';
(3) in subsection (c), by redesignating paragraph (5) as
paragraph (6) and by inserting after paragraph (4) the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Reports on sequestration to reduce the public debt.--
The preview reports shall set forth for the budget year
estimates for each of the following:
``(A) The aggregate amount designated under section 6097 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the last taxable year
ending before the budget year.
``(B) The amount of reductions required under section 253A
and the deficit remaining after those reductions have been
made.
``(C) The sequestration percentage necessary to achieve the
required reduction in accounts under section 253A(b).''; and
(4) in subsection (f), by redesignating paragraphs (4) and
(5) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively, and by inserting
after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
``(4) Reports on sequestration to reduce the public debt.--
The final reports shall contain all of the information
contained in the public debt taxation designation report
required on October 1.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section
250(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 is amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 253 the following new item:
``Sec. 253A. Sequestration to reduce the public debt.''.
(d) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 275(b) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
the expiration date set forth in that section shall not apply
to the amendments made by this section. The amendments made
by this section shall cease to have any effect after the
first fiscal year during which there is no public debt.
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on
Thursday, July 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled
``Lessons From the Field: Learning From What Works for Employment for
Persons with Disabilities.''
For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Andrew
Imparato at (202) 228-3453.
____________________
RECOGNIZING HEROIC EFFORTS OF FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consideration
of S. Res. 229.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 229) recognizing the heroic efforts
of firefighters to contain numerous wildfires that have
affected thousands of people throughout the United States.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be
laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate on this matter,
and any statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 229) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 229
Whereas every State in the United States has been affected
by wildfire in 2011;
Whereas firefighters and residents have had to contend with
extreme and erratic fire behavior and rapid rates of fire
spread;
Whereas, as of June 12, 2011, more than 32,189 wildfires
have burned more than 4,700,000 acres of land, which
represents more acres burned than in all of 2010 and
approximately 600,000 more acres than the 50-year average of
total acres burned in the United States in an entire year;
Whereas, as of June 12, 2011--
(1) the Southwestern States have reported more than 1,600
fires that have burned more than 1,700,000 acres;
(2) the Southern States have reported more than 27,000
fires that have burned more than 2,400,000 acres;
(3) the Northern and Central Rocky Mountain States have
reported 818 fires that have burned more than 250,000 acres;
[[Page 10567]]
(4) the State of California and Great Basin Region have
reported more than 7,200 fires that have burned more than
21,000 acres;
(5) the Northwestern States and Alaska have reported more
than 400 fires that have burned more than 260,000 acres; and
(6) the Eastern States have reported more than 3,500 fires
that have burned more than 41,000 acres;
Whereas, as of June 29, 2011, firefighters and personnel
from the Federal, State, and county levels have responded
overwhelmingly to battle wildfires throughout the United
States, filling more than 95,600 requests for firefighter
crew members; and
Whereas the brave men and women who answered the calls for
assistance have worked to minimize the displacement of
thousands of residents and to protect against loss of life
and property: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the heroic efforts of firefighters to
contain wildfires and protect lives, homes, natural
resources, and rural economies throughout the United States;
(2) encourages the people and government officials of the
United States to express their appreciation to the brave men
and women serving in the firefighting services throughout the
United States;
(3) encourages the people and communities of the United
States to be diligent in preventing and preparing for
wildfires; and
(4) encourages the people of the United States to keep in
their thoughts those who have experienced loss as a result of
wildfire.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 1340
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told there is a bill at the desk due
for a first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the
first time.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1340) to cut, cap, and balance the Federal
budget.
Mr. REID. I now ask for a second reading in order to place the bill
on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, and I also object to
my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection having been heard, the bill will
receive its second reading on the next legislative day.
____________________
ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JULY 11, 2011
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, July
11, 2011; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of
proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired,
and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the
day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 93, S. 1323, a bill to express the sense of the
Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit postcloture,
under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there will be a rollcall vote on Monday at
approximately 5:30 p.m. on the motion to proceed to S. 1323.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, JULY 11, 2011, AT 2 P.M.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned
under the previous order.
There being objection, the Senate, at 5:51 p.m., adjourned until
Monday, July 11, 2011, at 2 p.m.
[[Page 10568]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, July 7, 2011
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Webster).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
July 7, 2011.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Daniel Webster to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 5, 2011, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 1 hour and each Member other than the majority and
minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes each, but
in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
____________________
SYRIA'S BLOODY SPRING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, there are moments in the lives of nations
when the existing order is suddenly revealed as bereft of legitimacy
and no longer viable. The wave of unrest spreading across the Arab
world, touched off by the self-immolation of a Tunisian fruit vendor
tired of petty humiliation by corrupt governments, has exposed the rot
of decades of caprice, corruption, and incompetence. That this one
man's desperate act could lead to the downfall of the governments of
Tunisia, Egypt, and perhaps Yemen is testament to the pent up
frustration of millions of people who were denied the basic rights and
economic opportunity that we take for granted here in the West.
But it is in Syria, where the future of the Arab Spring seemingly
hangs in the balance and where the security services have acted with
the least restraint and maximum violence. Like marauding armies of old,
select units of military and security services troops have been moving
from city to city in a quest to quash the ever-spreading demonstrations
that have become a feature of life in Syria.
Deraa, a town of some 75,000 lying near the border with Jordan, has
emerged as one of the centers of the Syrian uprising against the 40
years of rule by the Assad family. Army and security forces have
repeatedly assaulted the town and surrounding villages, killing
hundreds of civilians and arresting anyone suspected of taking part in
demonstrations against the regime. On April 29 in the village of Jiza,
the Syrian secret police rounded up anybody it thought was involved
with the protests, including Hamza Ali al-Khateeb, who had gone to
watch the demonstration with other members of his family.
For a month, Hamza's family waited for him to return, worried but
hopeful that he would be released unharmed. It was not to be. On May
30, Hamza's mutilated body was returned to them. He had been tortured,
subjected to repeated electric shocks, and whipped with cables. His
eyes were swollen and black, and there were identical bullet wounds
where he had been apparently shot through both arms, the bullets
lodging in his belly. On Hamza's chest was a deep, dark burn mark. His
neck was broken, and parts of his body were cut off. Hamza Ali al-
Khateeb was 13 years old. Video of the boy's shattered body has been
seen by millions on television and the Internet.
Hamza, like the Tunisian fruit vendor who set himself alight, has
become a symbol to his countrymen and the world of the depravity and
illegitimacy of a regime that would torture its own children to death.
Our ability to bring additional economic pressure on Syria is
limited. Its economy is already under immense strain. It is small,
weak, and isolated. Political pressure, in the form of a U.N. security
resolution condemning the violence and crackdown, has been blocked by
Russia and China. And there is dread over what will happen when Assad
falls, given the internal divisions between Sunni and Shia, Muslim and
Alawi, Christian and Druze. The confessional and sectarian splits are
as pronounced as in Lebanon, the potential for large scale violence as
great as Iraq.
The dangers are real, but the promise of what began in Tunisia and is
now materializing in Egypt and elsewhere is also real. People of
courage can determine their own destiny, and it need not be one of
hereditary dictatorship, kleptocracy, or lack of opportunity and
stagnation. In the Arab world, as elsewhere, people should be free to
choose their own government to represent them and to chart peace with
their neighbors.
To conclude otherwise means that we relegate tens of millions of
people to suffer the capricious ruthlessness of their despots for
generation after generation, or that we are willing to trade the
illusion of stability for the harsh reality of their suffering. That is
not the choice we made for ourselves 235 years ago, and it is not one
that we should presume to make for others.
Bashar Assad is a ruthless tyrant whose time has passed and who
clings to power only by virtue of brutal force. Our role and that of
the international community should be to work with Syrian opposition
figures and others to advance a negotiated transition to a new Syrian
Government that will represent all Syrians and prevent the trading in
of one set of thugs for another. The Arab Spring cannot be allowed to
fail because of brutal repression, the specter of religious fanaticism,
a fear of the unknown, or the cynicism born of unmet expectations. The
region's many millions must have the freedom to write a new chapter for
themselves and their posterity.
In this, the younger Assad has taken a page from his father, who
unleashed his troops in 1982 to suppress a revolt by the Muslim
Brotherhood in the city of Hama, an offensive that may have cost as
many as 20,000 civilian lives. Indeed, history may be repeating itself
as Hama has become a focus of both anti-government activity on the one
hand, and the use of extreme violence by the Assad government on the
other.
For American policymakers, Syria presents a collection of overlapping
and sometimes contradictory challenges. Like his father, President
Assad has repeatedly tantalized the United States and the west with the
possibility of a new opening, but he has never followed through.
Syria's illegal and clandestine nuclear program, its alliance with Iran
and its meddling in Lebanon, a policy that culminated in the 2005
murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, form a compelling case
that the Syrian people and the world would be better off with a new
leader in Damascus.
____________________
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION UNDER ATTACK
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe) for 5 minutes.
[[Page 10569]]
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech, the free exercise
of religion, two of our most important, fundamental principles that
this Nation was founded upon, have recently become under attack by none
other than this Federal Government. The authoritarian behavior and
attack on the First Amendment rights is an attack now on the veterans
that have served our Nation.
Last week, while in Houston, Texas, I met with members of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars. They shared with me very descriptive and
disturbing stories about the aggressive and hostile censorship of
religion and speech that is occurring at none other than the veterans
cemetery in Houston, the second largest cemetery for our veterans in
the United States, next to Arlington, which is right down the street
across from the Potomac River.
The director of the Houston National Cemetery, Arleen Ocasio, is
accused of attacking the constitutional rights of our military who have
fought and died for this country. The very rights that they fought and
died for are being under attack by none other than this director. The
thought that someone would have the audacity to censor religion and
speech anywhere is despicable, but censoring the funeral services of
the veterans who spent their lives protecting the First Amendment is
malicious and it's not forgivable.
Director Ocasio is an unelected bureaucrat, a nonveteran who is
clearly out of touch with our veterans and the Constitution. And it's
unbelievable that she would be put in charge of the sacred burial
ground in Houston, Texas.
Here's what the accusations against her are, according to the
Veterans of Foreign Wars who I met with. And these are the men who go
to those funeral services and are the honor guard for America's war
dead that are buried. And here's what they say that she has done. The
chapel that is on the premises has been closed. The Bible has been
removed. The cross has been taken out of the chapel. We don't know what
the chapel's being used for. Some say a storage place. Some say a
meeting place. Some say it's not being used at all. This is what she is
accused of doing.
She censors the prayers that are being given at the burial services
of our veterans. She's banned the word ``God,'' the words ``Jesus
Christ'' from these funeral services. And it is the very utterance of
the word ``God'' that's put this director in a tizzy, so much so that
she wants to approve all the prayers that are given at these private
veterans funerals that take place on these sacred grounds.
There are 60 burials a week of our veterans at Houston National
Cemetery. And this action has got to cease, this unconstitutional
action by the director. It's not the business of the Federal Government
to be engaged in anti-religious activity, especially at what some
consider to be a religious ceremony, the burial of our veterans. The
philosophy behind such politics is anti-Christian, anti-religious, and
anti-American.
Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment is first because it's the most
important. It protects the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the
freedom of free exercise of religion, and the freedom to peaceably
assemble. And that is under attack at this cemetery because the
director wants to be in charge and make sure that none of these burials
are a religious ceremony. And that's got to stop.
This cemetery, Mr. Speaker, does not belong to Director Ocasio. In
fact, I don't think it belongs to the Federal Government. It belongs to
the veterans who have served this Nation all over the world in all
wars. It belongs to them, and it belongs to their families who bury
them. And religious censorship has got to cease at this cemetery.
Americans are irate about this government attack on religion. I have
heard from numerous veterans and loved ones all over the country who
are shocked that this government, our government, would allow such a
thing to occur.
{time} 1010
One man in particular stood out who called my office and he was in
tears, Mr. Speaker, because his father, a World War II veteran, was
days away from being buried in Houston National Cemetery. And his
father had heard about the censorship of religion and speech, and he
doesn't want to be buried in that cemetery with other veterans any
longer.
So no wonder that so many people are shocked by the actions of this
director. After all, it reminds me of the old Soviet Union, the way
they used to censor speech and prevent the free exercise of religion.
The First Amendment is sacred. Funerals are sacred; and when our
veterans are buried, that soil becomes sacred. And this action has to
stop, and if these actions are true, the director needs to be
terminated.
The government's attack on the very freedoms that these people have
lived and died for is a violation of the freedom of speech and the
freedom to freely exercise religion promised to all Americans in the
Constitution, and that must be upheld.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS IN PUERTO RICO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) for 5 minutes.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union, the
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National
Institute for Latino Policy published this full-page ad in Roll Call,
one of the key newspapers here on Capitol Hill.
These respected civil rights and policy organizations have
investigated and denounced the civil and human rights crisis in Puerto
Rico. They bought a full-page ad to alert Congress about the ``serious
concerns about civil and human rights abuses against the citizens of
Puerto Rico by their government, including the infringement on the
rights of free speech, peaceful assembly and freedom from police
violence and abuse.''
And they make an essential point: If these abuses were happening
anywhere in the 50 States, they would not be tolerated. These abuses
would be on the front page of every newspaper, as they are in Puerto
Rico.
It's time for this Congress to start paying attention. Students and
working people, journalists and environmentalists in Puerto Rico are
paying attention because the freedoms we take for granted in America
are being denied to them each day.
I would like today to remind you what has happened. On this floor I
have condemned the use of heavily armed riot squads against peaceful
student and labor protesters at the University of Puerto Rico and in
the streets of San Juan. I have denounced the beatings of students by
police armed with night sticks, the use of pepper spray on protesters
and even journalists, the groping of female students.
I have stood up to defend the Puerto Rican Bar Association, a clear
voice for justice that has been attacked by the ruling party and their
legislature and their allies on the Federal bench.
I have spoken on the House floor and leaders have spoken on the
island about the environmental emergency the ruling party has brought
on to Puerto Rico. The government declared an energy emergency to avoid
routine fact-finding and licensing procedures so that it could build a
100-mile long, $500 million gas pipeline on a tropical island that is
designed more to help wealthy insiders than the people of Puerto Rico.
While actions in Wisconsin and Ohio and other States that threaten
workers' rights are discussed routinely in the U.S., the fact that the
Governor of Puerto Rico has fired tens of thousands of public employees
and canceled labor agreements, all contrary to contract promises, is
largely unknown.
But Tea Partyers don't rejoice: he has also doubled the property
taxes on everyone.
Even the courts are under attack on the island. This Governor has
packed the Puerto Rican Supreme Court with activists of the ruling
party. He created two new positions on the supreme court in order to
add two new judges to
[[Page 10570]]
a court that already had a majority of the ruling party. He did this,
of course, despite the fact of having denounced Hugo Chavez when he
believed he was doing the same thing in Venezuela.
Just 2 weeks ago, the ruling party yet again changed the law so they
could fire the island's ombudswoman for the elderly, who had years left
on her 10-year appointment, because of her independence and vocal
disagreement with the ruling party.
And because I have spoken out against the ruling party of Puerto
Rico, I have earned a resolution of censure from the ruling party's
legislature. I have earned a full-page ad in Roll Call condemning me
for using my right to speech.
Only the ruling party of Puerto Rico would respond to complaints
about free speech and civil rights abuses by officially passing a
resolution condemning someone for speaking. Should any of my colleagues
not believe this absurdity, you just need to come to my office where I
display proudly these documents. I invite you to come and see them.
I ask my colleagues today: please pay attention to what is happening
in Puerto Rico. If it were happening in Illinois, New York, Texas or
Wyoming, or any of the States of our Union, this Congress would have
great concerns.
One meaningful first step would be to join me in urging the
Department of Justice to complete the investigation that they have
initiated and to police abuses in Puerto Rico that started in 2008 and
promptly release the results. I would also ask my colleagues and their
staffs to attend the congressional briefing organized by the ACLU next
Tuesday, July 12, at 10 a.m.
And, finally, I ask my friends and colleagues to do what we do
whenever we see regimes that refuse to treat people fairly: please
speak out for the values that define us as Americans. Please join me in
standing for liberty and justice for all.
____________________
THE VOTE TO INCREASE DEBT LIMIT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns) for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today the United States Government owes
close to $14.3 trillion. It's estimated by the Congressional Budget
Office that by the year 2021, the government will spend 100 percent of
every dollar raised in revenue on entitlements. And yet we are being
asked to raise the debt limit to $16.3 trillion. That's a $2 trillion
increase, or 14 percent increase. In 2010, our national GDP was $14.6
trillion. Raising the debt to $16.3 trillion means our debt ceiling
will surpass our country's GDP.
And yet for the 81st time since 1940, we are being asked again to
raise the debt ceiling. In 2002, our debt stood at $6.2 trillion. Now,
not even 10 years later, we are asked to raise it to $16.2 trillion.
That's a 250 percent increase, or an average of 16.7 percent increase
per year. Obviously, continuing on this path next year, it is likely we
will be asked in this Chamber to raise the debt ceiling to $19
trillion. That's staggering.
In keeping with this 70-year tradition, we are certain to force our
Nation's spiraling and out-of-control debt onto the backs of our
country's children and grandchildren. Raising the debt ceiling today
without reform will merely lead to a new call, a new call to raise the
debt again tomorrow.
Is the United States disciplined enough to solve this debt problem
through austerity and productivity? I think it is. Yet I believe we
can, but only if we break this tradition of continued spending.
Now recently a constituent of mine wrote a simple letter to the
editor of my hometown paper and this what is he said: ``If you and your
wife haven't made a budget for the last 2 years, and now you have
maxed-out the $14,300 credit limit on your Visa card, do you: A, expect
Visa to raise your limit to $16,700; B, print counterfeit money to
cover your debts; C, borrow more money; or, D, sell the Cadillac.''
Responsible Americans would sell the Cadillac. It's time for the
Federal Government to do the same thing: reduce spending or sell
unneeded assets.
We must begin to closely scrutinize our bills and eliminate wasteful
and fraudulent programs, sunset some of them. As we negotiate the
upcoming vote on the debt ceiling, we should ensure that any cut in
spending exceeds any increase in the debt limit. Selling the Cadillac
is meaningless when you continue to max out on your credit card. The
point here is to make a difference in our debt, not to merely provide a
vehicle to continue Washington's spending addiction.
Moreover, any future spending must be restricted. We cannot sell the
Cadillac this year only to buy a Mercedes Benz next year. Again, we
must begin to live within our means.
I know that leadership is working tirelessly to ensure that a
compromise can be reached and the Republicans' demands can be met, and
it appears we are making progress.
{time} 1020
But, the President has in one breath asked both parties to leave
their rhetoric at the door, but then in the same next breath he accused
Republicans of refusing to cut tax loopholes for the rich in order to
curb the debt problem. But that alone won't do it. Beyond being
contradictory and self-serving, these accusations demonstrate that
Democrats continue to misunderstand the real problem. CBO has nailed
it. They recently revealed that it is runaway spending, not a lack of
revenue, that is driving our debt today. According to CBO's long-term
budget forecast, even with a tax increase that raises revenues from its
historic 18 percent of GDP to 23 percent of GDP, the national debt will
continue to grow unless we have the spending reductions.
Everyone here in Congress understands how important this vote is, but
surely after the CBO analysis, we must confront the fact that spending
is growing relentlessly and needs to be placed under control.
Therefore, to move the debt ceiling up another $2 trillion, we need to
see corresponding spending reductions regardless--regardless--without
tax increases. Now is the time to do it. It can be done. And it must be
done today.
____________________
WHAT DOES $10 BILLION A MONTH BUY?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, since 2005, I have spoken from this very
spot 399 times. On nearly every occasion that House rules allow, I have
stood to deliver a 5-minute special order speech highlighting the moral
outrage of the United States' continued military engagements in Iraq,
Afghanistan and now Libya. I speak of the need also for a new Smart
Security to keep America safe.
Today will be my 399th speech. I look forward to reaching number 400
next week, and I will continue this drumbeat until my last day as a
Member of Congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1\1/2\
years, time to bring our troops safely home.
During this week, the week that the House is debating defense
appropriations, I thought it would be fitting to focus on war spending,
on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being asked to bear for our
military occupations.
Ten billion dollars a month is a lot of money. That's the price tag
for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against
Afghanistan: $10 billion a month. The American people who are writing
that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very
important questions: Where is that money going, and what exactly is it
accomplishing? What are we getting for our $10 billion a month? Are we
more secure here at home? Is the Afghanistan central government
introducing the rule of law? Have we not already defeated al Qaeda? And
so who are we fighting and why?
For $10 billion a month, Mr. Speaker, our expectations as taxpayers,
as Americans, and as Members of Congress, should be high. Is it too
much to think that $10 billion a month could
[[Page 10571]]
buy a stable ally, an ally capable of standing on its own two feet,
taking responsibility for its own security, and having respect for the
rule of law? Instead, corruption and chaos are ruling the day in Kabul.
Basic government institutions are failing to provide services.
President Karzai has tried to establish a special court, in fact, for
the purpose of stripping 62 members of Parliament of their seats. The
financial system is teetering on the brink of collapse with the head of
the central bank fleeing the country and accusing Karzai's regime of
fraud and cronyism.
And just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, a brawl broke out on the floor
of the Afghan Parliament with one member throwing a shoe at another
member when a motion was proposed to impeach President Karzai. For $10
billion a month, is it not too much to ask that the Afghan Parliament
not look like an episode of the ``Jerry Springer Show''?
There is so much we could do with $10 billion a month right here at
home, especially at a moment when so many of our people are struggling
and so many of our communities so badly need public investment,
especially at a moment when the clock is ticking toward a catastrophic
default on the national debt. I'm not suggesting that we ignore or that
we run away from Afghanistan's deep-seated problems, but I believe we
cannot begin to address their needs with a military solution. It will
never work. It is time to reinvest at pennies on the dollar in Smart
Security efforts, humanitarian and civilian aid, aid that will promote
democracy, and economic support to address poverty and to rebuild
infrastructure in Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, this is a moment and this is a time where we put our
priorities in order, but it's not a job for our troops. They have
served with unbelievable valor. Now it's time to bring them safely home
and invest in a humanitarian way in Afghanistan.
____________________
DEBT CEILING SOLUTIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Olson) for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a very important decision to
make very soon on whether or not to increase the national debt ceiling.
Today, our national debt limit is a staggering $14.3 trillion, and the
President is seeking a $2.2 trillion increase in our debt limit. An
increase to our Nation's debt ceiling that is not accompanied by equal
or larger spending reductions would be reckless and arrogant.
Speaker Boehner was right when he said, ``It's true that allowing
America to default would be irresponsible, but it would be more
irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without simultaneously taking
dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process.''
This debate is a unique opportunity to achieve significant and
serious spending reforms in Washington and to prove to the American
people that their employees, the Members of the United States Congress,
are listening to them.
I believe this is our best chance for the foreseeable future to
obtain substantial and credible long-term deficit reductions, to reform
the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars, and save America from ruin.
Elections matter. Last fall changed the debate here in Washington. We
may not be cutting spending as fast as some of us prefer, and quite
frankly, I have been frustrated by the pace. But the discussion has
shifted to how much should we cut, not how much should we spend. This
distinction is critical to getting our Nation's fiscal house in order
and one that has been driven by conservatives in the House.
House Republicans have developed a three-fold ``cut, cap and
balance'' strategy that includes deep spending cuts, enforceable
spending caps and a balanced budget amendment with strong protections
against Federal tax increases. These proposals will ensure that the
Federal Government adheres to the same parameters that families and
businesses live with every single day.
The time for irresponsible Federal spending is over. With each
passing day, our Nation's fiscal problems only compound, leaving our
children and grandchildren with a larger legacy of debt. My colleagues
on the other side have advocated an increase to our debt with no
strings attached. They continue to stand for business as usual right
here in Washington, DC. But we cannot ignore the problem, nor can we
simply tax our way out of this mess.
Furthermore, in the event we fully reach the debt ceiling, we cannot
trust the White House to prioritize our debt payments, nor can we trust
the administration not to default on our obligations. The American
people must remember that if we default on our debt, the executive
branch would have full control over what programs get cut, not
Congress.
{time} 1030
Mr. Speaker, the only resolution to this problem is to secure
trillions in spending cuts and put our Nation on a solid fiscal path to
financial sanity, and ensure a strong and prosperous future for our
children and our grandchildren.
____________________
IMPROVING FEDERAL GRANT SOLICITATION PROCESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, each year, 26 Federal agencies award over
half a trillion dollars in grant funding. Earlier this year, Congress
significantly changed the manner in which the Federal Government
allocates funding. In the past, State and local governments and
nonprofit organizations spent a great deal of time trying to persuade
individuals Members of Congress to earmark funds to support local
projects.
While debate will no doubt continue on the value of congressionally
directed spending, the reality is that, at least for the time being,
the days of earmarks are over. With a ban on earmarks, a greater
emphasis will now be placed on competitive grants, whereby applicants
from across the Nation compete for funding made available for different
purposes.
In theory, a larger role for competitive grants in the Federal
appropriations process holds promise. Under a well-administered grant
competition, an application is judged on its merits. In practice,
however, an increased emphasis on competitive grants will only improve
the overall process if the Federal Government announces and publicizes
grant opportunities in a clear and organized manner. Grant seeking will
not be a true meritocracy if the process of identifying, applying for,
and obtaining Federal grants is clouded in mystery and confusion and
understood only by paid experts.
In 1999, Congress created a Web site, grants.gov, which allows
applicants to search and apply for grants online. But much more needs
to be done to make the grant solicitation process as transparent and
user friendly as possible.
Many of my constituents have expressed frustration with the manner in
which the Federal Government makes grant opportunities known. Often, a
potential grantee will seek to apply for needed funding only to learn
that the deadline for the most relevant grant passed days or weeks
earlier. In other instances, prospective applicants will search
grants.gov, but become frustrated upon finding that they need to scroll
through pages and pages of grant listings, some of which are outdated
or have not been funded by Congress.
To address these problems, I recently introduced H.R. 2393. This
bipartisan legislation would make two important changes to the Federal
grant solicitation process. First, my bill would require each Federal
agency, within 2 months of the start of any fiscal year, to submit a
forecast of all grants solicitations that the agency expects to issue
for that year. Such a forecast would allow prospective applicants to
determine in advance which grant opportunities they wish to apply for.
The second improvement my bill would make is to require each grant
solicitation forecast or listing to be organized by detailed subject
area.
[[Page 10572]]
Grants.gov currently organizes grant opportunities by agency and by
very broad areas such as energy or housing. As a result, when an
applicant seeks to search for health-related grants, for example, he or
she must scroll through 30 pages of grant listings. My bill would
require grants.gov, as well as all other Federal agencies, to organize
grant opportunities by specific subject areas so that the applicants
can more easily identify those grants that are most likely to address
their needs.
Now, let me turn to Puerto Rico, which I represent in this Congress.
And it pains me that some statements were made earlier on this floor
regarding my beautiful island and its government. Puerto Rico shines
because of its democracy. Every 4 years we have free elections, and our
voters go out and express their will at the rate of 80 percent, which
is something that we are very proud of.
We do have a police department in Puerto Rico, actually the second-
largest in the Nation, and there is an ongoing civil rights
investigation by the Department of Justice. But I am sure, and I can
vouch, that the police department of Puerto Rico is doing everything it
can so that any civil rights violations are corrected and are not
repeated.
Again, I wish when we talk about Puerto Rico in this Congress, we
talk about all of the positive things that are happening in that
island, including our people's love of their American citizenship and
their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
____________________
TOUGH DECISIONS TO SOLVE FISCAL PROBLEMS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger) for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let's think about something
very quickly. What is the most basic job that we can do--in the House
of Representatives or in the Senate of the United States--in
government?
One of the most basic jobs we do is to pass a budget; to figure out
where we are going to spend money and how we are going to spend money.
Yet it has been 799 days today since the other Chamber has passed a
budget out of the Senate. Since that day, we have added $3.2 trillion
in debt to our country and we have spent $7.3 trillion.
Now we are finding ourselves bumping up against this debt ceiling,
against the statutory limit of where we can spend and borrow money. We
are on this record clip, this record pace to blow through this debt
ceiling, and we are here.
In 2006, now-President Obama stood in front of the Senate and said
that raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.
Well, sounds like we are in that position today. Five years later, we
are once again talking about an over $2 trillion increase in our
Nation's ability to borrow money, which we are tacking on to the
responsibility of our kids and our grandkids. Once again, we're back.
We have an extreme failure of leadership in this country that is of
epic proportions. We know, we look at our budget, we see over a
trillion-and-a-half dollars this year that we are spending that we
haven't taken in, and yet we are continuing to haggle about whether we
need to just raise taxes or have spending cuts.
We have a spending problem in this country; we don't have a revenue
problem in this country. We have a problem with how much money we are
spending.
I am a new Member of Congress. I came here and was sworn in in
January, and within a couple of days the President of the United States
asked us to increase the debt limit without any corresponding cuts or
anything along those lines. I actually thought it was a joke. I mean,
really, we are going to add another $2 trillion onto our debt and not
even take seriously the fact that we are just piling on more and more
interest.
I mean, we're spending more in interest right now than we do in the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Think about that; two wars, and
we are spending more in interest. And it is only going to increase
every year.
I can tell you, the youth of America, the current generation that is
in charge in America is all sitting around saying at some point the
insanity has to end. You know, I travel around the 11th Congressional
District in Illinois, which includes Joliet, places like Ottawa and
Morris, Bloomington, Princeton, Peru. And you know what I hear from
people? I don't hear them say, Congressman Kinzinger, boy, we sure have
a revenue problem in this country; don't we? I hear them say,
Congressman, we are spending too much money. We have a spending
problem.
The President is asking us to increase the debt limit. We have to be
willing to have at least as much as we are going to increase the debt
limit or more in spending cuts for us to even consider it at this
point. It has got to be done. And how best are we going to get out of
debt? Yes, we have to have these spending cuts. And, yes, we have to
get serious about our budget. But we have to get America back to work.
I think it was put well yesterday. Mr. President, where are the jobs?
Where are the jobs? Mr. Speaker, I'm asking: Where are the jobs?
It is time that we get America back to work. We turn people then from
tax recipients to taxpayers. And as much as I like to say ``where are
the jobs?,'' let me ask another question: Where is the leadership?
We've got to make tough decisions. It's time that we stand up and say
I'm tired of kicking the can down the road. I wasn't sent to
Washington, D.C., to kick the can down the road. I was sent here to be
a leader and to make tough decisions. And I can tell you, House
Republicans are ready to be leaders and make tough decisions, but we
have to have willing partners on the other side.
I know 2012 is just around the corner. I get it. I understand that.
But 2011 is still now. America can't afford to forget that 2011 still
exists and to just focus on the next election. We have to focus long
term on the next generation. Let's get our budgets in gear. Let's have
a real serious discussion. And for goodness sake, let's put politics
aside and make sure that we are still the strongest country in the
world.
____________________
{time} 1040
IN RECOGNITION OF NCTC DIRECTOR MICHAEL E. LEITER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished
efforts of the National Counterterrorism Center Director, Michael E.
Leiter.
Following his exemplary service as the Assistant Director and Deputy
General Counsel for the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the U.S. regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mr. Leiter continued
his public service as the Deputy Chief of Staff in the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence. He was very successful in organizing
staffing and in establishing processes for this new but critical
office.
As such, he was elected to become the Principal Deputy Director at
the National Counterterrorism Center. Because of his superlative
efforts, in June 2008, he was confirmed as the Director of NCTC where
he has focused on counterterrorism, community development and mission
execution. His focus has prepared the CT analysts of tomorrow to meet
the challenges ahead, and his management style has encouraged
information sharing and the free flow of ideas.
Director Leiter has always understood that results mattered and that
a success rate of less than 100 percent meant lives lost. Some of the
center's most noticeable accomplishments will remain largely secret;
however, Director Leiter's strategic investments will pay dividends for
many years to come. Under his leadership, the center vastly improved
its processes for screening CT data and deployed a new database, better
known as TIDE, that has yielded easier management, improved identity
resolution and faster, more efficient processes.
In the wake of the attempted downing of a passenger aircraft in
December
[[Page 10573]]
2009, Director Leiter reallocated significant resources to develop the
Pursuit Group, which is a team of highly skilled analysts that sifts
through considerable amounts of data to identify desperate pieces of
loose intelligence and to find linkages that identify terrorists, their
networks and their plans before they can be executed. His leadership in
the areas of radicalization, extremist messaging and in countering
violent extremism is particularly noteworthy as well as his focus on
cooperation and engagement with outside communities. This has laid a
solid foundation for the continued success of these initiatives.
Director Leiter leaves the Federal Government for some well-deserved
time with his family and friends, and I wish him well. However, it is
my sincere hope that he continues to use his expertise in
counterterrorism to keep America and its citizens safe.
____________________
ENERGY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this past week, we were in our districts to
visit with our constituents, to learn from them and to celebrate
America's Independence Day. Much of my time was focused on the issue of
energy and the need for energy independence because constituents are
concerned with the high costs of energy and how these costs are
impacting their businesses and lives.
Republicans believe in an all-of-the-above approach for energy
independence. Republicans believe that energy diversity leads to energy
security, and there were plenty of examples in the district for me to
visit.
In Boone, students from Appalachian State University's Solar
Homestead Team showed me the home they are preparing for the 2011 Solar
Decathlon competition to be held on The Mall here in Washington, D.C.,
in September. The Solar Homestead team is advancing renewable energy
systems through research on phase change, material energy storage, the
integration of solar photovoltaic panels, and concentrating solar
thermal systems for domestic hot water. While much money has been
invested in this project by both the public and the private sectors,
the hope is that the research will result in the ability to utilize
alternative, renewable energy sources that will be able to provide low-
cost energy homes for those in need.
Clyde and Pat Colwell have developed Carolina Heritage Vineyard in
Elkin, North Carolina, an energy-efficient small business which is
benefiting from a taxpayer-funded solar system. The Colwells are very
educated people who are retired from their first careers. Clyde served
in the U.S. Marine Corps, earned his Ph.D., and served as a teacher,
principal and superintendent. Pat earned her MBA and retired from IBM.
However, while their graduate degrees were helpful in general, both of
them returned to Surry Community College to earn associate degrees in
viticulture so they could pursue developing their organic wine
business. They work full time in the vineyards and on the winemaking
process, and bring many skills to the area and to others in the
business.
The Gilbert Hemric family farm in Hamptonville, North Carolina, where
Gilbert Hemric and his family work hard on their poultry, cattle and
tobacco farm, is a microcosm of the problems that this administration
has created. Mr. Hemric made it very clear to me that the high cost of
energy and regulatory burdens are having a negative impact on his
business. The Hemrics are paying more and more for feed and for fuel to
run their equipment. Because fuel costs have almost doubled since
President Obama came to office, the Hemrics have not replaced two of
the 10 workers they had last year. They can't afford to replace them.
At Holland Transfer in Statesville, CEO Jeff Harvey told me that the
skyrocketing price of fuel and regulatory burdens are counterproductive
to job creation and the growth of his business. The Harvey Family
practices Christian values throughout its business, and has established
nonprofits that feed the needy. When possible, they hire homeless
people, which enables the homeless to leave shelters, but all this
great work for the community depends on his business performing at a
level that will allow him to continue contributing to the community.
As I visited with constituents during the Independence Day work
period, one thing was clear: that we need another independence
movement--independence from Middle Eastern oil.
Unfortunately, rather than pursuing energy independence, the Obama
administration keeps fostering an energy dependence policy at the cost
of American jobs, higher prices at the pump and at the cost of
endangering our national security by making us more dependent on
unstable Middle Eastern governments.
House Republicans have responded by introducing and passing four
bills to increase our domestic energy production and to create American
jobs, but the Senate has taken no action. Liberal Democrats are
obstructing the opportunity for jobs for Americans, lower energy costs
and a new era of independence.
It is time we declare independence from Middle Eastern oil and start
using our own resources for the benefit of all Americans.
____________________
AMERICA'S FISCAL CRISIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for 5 minutes.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, our country truly is facing a financial
crisis. I guess the good news is that even Congress is beginning to ask
a question that is part of that financial crisis, which is simply this:
How long can we continue to spend almost twice as much money as we
bring in?
The unfortunate part is that we've waited so long to ask that
question. I wish we'd asked it before we embarked upon the series of
bailouts and stimulus bills that we have embarked upon over the last
several years. I am happy that I'm one of only 17 Members of Congress
who voted against each and every one of those, but I'm unhappy where it
has brought us, which is the fear that we had: that this runaway
spending would bring us to a point where we had to begin cutting the
national defense capabilities of our country.
Today, we will vote on the Defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2219,
which will reduce the President's budget for national defense by $8.9
billion. That's only a downpayment of the cuts that are going to come.
The next cuts, we are told, could be $400 billion to $700 billion from
our national defense. Before we do that, there are two crucial
questions we need to ask.
The first one is: What is the risk assessment that the United States
faces today?
Now, that should be answered by our Quadrennial Defense Review, but
if you look at a bipartisan independent assessment of that Quadrennial
Defense Review, you'll find out that we are a train wreck that is on
its way to happening because that defense assessment has truly become
no more than a reaffirmation of what we are already doing.
The second thing that we should be asking before we decide what we
can cut is how much we are currently spending and what the risk will be
if we make those cuts. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense hasn't
provided us with the audited financial statements the law requires so
that we know where we're spending those dollars and so that we know the
true risk of making those cuts.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you that there is a way you can
find out. Our commanders in the field provide us with the Quarterly
Readiness Report to Congress, which is a classified document. Now, I
know as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee for the Armed Services
Committee that I'm in the minority, and am probably going to vote
against this bill today.
{time} 1050
But, Mr. Speaker, I am also in the minority of the individuals who
have
[[Page 10574]]
read this classified report. And the one thing that I would encourage
our Members to do before they cast their vote today to begin down that
series of cuts to our national defense is at least go in to our staff
today and read the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress that is a
classified document. Our staff is ready to show you the document, to
let you review that document. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you will
just do that, it will be very difficult to then come on this floor and
begin to start voting to cut and make the cuts we're going to make to
national defense. Mr. Speaker, that's why today I can't support that
bill and will be voting against it.
____________________
REMEMBERING FORMER CONGRESSMAN CHARLES W. WHALEN, JR.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Turner) for 5 minutes.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this past week, the citizens of Ohio's Third
Congressional District were met with the sad news that former
Congressman Charles W. Whalen, Jr., passed away on Monday, June 27, at
Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C.
Born in Dayton, Ohio, on July 31, 1920, he was known throughout the
community as ``Chuck.'' During World War II, he served as an Army first
lieutenant in the China, India, and Burma theater. After earning a
master's of business administration from Harvard University, he worked
as a professor of economics at his alma mater, the University of
Dayton. He later became chairman of the University of Dayton's Economic
Department in 1962.
Before his election to Congress in 1966, Chuck was a three-term
member of both the Ohio State Senate and the Ohio General Assembly.
While serving in the State House, he wrote Ohio's first fair housing
law.
While in Congress, Chuck retained his seat handily in every general
election, even running unopposed for reelection in 1974. As a member of
the House Armed Services Committee, Chuck worked to move our military
to an all-volunteer Army. The Nixon administration, in developing
legislation on this issue, adopted many of his recommendations, and
today the U.S. has an entirely all-volunteer active duty military
force. In addition, he was focused on social reforms and supported the
landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was also one of the most traveled
Members of Congress and visited more than 150 countries, including
every nation in Africa.
Chuck was highly regarded for his ability to speak publicly, having
been a college debate champion at the University of Dayton, so it
should be no surprise that in retirement he coauthored two books with
his wife, a former journalist: ``The Longest Debate: A Legislative
History of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,'' published in 1985, and ``The
Fighting McCooks: America's Famous Fighting Family,'' published in
2006, focusing on two Ohio brothers and their 13 sons who served in the
Union Army during the Civil War.
Not one to be contained by the academic or literary worlds, he was
also an avid sports fan and reveled in debating sports trivia and
stats. He was president of Oakwood High School's class of 1938, and he
is remembered for possessing extensive knowledge of prewar aviation
largely due to Dayton being his birthplace.
As a son of Ohio, Congressman Whalen made his final journey home and
was buried in Calvary Cemetery in Dayton. Whalen is survived by his
wife of 52 years, Barbara, and their six children--Charles, Daniel,
Edward, Joseph, Anne, Mary--and their seven grandchildren.
Today we remember the life and work of Congressman Whalen and thank
him for his service to both the Third District of Ohio and also our
Nation.
____________________
LET THE STATES DECIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is facing a fiscal crisis of
unprecedented proportions. We have a $14 trillion national debt, a
$1.65 trillion annual spending deficit, and we borrow 42 cents for
every dollar we spend.
After years of borrowing and spending and bailouts by both political
parties, now comes a national debate over raising the Nation's debt
limit. Now look, I believe if you owe debts, pay debts. We must honor
the full faith and credit of the United States of America. But I also
believe that now is the moment to take decisive action to put our
fiscal house in order and restore the full confidence of the American
people in the fiscal integrity of our national government.
I believe our debt limit should not be raised without real and
meaningful reforms in the way the Federal Government spends the
people's money in the short term and the long term. In the short term,
we need to cut spending now and implement statutory caps on how much
money the Federal Government can spend going forward. But in the long
term, the time has come for this Congress to send to the States a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that will limit Federal
spending and require this national government to live within our means.
While the debate, it seems, according to the newspapers today, has
focused on spending cuts versus tax increases, the real answer is to
cut spending now and to make any increase in the Nation's debt ceiling
contingent on Congress sending to the States a balanced budget
amendment that limits Federal spending to one-fifth of the American
economy. In short, it's time to let the States decide.
Article V of the Constitution provides a process that requires any
amendment to pass the House of Representatives and the Senate by a two-
thirds vote, but ultimately any amendment to the Constitution is
submitted to the States. The States decide whether to amend the
national charter. If three-fourths of the States agree, the
Constitution is so amended.
By demanding spending cuts today and sending a balanced budget
amendment to the States, we will let the States decide. And I have
every confidence that these United States will choose fiscal discipline
and reform. Thirty-two of our 50 States operate under a balanced budget
requirement in their State constitution, and 49 have some sort of
balanced budget requirement. In Indiana, our State had a prohibition
against assuming debt in our State constitution since 1851, and the
Hoosier State has a balanced budget and even a surplus rainy day fund.
After years of fighting runaway Federal spending by both political
parties here in Washington, D.C., I can tell you we need more
accountability, we need more engagement of the States and the American
people. And if you think about it, as Ronald Reagan said, it's
important to remember that the States created the Federal Government;
the Federal Government didn't create the States.
By engaging in a process where we demand serious and meaningful
spending cuts today, capping spending going forward, but requiring that
any increase in the debt ceiling be contingent on sending to the States
a balanced budget amendment with real spending limits in it, we will
build on the wisdom and the foundation of our Founders and our system
of Federalism.
Mr. President, if you need more borrowing authority, let's cut
spending now, let's cap spending tomorrow, and let's let the States
decide whether we should permanently require that our national
government live within our means. By enacting a balanced budget
amendment that limits Federal spending and requires that our national
government live out our own commitment of fiscal responsibility and
reform, we will do right by this day, we will do right by our children
and grandchildren, and we will do something worthy to be remembered in
this time.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
[[Page 10575]]
____________________
LIBYA OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I came down here today to talk
about the Libya issue, the war that supposedly is not a war, but I
wanted to start off by talking a little bit about the rhetoric that's
coming out of the White House and from the President.
I was watching the news this morning, and the President indicated
that they were going to have these budget talks down at the White House
today. And he said, and I quote, that the Republicans, in effect, have
a gun to the head of the American people. That just isn't the kind of
rhetoric that should be used right now when we're talking about the
huge budget deficits we have. And if I were talking to the President, I
would try to admonish him to not do that in the future.
And then, when we were talking about Libya, I think it was just about
4 or 5 days ago, he said that we in Congress are making Libya a cause
celebre, indicating that it's not an important issue, and we're just
trying to puff it up so that we can make political points.
{time} 1100
The fact of the matter is it is a war. The President went to the Arab
League, he went to the French, the English, he went to the United
Nations, and NATO and decided that he was going to be involved in an
attack on Libya and Muammar Qadhafi. But the one place he didn't come
to to talk about this issue was the Congress of the United States--the
House of Representatives and the Senate. The first place that a
President ought to go if he thinks we ought to go into a conflict of
any kind is the Congress.
The Constitution is very clear on the responsibilities of the
President before he goes into a conflict. It has to be a threat to the
United States, a threat to our interests, and it has to be approved by
the Congress of the United States. The Congress of the United States is
the only body that can declare war. He can't do that. He can manage a
war. He is the Commander in Chief once we go into war, but he can't
start a war unless it's in our national interest or there's a threat to
the United States. That was clarified by the War Powers Act during the
Nixon administration because there was some question about the latitude
a President might have using the Constitution.
The Constitution was explained very carefully in the 1970s in the War
Powers Act. Now, that's never been tested in the courts. Some people
say it's unconstitutional. But the fact of the matter is it's the law
of the Nation. The President cannot violate the law or the
Constitution, and in our opinion, he's violated both.
Let me just tell you what's going on in this war that the President
says is not a war.
We have flown almost 30 percent of the sorties. That means we have
flown 3,475 flights into the combat area. We have dropped bombs and
missiles 132 times on targets, and several times we've hit civilians.
Nobody likes Muammar Qadhafi. Nobody wants him in office. But the
fact of the matter is, we've been involved in a war to get rid of him.
On May 22, the figure was that of the missiles that were fired, there
were 246 missiles fired, and 228 were the United States' missiles--at
$1.1 million per missile. And we're paying approximately 60 or 70
percent of the total cost of this conflict through NATO or directly
from the taxpayers of the United States.
Now, the reason I came down here today is to say that we should not
be in that conflict because it was not in our national interest and
there was no threat to the United States and it was a violation of the
Constitution and the War Powers Act.
The President said he had to do it because it was a humanitarian
issue. If it was a humanitarian issue and we really needed to go in
there, he should have come to Congress. The previous President,
President Bush, did go to Congress on Afghanistan and Iraq to get
approval before he did it, but President Obama decided to do this
unilaterally. So we are in a war now, and it's costing the taxpayers
close to a billion dollars in a war that we should not be in.
He said it was for humanitarian purposes. If that's the case, we
ought to be in a war in the Ivory Coast. Right now in the Sudan, there
are thousands and thousands of people being executed and killed. And if
that's the case, we ought to be in the Sudan. In Syria, we all know
what's going on in Syria right now. If that's the case, we ought to be
in Syria. There are wars of opportunity every place.
I just like to end, Mr. Speaker, by saying this: The President should
always come to the Congress if it's in our national interest or a
threat to this country before he goes to war. It's constitutionally
required.
____________________
DEBT CRISIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. I came down to the floor today to talk about the fiscal
crisis that we're having in America. There are those when I open the
front page of the paper, Mr. Speaker, and I read the headline, it talks
about having a debt limit vote crisis in this country. I went back, I
looked, and apparently we've raised the debt limit over 70 times with a
vote right here in this body. Apparently having a vote isn't
particularly a complicated thing to do.
What we're having is a debt crisis. I think that's an important
distinction. I was talking to a freshman colleague of mine yesterday
about that. Understand that we can have the vote, Mr. Speaker. It's
within the House's authority to bring a vote to raise the debt limit
tomorrow. In fact, we brought that vote to the House already: Should we
raise the debt ceiling or should we not? Mr. Speaker, we defeated it.
We defeated it by a wide margin here in this body.
What we have is a debt crisis.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if it were just existing debt, perhaps we could
work out a way to finance that, but it's not. It's continued borrowing
each and every day to the tune of 42 cents of every dollar that we
spend. In other words, if we paid for Medicare, Medicaid, Social
Security, interest on the national debt, those other mandatory spending
programs, just those, Mr. Speaker, we've already spent every nickel in
Federal revenue.
That means every nickel that we spend for education, every nickel
that we spend for transportation, every nickel that we spend on
national defense, on homeland security, on the environment, on the
courts, every other nickel we borrow, with absolutely no plan, Mr.
Speaker, for changing that going forward.
If the President were here today, Mr. Speaker, I would say we do not
have a debt limit vote crisis. We have a debt crisis, and there is only
one body in this town that has put together a budget that will address
it. I am proud to say as a freshman in this Congress, as a freshman in
this House, it was the U.S. House of Representatives that took on that
responsibility, Mr. Speaker.
It's been 799 days since the United States Senate last passed a
budget. Hear that. Three years ago since the Senate last passed a
budget. Not a balanced budget, mind you, Mr. Speaker, but a budget at
all.
These are serious challenges that require serious people to offer
serious solutions, and the only one that has been offered in this town,
Mr. Speaker, came from this body. I encourage the President to go back
and take one more look at that, because when we come down to game day,
come down to the crisis--understand what we're talking about when we
talk about a crisis, we passed the debt limit back in May, Mr. Speaker,
as you know. We've just been shuffling the books in this town because
that's what Washington does so well: raiding this fund to pay that,
raiding this fund to pay this, over and over and over again. Apparently
the games just run out on August 2.
Mr. Speaker, the games cannot continue. The games must stop, and they
must stop here, and we must lead as we have always led in this body.
We do not have a debt limit vote crisis. We have a debt crisis that
is driven
[[Page 10576]]
by our addiction to borrowing and spending. The borrowing and spending
stops here, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your leadership on that.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 7 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland) at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following
prayer:
Loving God, we give You thanks for giving us another day.
In these most important days and debates here in the people's House,
we beg You to send Your Spirit of wisdom as the Members struggle to do
the work that has been entrusted to them. Inspire them to work together
with charity, and join their efforts to accomplish what our Nation
needs to live into a prosperous and secure future.
In this week in the wake of celebrating the great blessings bestowed
upon our Republic, please bless those men and women who serve our
Nation in uniform wherever they may be. Give them the protection of
Your loving embrace, and grant them the trust to know they have our
eternal gratitude.
Please keep all the Members of this Congress and all who work for the
people's House in good health, that they might faithfully fulfill the
great responsibility given them by the people of this great Nation.
Bless us this day and every day. May all that is done here this day
be for Your greater honor and glory. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from California (Mr.
Baca) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. BACA 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.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to 15 requests
for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DAISY OUTDOOR PRODUCTS
(Mr. WOMACK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Daisy Outdoor
Products, a Rogers, Arkansas, company celebrating its 125th
anniversary.
Daisy moved to Rogers from Plymouth, Michigan, in 1958. Since that
move, Daisy's impact on the northwest Arkansas economy has been
substantial--not only in providing jobs, but the incredible recognition
this famous brand brings to our region.
As the world's oldest and largest BB gun manufacturer, Daisy has a
storied history. Its contributions to the shooting sports, the United
States military, and the character of young men and women nationwide is
noteworthy. And who can forget Ralphie in the famous movie ``A
Christmas Story'' and his coveted Red Ryder, the most famous BB gun
ever produced?
Mr. Speaker, 125 years in business is a significant milestone by any
measurement. It is a tribute to the vision, commitment, and hard work
of the company leadership and the employees of Daisy.
Congratulations, Daisy. I'm proud of you, and our Nation is proud of
you.
____________________
COMMEMORATING CAPE VERDEAN INDEPENDENCE DAY
(Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the
rich history of Cape Verde as we mark Cape Verdean Independence Day.
This week, we honor the people of Cape Verde and those individuals of
proud Cape Verdean descent here in America and around the world who are
celebrating 35 years of independence. In doing so, we honor the many
milestones and important Cape Verdean leaders like Amilcar Cabral, who
fought for the liberation of Cape Verde. We also honor the lives, work,
and rich history of Cape Verdean Americans throughout our country and
particularly in my home State of Rhode Island.
Cape Verdeans have made significant contributions in the areas of art
and culture, business, and public service. Cape Verdeans have brought
jag to local restaurants and added zuca to the music enjoyed by our
community.
Rhode Islanders of Cape Verdean descent, like speaker of the house
Gordon Fox, have been prominent leaders in Rhode Island politics.
I would also like to take a moment to pay tribute to the late George
Lima. Mr. Lima served during World War II as a Tuskegee airman, the
first group of black fighter and bomber pilots in the history of what
was then the Army Air Forces. He then served our State honorably as a
State representative and as head of the Rhode Island NAACP.
Cape Verdeans are generous, skilled, proud, caring members of our
community, and I am honored to celebrate Cape Verdean independence with
them this week.
____________________
YUCCA MOUNTAIN: A NUCLEAR DISASTER
(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, the President says he
supports nuclear power development, but his actions have sadly stopped
construction at Yucca Mountain after more than $10 billion of ratepayer
money has already been invested, killing jobs in Nevada.
Utility companies across the country have been mandated by the
Federal Government to collect over $33 billion for the Nuclear Waste
Fund to build Yucca Repository. The Federal Government promised
citizens of South Carolina and Georgia that nuclear material being
stored at Savannah River Site would be sent to Yucca for permanent
disposal. Now, this high-level waste will sit at SRS, and as reported
by The Post and Courier, at more than 106 other sites across the
country. The Post and Courier has editorialized that the President's
position is ``breathtakingly irresponsible.''
I agree with Brian Tucker, president of the North Augusta Chamber of
Commerce, that the administration should quit playing political games
and follow through on promises to be guided by science and not by
politics.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.
____________________
PROTECTING MEDICARE
(Mr. COURTNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, when former President Harry Truman and his
wife, Bess, were officially enrolled as the first Medicare
beneficiaries on July 1, 1966, only 50 percent of America's seniors
could afford private health insurance.
[[Page 10577]]
The high risks associated with covering America's over-65 population
made seniors basically uninsurable. That all changed 45 years ago last
week when Medicare was established as a guaranteed benefit, providing a
basic level of care for seniors regardless of income or illness.
From the beginning, Medicare has proven resilient, adapting to rapid
changes in medicine and surviving in wartime and peace, economic boom
times and in recession. Despite some alarmist claims, Medicare has
faced more difficult financial challenges in the past than the ones it
faces today. Preserving Medicare's guaranteed benefits for future
generations is our solemn duty, and we must stop the push for vouchers,
which will ruin America's middle class.
On the 45th anniversary of this landmark program, we must rededicate
ourselves to protecting Medicare as a guaranteed benefit for tomorrow's
seniors, not butchering it with a voucher program or using it as an ATM
for the top 2 percents.
Happy birthday, Medicare. If we stay true to our values, you will
have many happy returns.
____________________
PROTECTING AMERICAN JOBS AND SECURING AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE
(Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the administration's war on coal
led the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation to try and change a
rule that would redefine what is considered a stream as it pertains to
mining operations.
I am pleased than an amendment I offered during the debate over the
budget continuing resolution has been included in the Interior
appropriations bill in an effort to stop this irresponsible regulatory
overreach.
No one is surprised that the Obama administration is continuing the
war on coal, but this is also a war on jobs. And the coal industry
employs thousands of people in eastern and southeastern Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, we all want a cleaner environment, but we need to make
sure that the policies being enacted are common sense and do not come
at the expense of jobs and our economy. Stopping the Obama
administration from rewriting the stream buffer zone rule will be a
victory for jobs and a defeat to a radical agenda that is seeking to
outlaw coal entirely. We can and we must enact smart policies that
clean up our environment while protecting American jobs.
____________________
{time} 1210
MEDICARE
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, as the deadline nears for Americans to raise
its debt limit, the American people have sent a clear message to all of
us:
They will not stand for a budget that is balanced on the backs of
seniors and the middle class.
The American people know that it is wrong to privatize Medicare with
a new voucher program, to cut guaranteed health benefits for seniors
and to sacrifice Medicaid services for the poor and disabled.
It's not too late for us to compromise on a balanced approach. Yes,
we can trim spending with intelligent cuts, but we must end tax breaks
for the ultra rich. I state: We must end tax breaks for the ultra rich
and corporations that shift jobs overseas.
No new taxes equals no new jobs. No taxes--no jobs.
We have an historic opportunity in front of us. Let's stop the
partisan bickering and work together on a plan that strengthens the
middle class, lowers our deficit and creates new jobs here at home.
____________________
THE DEBT CEILING REDUCTION ACT
(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have overspent and we are
overextended. Now we have to get out of debt.
For the last 20 years, we have been increasing the debt ceiling and
allowing Washington to spend more and more of the taxpayers' money.
This method of madness hasn't worked, and today, our economy is
suffering because of it.
Yesterday, I introduced a unique bill that would lower the debt
ceiling to $13 trillion. This proposal would force Washington to make
the spending cuts that we so desperately need to pay down the debt.
State and local governments, businesses and families understand, when
you've maxed out your credit card, you can't just give yourself a
credit increase. Instead, you have to cut spending and pay down your
bills. The Federal Government is the only entity that does not
understand this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2409, the Debt
Ceiling Reduction Act, because we need to turn this country in a
completely different direction.
____________________
MAKING AMERICANS SAFER HERE AT HOME
(Mr. CLARKE of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have a proposal that will help
us save tax dollars, pay down our debt, and better protect the American
people.
Instead of spending billions and billions of dollars to secure
Afghanistan at the rate that we are--and we've spent over a half a
trillion of our precious tax dollars in Afghanistan over the last 10
years--I propose to redirect a small share of our tax dollars back to
the U.S. and to use our money to hire and equip more police officers,
more firefighters, more emergency medical providers, because one of the
most effective ways to help protect the American people from a
terrorist attack is to make Americans safer right here at home.
____________________
THE REPUBLICANS' ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE ENERGY STRATEGY
(Mr. ROE of Tennessee asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on June 22, President Obama
released 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve--just over a day's worth of oil. The administration continues
to play politics rather than develop a comprehensive national energy
plan, which will lay the path for future economic growth, help lower
unemployment and improve our stagnant economy. This country's economy
was built on inexpensive and abundant energy.
Folks are frustrated now. A fellow stopped me the other day, and
said, Doc, it's a sad day when a guy can't buy a gallon of gas and a
gallon of milk for $10.
And it's true. People don't want half measures that don't address
their problems. They want solutions. They want to work. They want to
provide for their families.
It is way past time to ease this pain at the pump. The President has
shown no interest in the Republicans' all-of-the-above energy strategy
that encourages oil and natural gas development in places like ANWR and
the Outer Continental Shelf. With national unemployment stubbornly
above 9 percent, the American people expect us to work together to
lower the cost of energy, reduce our dependency on foreign oil and
create American jobs.
____________________
OPPOSING THE PRIVATIZATION OF AMTRAK
(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
[[Page 10578]]
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the privatization of
Amtrak, which would threaten reliable, dependable, and accessible
passenger rail service throughout the United States. I travel home
every weekend on Amtrak to my district in New Jersey, and its service
is an essential part of our region's economic vitality.
Under the plan to privatize Amtrak, the essential service they
provide to millions of passengers could be lost, and nearly 20,000
Amtrak jobs could be eliminated. State-owned infrastructure that Amtrak
currently maintains could be turned over to the already deficit-
burdened States to maintain. It is likely that station stops will be
cut and that commuter rail services will bear increased costs.
Additionally, freight railroads that currently use Amtrak-supported
lines may face logistical problems if Amtrak becomes privatized.
Under the proposal to privatize Amtrak, many important labor
provisions will be eliminated. Future railroad employees will be exempt
from disability, pension, retirement, and unemployment benefits. By
removing future employees from these benefit systems, current and
retired employees will be negatively affected, and railroads will face
increased taxes to maintain the solvency of these systems.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the privatization of Amtrak.
____________________
THE CUT, CAP AND BALANCE PLEDGE
(Mr. HARRIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, while marching in parades and town festivals
all over my district during the 4th of July weekend, I spoke with
concerned parents, job creators, seniors, and folks who have been out
of work for a long time. The one message I heard loud and clear from
all of them: Reduce government spending so that businesses can create
jobs again.
That's why I signed onto the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge, which calls
for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I know the idea
that the government should have to actually balance its budget every
year is strange to some here in Washington, especially to entrenched
bureaucrats and the special interest groups that fill this city.
Imagine if the Federal Government had to run a budget like we do in our
homes.
It's time for the Federal Government to live within its means, and
it's time for us to reduce spending so that businesses will have the
confidence to create jobs again.
Cut, cap and balance. Let's make sure we put America back on the path
to prosperity, not on the path to unemployment and bankruptcy.
____________________
CURRENCY REFORM FOR FAIR TRADE ACT
(Ms. HANABUSA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, for so long we've been hearing about our
debt. We've also been hearing about who owns our debt, and of course,
the name ``China'' comes up. That is why we need to have the Currency
Reform for Fair Trade Act come to this floor, because that is the only
way--the only way--we are going to address the currency manipulation by
China and simply ask that they play by fair rules for fair trade.
Look at what this means for us. Let's understand that, by having the
currency manipulated by them, they are having the benefit of 25 to 30
percent. That's what we're subsidizing them in terms of their exports.
If we get the currency manipulation under control, this is what we
could hope to accomplish:
Our budget deficit will be reduced to about $857 billion over the
next 10 years. The trade deficit will be reduced by $138 billion. The
GDP over the next 18 months will increase by $285 billion. This will
support 1.6 million American jobs.
So as we are asking ``where are the jobs?'' look to currency
manipulation.
____________________
FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE FROM CHINA AND AMERICAN JOB CREATION
(Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on July 4th, we celebrated our political
independence from Great Britain.
My constituents want to know when are we going to celebrate our
financial independence from China, which funds much of our national
debt. My constituents also want to know: Where are the jobs? Mr.
Speaker, these two are connected because too much spending-driven debt
leads to too few jobs.
Now, our President doesn't seem to get this. If his stimulus, his
reckless spending, his small business tax increases, his class warfare
rhetoric helped promote job creation, we would be the most highly
employed society in the history of mankind; but instead, we are mired
in the longest period of sustained high unemployment under his policies
since the Great Depression.
House Republicans have a plan for America's job creators. In the
trillion dollar deficits, make the Tax Code fairer, flatter, simpler.
Stop the President's job-crushing tax increases, and end the dumb
regulations that prevent jobs in America.
____________________
{time} 1220
EVERYTHING MUST BE ON THE TABLE
(Mr. WELCH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to level with
the American people. We face a looming decision about extending the
debt limit, not because we want to but because we have to reaffirm the
obligation we have to pay our bills. The majority of us on the
Democratic side voted to do that. That was not to incur new spending or
new obligations; it was to meet obligations already incurred: $2.3
trillion for the Bush tax cuts; an Iraq war, $1 trillion on the credit
card; Afghanistan on the credit card. If we're going to level with the
American people, we have to acknowledge that we have to pay for things,
whatever their intentions. The time is long overdue for us to
accomplish this.
If we're going to be successful on the two things we must do--pay our
bills, maintain our full faith and credit, and have a long-term fiscal
plan--then everything must be on the table, and that has to include
taxes as well as spending, and it must include the Pentagon.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an ideological battle to win. It's a
practical problem to be solved.
____________________
FREEDOM TO INVEST ACT
(Mr. DOLD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our economy is
struggling. With stagnant unemployment, over $14 trillion in debt, and
soaring food and gas prices, America does face some challenging
decisions.
In my home State of Illinois, the debt per person is over $4,400, and
the State faces a $15 billion shortfall in next year's budget. These
indeed are real problems that need to be addressed with commonsense
solutions.
One solution is to encourage American companies to reinvest their
earnings here at home. Currently, companies are holding an estimated
$1.4 trillion in earnings overseas because the United States Tax Code
encourages companies to keep their earnings outside of the country. We
must encourage companies to reinvest their earnings here in America.
Not only would these earnings stimulate the American economy, but the
government would collect approximately $50 billion in immediate tax
revenue. This money would help spur job creation, more growth, and
investments here at home.
I would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the
bipartisan H.R. 1834, the Freedom to Invest Act,
[[Page 10579]]
so that we can strengthen our economy with commonsense solutions.
____________________
GETTING AMERICA BACK ON TRACK
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say today
that I was elected in November of last year for the 10th time here, and
I am in my fourth district in that period of time. I have spoken to
people all over Dallas County, Tarrant County, and Collin County, and
unanimously they are seriously concerned about the lack of a true job
plan from the Republican majority.
We must cut spending. We must ensure long-term fiscal health. But
gridlock over spending cuts does not create jobs. We need a bipartisan
compromise that focuses on fiscal responsibility while maintaining
investments in our community that continue to create jobs and grow the
economy.
To get Americans back to work, we must invest in science, education,
research and innovation to create the jobs of the future, and we must
focus on America's ability to build, construct and grow manufacturing
across the country to remain globally competitive. Mr. Speaker, these
efforts can and will spur job growth and ensure that our Nation can
compete and be a leader in the global economy.
____________________
TIME TO GET OUR FISCAL HOUSE IN ORDER
(Mr. YODER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. YODER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with grave concern over our
country's economy and fiscal condition. For too long, Washington has
borrowed money to finance government, and today our Nation's leaders
continue to meet to discuss this looming crisis. We all know that this
crisis is spending driven. It's not that government taxes too little;
it's that government spends too much.
Mr. Speaker, the American people know that the policies of tax,
borrow, and spend will not lead us to prosperity as a Nation. Taking
more money from hardworking Americans and sending it to Washington is
not the answer. Rather, it's time for Washington to roll up its
sleeves, get to work, and live within its means, just like families and
small businesses have to do all across this country. It's time to enact
significant spending cuts, put in place caps on future spending, and
pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to rebuild our Nation's economy and put
Americans back to work together, we must put our own fiscal house in
order first.
____________________
SUPPORT THE AMASH-KUCINICH AMENDMENT
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, in a short time, the House will have an
opportunity to reclaim our constitutional authority on matters of war
and peace by voting to stop the use of funds for the war in Libya.
An agreement has been reached through work that Mr. Amash and I have
done to create a bipartisan amendment which states: None of the funds
made available by this act may be used for the use of military force
against Libya.
The Amash-Kucinich amendment is cosponsored by a growing group of
bipartisan activists, including, Representatives Ron Paul, Lynn
Woolsey, Walter Jones, John Conyers, Dan Burton, Barbara Lee, Ted Poe,
and Pete Stark.
This could well be an historic moment where a bipartisan coalition
rallies this Congress to defend the Constitution and to reset the
balance that has been upset by the administration's claiming the war
power.
Vote to end to the war in Libya. Support the bipartisan Amash-
Kucinich amendment.
____________________
UNCERTAINTY IMPEDES JOB GROWTH
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the number one job for House Republicans is
job growth. The number one impediment to job growth is uncertainty:
uncertainty caused by a record-high debt--$14.3 trillion and growing--
and the record-high taxes that are going to have to pay for it;
uncertainty about the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation
that the President pledges to support in just 19 months. Add to that
the unknown cost of the government takeover of health care and the
unknown price of Dodd-Frank and you've got a very uncertain private
sector.
We cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator. They need
us to work with them, not against them. If we follow the House
Republican plan for America's job creators and stop spending money we
don't have, certainty will be restored, our economy will grow, and jobs
will be created.
____________________
THE PLIGHT OF SUDAN'S NUBA PEOPLE
(Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart, I turn our
attention to the plight of Sudan's Nuba people, who are fleeing their
homes in the tens of thousands as the Sudanese Armed Forces conduct a
brutal military assault on their homeland.
There are widespread reports that Sudanese forces are bombing,
shelling, and executing civilians in the oil-rich state of South
Kordofan. The Sudanese Government has barred NGOs and the press and is
restricting the movement of U.N. personnel in the area.
Mr. Speaker, as we welcome South Sudan into the community of nations
this week, United Nations personnel must investigate reports of
possible war crimes against the Nuba people by the Sudanese forces. We
must not be intimidated by Omar al-Bashir's bullying, or we may find
ourselves saying ``never again'' again.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF GREG COOPER
(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
the life of Greg Cooper.
Mr. Cooper recently lost his battle with cancer on May 26 of this
year. He was a proud United States marine, and he served his country
between 1963 and 1967, which included a tour in the Vietnam War.
Upon leaving the Marines, Greg was hired by the Santa Ana Police
Department, where he held several very high-profile jobs and worked
with the neat tactical units that we have. While serving his community
as a Santa Ana police chief, he earned a bachelor's degree from
California State University, Fullerton and a master's degree from the
University of Southern California.
Leaving Santa Ana in 1992, he was appointed chief of police in
Sanger, California, and in 1996 he relocated here to Washington, D.C.,
where he accepted a position with the Department of Justice to
administer our COPS grant program. In 2002, Greg joined the Department
of Homeland Security as FEMA's chief security officer, and he retired
in 2008.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation and my community mourns the loss of a loyal
friend, a respected leader, and a dedicated public servant.
____________________
{time} 1230
REMEMBERING BISHOP J.O. PATTERSON, JR.
(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
[[Page 10580]]
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, while we were in recess on June 25, Memphis
lost one of its great citizens, Bishop J.O. Patterson, Jr.
Bishop Patterson was the grandson of the founder of the Church of God
in Christ, Bishop Charles Mason, and the cousin of the revered and late
Bishop G. Patterson, who was the sixth bishop of the COGIC.
Bishop J.O. Patterson, Jr., was a public servant as well as a bishop
and a revered citizen of Memphis. He was my friend. We served together
in the Constitutional Convention of 1977. He served one term in the
house, two terms in the State senate, 20 years in the city council, and
was the first appointed African American mayor of the City of Memphis.
He was a leader in his church and he cared about his community. He
cared about jazz and he cared about his fellow man. He was low key,
sincere, down to earth, and a leader whom Memphis will miss.
He did much with the opportunities that he was given through his
father and his family and his city in politics and in other areas. He
was the jurisdictional bishop for the Tennessee headquarters, the head
of the Pentecostal Temple Institutional Church of God in Christ and did
much with the COGIC.
I will miss him and so will the City of Memphis and all of the
Members and all of the saints.
____________________
REPORT ON H.R. 2434, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
Mrs. EMERSON, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 112-136) on the bill (H.R. 2434) making
appropriations for financial services and general government for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, which
was referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). Pursuant to clause
1, rule XXI, all points of order are reserved on the bill.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2219.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 320 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. 2219.
{time} 1233
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. 2219) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Westmoreland in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 6,
2011, the bill had been read through page 161, line 12.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Cole
Mr. COLE. 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:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Defense to furnish military
equipment, military training or advice, or other support for
military activities, to any group or individual, not part of
a country's armed forces, for the purpose of assisting that
group or individual in carrying out military activities in or
against Libya.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite simple. It prohibits
any funds in this bill from being used to conduct military operations
in Libya, a place where I believe we are engaged in an illegal and
certainly unauthorized conflict.
Mr. Chairman, I feel a little bit today like a lawyer with two very
unpopular clients. One of them is Libya, and the other one is the
United States Congress. But in this case, each one of them has an
important point to make.
With respect to Libya, let me make it clear, I don't believe anybody
in this Chamber supports Mr. Qadhafi, supports that regime, or wishes
it well in any way. But Libya did not attack the United States of
America. Libya did not attack any member of NATO. Libya has not allowed
al Qaeda to operate with impunity out of its territory. A number of
years ago, Libya turned over nuclear material to the United States.
Quite simply, however much we detest Mr. Qadhafi and his regime, we
have no reason to be at war or conducting military operations in Libya.
And, frankly, if we allow that situation to continue, I think we have
to ask ourselves: Are we willing to attack any nation any time that we
disagree with a regime that we don't like simply because the President
chooses to do so?
More troubling than the attack on Libya, in my view, is the
circumvention of this body, the United States Congress, and its
warmaking authority under both the Constitution and the War Powers Act.
Only Congress has the ability to authorize and fund military
operations.
The administration consulted with NATO. The administration consulted
with the United Nations. The administration consulted with the Arab
League. It never, in any real sense, consulted with the Congress of the
United States before beginning military operations in Libya.
Two weeks ago, this House made clear its opposition to the Libyan
venture by refusing to authorize even the limited use of force. We
should build on that by removing funding today.
Some may question whether or not this amendment is germane to this
particular piece of legislation. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I worked very
carefully with the Parliamentarian on the language, and, more
importantly, it's modeled after the famous Boland amendment of 1983 to
the Defense approps bill that year that was approved by this body 411-
0.
Some may argue, like the administration, that we really aren't
engaged in hostilities in Libya. That simply is laughable. Attorneys at
both the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice of this
administration believe that our activity requires congressional
authorization under the War Powers Act.
We've flown over a thousand combat sorties over Libyan airspace.
We've launched 228 Tomahawk missiles. We've launched over a hundred
Predators. We're refueling and supporting NATO aircraft that are
engaged in attacking Libya every single day. If that's not war on our
side of this situation, I can assure you that people on the other side
consider it war and certainly consider it hostile.
The reality is we should not be engaged in military action of this
level unless it's authorized and funded by the Congress of the United
States.
In Libya, the President has, quite simply, overreached. However, in
Congress, we have so far allowed him to do so. We've not authorized
this activity. There's not a single line in the Defense authorization
bill or in this bill which actually funds this activity, and we ought
to explicitly prohibit the President from concluding.
I think, like many in this body, this is a very important moment for
the Congress of the United States. Whether or not we claim warmaking
authority and exercise our power under the Constitution is really the
issue here. You could be for the Libyan venture and still be able to
support this legislation, or you could be against it.
At the end of the day, it's extraordinarily important that we stop
the
[[Page 10581]]
erosion of the warmaking authority and responsibility of the Congress
of the United States, that we end this ill-advised adventure in Libya,
and that we reassert the rightful place of this institution in
conducting war and authorizing it and funding it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1240
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Before I begin, I want to say that I have great respect
for Congressman Cole, who serves on the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. He is one of our most thoughtful members.
The NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and protect the people of
Libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations,
including the Arab League, and it followed a resolution adopted in the
United Nations Security Council authorizing ``all necessary measures.''
This amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this
could materially harm our relationship with NATO, which is also playing
a major role in this. We will undoubtedly require support in the future
in our dealings with NATO, and we get support in Afghanistan today.
I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the
costs of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, both in
the defense and foreign affairs-related committees as well as here on
the House floor. We should let the mission with our NATO allies
continue so we can overthrow Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The Constitution, Mr. Chairman, and the War
Powers Act clearly say what the parameters are within which the
President must act or follow: number one, a declaration of war; number
two, a specific authorization; number three, a national emergency
created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or
possessions, or its Armed Forces.
None of these criteria were met by the President. He said he went in
there because of humanitarian issues. He consulted, as we've said
before on the floor, with France, England, the United Nations, NATO,
and the Arab League. He had 2 or 3 weeks to do that, but he didn't have
time to talk to the Congress of the United States, and he's gone in
there and spent almost a billion dollars at a time when we just don't
have the money.
Now if you're talking about humanitarian problems, in the Sudan,
2,300 Sudanese have been killed this year alone, and more than 500
people have died in the last 2 weeks. In Darfur, 450,000 to 480,000
have been displaced or killed. Just recently, and one of my colleagues
talked about this a while ago, in the Nuba Mountains in the Sudan,
they're killing people every single day. Horrible atrocities are taking
place. Human rights violations. If you're talking about humanitarian
issues, why wouldn't you go in there as well?
You look, also, at Syria right now. In Syria, there have been an
awful lot of people killed. We all see that on television every night.
There are wars of opportunity. If you go to Liberia, if you go and look
back at the Khmer Rouge, we didn't get into those wars, and we're not
getting into these wars right now because it's not in our national
interest, and it's not a threat to the United States.
The President has taken us into a conflict. He said it's not a war,
but it is a war. We've sent about 230 missiles in there at $1.1 million
per to kill people. We've flown sortie after sortie over there dropping
bombs on people, and the President says it's not a war. It is a war,
it's the United States' war, and it's being covered by NATO.
We shouldn't be going to war unless this body and the other body say
it's okay. It's in the Constitution. It's in the War Powers Act. We
should not be there. Nobody likes Muammar Qadhafi. Nobody thinks he
should be there. But we can't be going into wars of opportunity every
place, especially at a time when we're fiscally broke. I think it's
extremely important that legislation like that which the gentleman from
Oklahoma just offered should be passed, and I hope we will pass it.
There's a whole host of these amendments that are going to be read
today and we're going to be voting on, and we need to send a very clear
signal to the White House that this must never happen again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BUERKLE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Cole Amendment to
H.R. 2219. Mr. Cole's amendment would restrict the use of funds for
furnishing military equipment, military training or advice, and other
military activities in Libya.
The President has failed to properly consult Congress on the
engagement of hostilities in Libya. The President is also in violation
of the War Powers Resolution because of the continued military action
past the 90 days allowed under the War Powers Resolution. The
Administration's attempt to excuse the continued U.S. military actions
in Libya by saying that the hostilities do not reach the threshold set
by the War Powers Resolution is disingenuous.
The power of the purse plays an important part in the U.S.
government's system of checks and balances. This amendment today will
prohibit the President from continuing to conduct military operations
in Libya until he can justify the actions to the Congress. I strongly
support the limitation of funding of current military activities with
respect to Libya. The President should not have a blank check to
conduct wars without the consultation and authorization of Congress.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash
Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the use of military force against Libya.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. AMASH. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich) for his tremendous leadership on this issue. There is a
growing bipartisan support for this amendment. It's an amendment that
gives us the opportunity to stop this unconstitutional war in Libya.
The United States has been at war against Libya for nearly 4 months.
We have dropped bombs on Libyan buildings. We have flown sorties over
Libyan airspace. It has been reported that we have even targeted
Qadhafi himself.
We are at war. The Constitution vests Congress with the exclusive
power to declare war, the President has not attempted to obtain
Congress's authorization for the war, and yet at this moment, as we
debate on the House floor, the war continues.
Instead of following the Constitution and seeking authorization, the
President made strained arguments to justify the continued operation.
At first, the operation was supposed to be ``limited,'' as though that
undefined term serves as a constitutional escape clause. My
constituents certainly would be surprised if Congress established a
limited religion, or subjected them to limited cruel and unusual
punishment, or quartered soldiers in their houses, but only for a
limited time.
After that ``limited'' argument ran its course, the President turned
to a U.N. Security Council resolution and an invitation from an
organization of Arab states to justify our involvement. Those
organizations were not around
[[Page 10582]]
at the time the Constitution was written, much less are they listed in
its text.
The administration now has retreated from its constitutional
arguments in public and claims that at least the War Powers Resolution
does not forbid the strikes because we're not involved in, quote,
hostilities against Libya. Imagine that the shoe were on the other
foot, that Libya was bombing us. Would we view the Libyan air force's
bombing of our infrastructure as a hostile act? Of course we would.
Last week, a member of the other Chamber called the President's
arguments, quote, cute. I would use a different term: embarrassing.
It's embarrassing that the administration attempts to hide behind these
transparently strained and flimsy arguments, especially when we're
dealing with such a grave issue.
But do you know what would be more embarrassing? If this Congress did
nothing. More embarrassing than the President's contortions of the law
and disregard for the Constitution would be if Congress, with full
knowledge that it was occurring, gave him a pass. In the face of an
attack on the Constitution, in the face of an attack on this
institution and our powers as a coequal branch, we must stand up and
say stop. If we don't, we should be the ones who are embarrassed.
The Amash-Kucinich amendment prohibits funds from being used for
military force against Libya. To be clear, I believe that Congress
doesn't need to do anything to stop the President from ordering force
against Libya; because the President has not received authorization,
the use of force is already illegal. However, to reinforce our
constitutional position, our amendment says that beginning at the start
of the fiscal year, on October 1, the Armed Forces may not drop bombs
on Libya or otherwise use military force. Unlike the bill we considered
the week before last, our amendment does not implicitly authorize any
actions against Libya. It simply says force may not be used because the
President has not sought nor has he received authorization for force.
Please vote ``yes'' on the Amash-Kucinich amendment and defend our
constitutional role in war powers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1250
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if this were a debate on policy,
or a debate on philosophy, or a debate specifically on the War Powers
Act, the position that I would take would be somewhat different than I
must take today. But as the manager of this bill, what I have to work
with is the bill before the House and the amendment before the House.
Now, the amendment is simple. None of the funds made available by
this act may be used for the use of military force against Libya. What
I would say to the Chair is that there are no funds in this bill, in
this act, for Libya. I was curious about that. And as chairman
preparing to write this bill, in conjunction with Mr. Dicks, the
ranking member, I wrote to the President on April 1, and I sent each of
our Members a copy, asking the President specific questions about the
scope of this activity, the expected cost, et cetera.
On June 22, the White House finally responded, and said that it will
not plan to ask for a supplemental appropriations bill. And there is no
money in this bill for Libya. The administration says that it will not
ask for a supplemental bill to pay for Libya, that they will use funds
in the base budget. I wonder from where the administration is going to
take money out of the base budget. Now, as chairman of the
subcommittee, this worries me. From where do they plan to take the
money? That's only part of the argument. There is no money in this act
for Libya to start with.
But, secondly, if this amendment should become effective, there are
many things that we would not be able to do. We would not be able to
fly or perform search and rescue missions of American forces who may be
flying aerial activity and have planes go down. Early in the operation,
we lost an F-15. Two American pilots went into Libya and safely rescued
the pilot of that F-15. We wouldn't be able to do that under this
amendment.
What we are providing today is surveillance, intelligence, and
reconnaissance. We wouldn't be able to do that under this amendment. We
wouldn't be able to provide aerial refueling to our coalition partners,
and they are our partners and we have an agreement with those partners.
We provide aerial refueling because most of them do not have the
capacity to refuel their aircraft in the air. Under this amendment, we
would not be able to provide aerial refueling. We couldn't even provide
operational planning, sitting down and talking with our coalition
partners about the plan for Libya.
So while this amendment would sound good if we were discussing
philosophy and if we were determining a policy, the policy has already
been established. And this amendment does not change the policy. It
affects something in the bill that's not even in the bill. So there are
no funds in this bill for Libya; and according to the letter from the
White House, supplemental funds will not be requested. The
administration will just pay for the operation out of existing funds.
That remains a good question, and I say that again, I am really curious
to know what base funds they intend to use to pay for this operation in
Libya. I don't have the answer today. I am hoping that one day soon I
may have that answer.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. I rise in support of the Amash-Kucinich amendment.
The esteemed chair, my good friend, of the Defense Appropriations
raises a question: Where are they getting the money? The money is not,
as he points out, expressly in the bill.
Well, this legislation, the Amash-Kucinich amendment, isn't to delete
funds that have already been appropriated. This is to forbid the
administration, forbid the administration, from using funds that are
appropriated in this act.
Now, there is no way that Congress could or would intervene to stop a
search and rescue mission. And that's not relevant unless you're
talking about that this Congress is finally going to search this
defense budget, figure out where the President is getting the money,
and rescue the American taxpayers from a wasteful war and rescue the
Constitution from an illegal war. That is what makes it a search and
rescue mission. But no search and rescue is prohibited by the Amash-
Kucinich amendment.
I want to say that I am proud to have worked with Mr. Amash to come
together with this bipartisan agreement. And the support for it is
growing. We have Mr. Paul, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Jones, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Burton, Ms. Barbara Lee, Mr. Poe, Mr. Stark, Mr. McClintock, Mr.
Nadler, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Honda. The support is growing. And
Members can call either Mr. Amash's office or my office right now if
they want to cosponsor.
This is our moment in Congress; this is our moment to reclaim the
Constitution of the United States, which the Founders envisioned that
under article I, section 8, we have the power to determine whether or
not this Nation goes to war, not some rebel group in Benghazi. Because
when you reduce it to its ultimate, a group of Benghazi rebels made the
decision to go to war against its own government, and before you know
it NATO joins in, we're pulled into it. The administration went to
everyone except getting the approval of the United States Congress.
This is our moment to reclaim the Constitution. Will we rise to the
occasion? This isn't only about this Congress right now. History will
judge us whether or not we understood the imperative of article I,
section 8. This is about the Constitution. Certainly it's about a
billion dollars that would be spent by September unless we intervene,
at a time of rising debt, at a time
[[Page 10583]]
of tremendous pressure on the budget, at a time when local governments
in our communities are cutting public services because they don't have
the money. This administration determines they're going to take us into
war, and they didn't even give so much as give this Congress an
opportunity to have this debate before the decision was made. That was
wrong.
I appreciate that we have been able to set aside any partisan
disagreements that are part of the nature of this forum to understand
that we have a higher calling here. And that higher calling is to
defend this Constitution of the United States, which describes what our
duties are when we come here. We take the oath to defend the
Constitution. That's what we shall do today.
We shall rescue this Congress from the ignominy of having the rights
that the people expect us to exercise on their behalf just trampled by
an administration that doesn't think that we have any co-equal role in
the government at all. This is our moment to stand up, Democrats and
Republicans alike.
I am proud to work with Mr. Amash in crafting this bipartisan
Kucinich-Amash amendment.
This is our moment, Members. Let's not lose this opportunity to stand
up and speak out on behalf of the United States Constitution, on behalf
of the separation of powers, on behalf of the co-equality of our House
of Representatives and the Congress of the United States. Let's show
the Founders, and the spirit of the Founders is always with us in this
place, let's demonstrate that we remember where we came from when this
Constitution was set forth. Let's demonstrate that we have reached our
moment where we stand up.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, for more than 3 months, our Nation has
been amidst a quiet constitutional crisis that carries immense
implications. My friend, the gentleman from Florida, is sadly mistaken
to dismiss this as a meaningless philosophical discussion. This strikes
at the very heart of our constitutional form of government.
{time} 1300
On March 19, completely without congressional authorization, the
President ordered an unprovoked attack against another country. In so
doing, he crossed a very bright constitutional line placed there
specifically to prevent so momentous and fatal a question as war being
made by a single individual.
The American Founders were explicit on this point. For centuries,
European monarchs had plunged their nations into bloody and
debilitating wars on whim, and the Founders wanted to protect the
American Republic from that fate.
James Madison explained why in this passage in a letter to Hamilton.
He said: ``In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found
than in the clause which confines the question of war or peace to the
legislature, and not to the executive department. The trust and the
temptation would be too great for any one man. War is, in fact, the
true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical force is to
be created and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war,
the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand
which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and the emoluments of
office are to be multiplied, and it is the executive patronage under
which they are to be enjoyed. Those who are to conduct a war cannot, in
the nature of things, be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to
be commenced, continued, or concluded.''
The President has tried to justify this act in a variety of ways:
that bombing another country is not really an act of war, that there
wasn't time to consult Congress--though more than enough to consult the
United Nations Security Council--or that it was a humanitarian act.
Mr. Chairman, never was there a greater provocation or clearer moral
justification for war than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And
never was there a more activist President than Franklin Roosevelt.
Yet within 24 hours of that attack, President Roosevelt appeared
before a joint session of Congress in this very Hall. He clearly
recognized that as Commander in Chief his authority only extended to
ordering that ``all measures be taken for our defense.'' He recognized
that under the Constitution, anything more, even in this most historic
attack, required an act of Congress, which he sought and obtained.
The unprovoked attack on Libya was not authorized by this Congress,
and it is accordingly unconstitutional and illegal. Indeed, 2 weeks
ago, the House considered a resolution authorizing a war with Libya,
and it rejected that measure by a nearly 3-1 margin. It then considered
a second measure to authorize acts of war against Libya just short of
actual combat, including refueling tankers on their way to targets. The
identification and selection of targets, operational support,
operational planning, it rejected that measure as well.
The precedent being established right now by the President's
deliberate defiance of the Constitution and the clear will of Congress
has profound implications for our Nation's future. If this act is
allowed to stand unchallenged, it means that the checks and balances
painstakingly built into the Constitution on the supreme question of
war and peace have been rendered meaningless.
Weeks ago, the House voted to deny authorization for the use of funds
for the war on Libya effective October 1. This amendment simply follows
through on that decision in the actual appropriations act.
Frankly, we need to do much more than this. Clearly, one of the
conditions for increasing the debt limit must be to ensure that no
funds, either borrowed or raised, should be used to continue to support
this illegal act.
And we need to remember that a war once started cannot always be
turned off by an appropriations act. Once we have attacked another
country without provocation, we have created an aggrieved belligerent
that now has cause to pursue that war regardless of what the Congress
later decides.
That's why this precedent is so dangerous. That's why the President's
actions are so devastating to our very form of government, and that's
why we need to speak clearly and unequivocally through measures like
that offered by the gentlemen from Michigan and Ohio today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Amash-Kucinich
amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor and at the same time call
on other Members to join us on the floor right now for this important
debate.
Mr. Chairman, I have been struck in recent days by the profound lack
of seriousness in Washington when it comes to confronting this illegal
war we are fighting in Libya. Last week at a news conference, the
President dismissed congressional concerns about war powers authority
and his Libya policy and, he said ``all kinds of noise about process.''
At the same time, the U.S. Senate essentially punted on the issue
earlier this week, pulling the plug on an important debate that the
country needs because a few Republican Senators complained that they
canceled recess only to deal with the debt ceiling, and they were not
going to discuss Libya.
But perhaps it was right here in the House that we have seen the most
incoherence on Libya. Right before we adjourned almost 2 weeks ago,
this body voted against authorizing the use of force in Libya; and then
less than 2 hours later, the House voted to continue funding the war we
had just refused to authorize.
Mr. Chairman, Congress has the ``power of the purse,'' and we must be
prepared to use it. We must use this opportunity to send a powerful
message.
[[Page 10584]]
A vote of no confidence in this Libya policy will prove that we do not
and will not write another check for a war that Americans don't want
and a war that we did not authorize.
Hostilities with Libya--and, let's be frank, these are hostilities--
have now been going on for more than 100 days with the cost climbing
toward a billion dollars, and that doesn't even include the moral costs
and the cost of civilian lives. The people's money is too important and
too precious, especially during this time of fiscal austerity.
No one believes that cutting off Libya alone is enough to make
meaningful progress on deficit reduction; but I think it's outrageous
that we are talking about cuts in Social Security benefits, and those
cuts are on the table while we are discussing the debt ceiling
negotiations while we continue to throw money at not one, not two, but
three wars.
A Brown University study concludes that when it's all said and done
Iraq and Afghanistan will suck the Treasury dry to the tune of at least
$3.7 trillion. Enough, already.
Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon is like that teenager. You keep giving the
kid the keys to the car, and he keeps crashing it. It's time we cut him
off.
We must draw the line, and we must draw it here. No more funding for
Libya; no more continuance in Libyan hostilities. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the President says we have gone to
war in the name of humanity. In other words, the President's little war
in Libya is so that we can preserve humanity in Libya.
In the history of peoples, as the gentleman from California has
pointed out, and the histories of countries, it has always been the
king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent
that particular country to war.
So when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect
Union, they decided it would not be the leader, which we call the
President, it would be the people that would decide if we went to war.
They gave that power to the Congress of the United States and only
Congress can declare war, not the President.
{time} 1310
But this is the President's war; and the President, in my opinion, is
in violation of the Constitution. He has led America to our third war.
Whether or not the war powers resolution is constitutional or not, we
can debate that. But he is in violation of it, too, because we're still
engaged in war, whether you call it hostilities or not. Some say it's
not hostile. Well, you be one of the recipients of one of those cruise
missiles on the ground somewhere in Libya, and you might think that's a
hostile environment towards you. But this country is spending money on
a third war, and it is unconstitutional.
Our ancestors had comments about the leader, the king, leading us
into war. The writer of the Constitution wrote a letter. James Madison
said that ``the Constitution supposes what the history of all
governments has always demonstrated, that it is the executive branch
most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with
studied care vested the question in this country of war in the
legislative body.''
The first Commander in Chief, the first President of the United
States, George Washington, said that ``the Constitution vests the power
of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of
importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the
subject and Congress has authorized such a measure.''
It is our history, it is our heritage, it is our Constitution, and it
is our principle that Congress must declare war, Congress must be the
one to engage in war. And in my opinion, the President has violated
that Constitution. He has violated the law of the land and the war
powers resolution; and it's Congress' duty now, it is our turn and it
is our responsibility to weigh in on this war and stop money from going
to this war.
Where the President got the $700-plus million that has already been
spent on this war, we don't know. We just want to make sure no more
money is spent on this unconstitutional action.
Muammar Qadhafi is a tyrant. He's an outlaw. There are a lot of bad
guys in the world, Mr. Chairman, and is it now the policy of the
President to pick out the ones he does not like and start blowing up
that country in the name of humanity? We don't know.
So Congress must resume, regain, its rightful authority and role and
make sure that we do not fund the President's little war, or any other
future wars, without congressional approval.
Mr. Chairman, instead of spending money blowing up Libya, we ought to
spend that American taxpayer money in the United States building the
United States and rebuilding America and not destroying somebody else's
country and being involved in somebody else's civil war.
And that's just the way it is.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we should not turn our backs on the Libyan
people. I want to remind my colleagues that NATO's campaign in Libya
has saved countless lives. Our actions and those of NATO were the only
thing that stopped Qadhafi from committing unspeakable crimes against
humanity. In fact, when the United States and NATO intervened, Qadhafi
was on the footsteps of Misrata and threatening to kill without mercy.
Qadhafi's forces were on the brink of Benghazi hours before NATO's
operation began. Qadhafi literally said that he would kill people with
``no mercy, no pity.'' He said he would go ``house by house, room by
room.'' Those are the words of a shameless, ruthless killer; and we had
to do something, and I'm glad that we did.
Constituents of my district whose roots come from Libya have made it
clear to me that they want me to stand together with humanity, stand
together with vulnerable people. But let me be clear, this is not Iraq,
and this will not be the Iraq war. We did not unilaterally declare war
on another country. On the contrary, our actions were with the
international community, sanctioned by the United Nations, the Arab
League and, most importantly, the Libyan people themselves.
Our role is limited and constrained, no boots on the ground. We
essentially are helping to supply and refuel and add surveillance. Do
we want to signal to other murderous dictators while the people are
standing up for democracy that they have a free hand to slaughter their
public? I hope not.
I say listen to regular Libyans on the street today. They want more
NATO involvement, not less. They want the United States to remain
involved. If we pull out now, the NATO coalition could fall apart and
tens of thousands of refugees fleeing Qadhafi's wrath would jeopardize
the fragile democratic transitions in both Egypt and Tunisia. This
issue has regional implications. It's not limited to Libya alone.
As my constituents know, and my legislative record reflects, I was
adamantly against the Iraq war and I am adamantly in favor of a faster
withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, I'm almost always against the use
of the military option. Seldom is it the right course, in my opinion.
But ``seldom'' doesn't mean ``always.'' Srebrenica, Darfur and Rwanda
all warranted our engagement as Libya does today. We made it to the
Balkans, but we didn't make it to Darfur or Rwanda, and literally
millions of people died because of that.
But at the same time, I cannot turn a blind eye to the slaughter of
innocent people. My hope is that the day may never come when I will
ignore the cries of innocent people being murdered by a dictator or
while we cozy up to a murderous dictator. I cannot turn my back on
people demanding the same freedoms we enjoy in America.
[[Page 10585]]
I understand my colleagues' aversion to military conflict. I share
it. I understand their fear of mission creep. I share that. But I also
understand that when people are being murdered wholesale, being
ethnically cleansed, being the targets of genocide, the world,
including the United States, cannot and must not stand back and watch.
For the sake of the Libyan people and all demanding freedom in the
Middle East, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution
authorizing the use of limited force.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, today I was planning to offer my own
amendment which would hold the President accountable to the War Powers
Act with regard to his operation in Libya. My intention was to expose
the President's clear violation of this important law. However, I was
concerned some wording could have raised a point of order. That being
said, I'm proud to cosponsor Mr. Kucinich's important amendment, which
will completely cut off funds for this illegal war.
Mr. Chairman, on March 19, President Obama announced he had
authorized U.S. military forces to conduct operations in Libya.
Unfortunately, the President did this without receiving authorization
from Congress even though he made sure to get the U.N.'s approval. By
not being open and honest with Congress, he left Members in the dark
and unsure of what our ultimate mission was. To this day, the President
hasn't come to Congress to ask for formal approval.
Initially, when the President committed our military operations in
Libya, he said it would be days, not months. Well, now we are
definitely talking months because it is a little over a week we've been
engaged in military operations in Libya for nearly 4 months. In an
effort to escape his responsibility, to this day the President has
refused to acknowledge that the U.S. is engaged in hostilities in
Libya. That being said, those in the Pentagon seem to disagree with the
President on this issue.
While the President has turned a blind eye to truth, the Department
of Defense has decided to award imminent danger pay to servicemembers
who fly over Libya and for those who serve on ships within 110 nautical
miles of the shore. As of June 3, 93 percent of the cruise missiles, 66
percent of the personnel, 50 percent of the ships, and 50 percent of
the planes used in NATO operations against Libya were by the United
States of America.
Mr. Chair, firing a cruise missile at Libya qualifies as hostilities.
In early June, it was estimated that Libya was already costing the
American taxpayers over $700 million.
I have three sons that are currently in the military, and I will
support our troops no matter where the President sends them. However, I
cannot support Obama's decision to commit our military forces'
operations without the required congressional authorization. That's why
I cosponsored this amendment, the 2012 Department of Defense
appropriations bill Kucinich amendment.
With that, I ask all my colleagues, all Members, to come down here on
the House floor and to express support for this important amendment, to
reclaim our Constitution, to reclaim the validity of this Congress as
relates to committing troops to war.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I encourage all my colleagues
to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1320
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I believe this is an important debate in the House today
as we, appropriately, exercise congressional oversight of the use of
force and the costs associated with our engagement in Libya.
In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. air power
and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate,
and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. In March, the
President clearly outlined the rationale for our involvement in this
military action. Now if I were advising the President, I would have
said send up a resolution and get approval from the House and the
Senate. There is no question that would have been the preferred course
of action.
The U.S. effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of
nations, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations
Security Council authorizing ``all necessary measures'' to protect
Libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of
Muammar al Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising,
inspired by the ``Arab Spring'' movement, was to use force against
civilians and opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the
international outcry and the United Nations action. While the direct
U.S. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain
engaged in the NATO operation.
When I hear many of my colleagues speak in favor of abandoning this
cause, I believe it is important to reflect on the fundamental reason
why we are concerned here. This is the same individual, Muammar al
Qadhafi, who had been planning terrorist actions against United States
citizens and others for decades. This is the same terrorist leader
against whom President Ronald Reagan authorized a military strike in
1986--and he didn't ask Congress for approval--following the bombings
in Berlin and definitive proof of Qadhafi's involvement in other
terrorist activity. At that time, President Reagan publicly denounced
Qadhafi as the ``Mad Dog of the Middle East'' who espoused the goal of
world revolution.
Mr. Chairman, I can only wonder what Ronald Reagan would say today
about those who would propose immediate withdrawal of U.S. assistance
to the broad coalition of nations attempting to finish the job that
President Reagan started.
Now, just to make it clear, the administration, when they sent up
their report under the Boehner amendment, I believe, they did list out
the military cost for the operation. Daily operations up to June 3 were
$313.7 million; munitions, $398.3 million; global lift and sustain,
$1.6 million. The subtotal for military operations was $713.6 million.
And then the drawdown of DOD supplies, $1.3 million; humanitarian
assistance, $1 million; for a total of $715.9 million.
Now munitions come out of the munition funds; daily operations come
out of O&M funds for the Army and the Navy. The estimate by September
30, 2011, is that daily operations will total $618 million; munitions,
$450 million; global lift and sustain, $10 million; for a total of
$1.078 billion. Drawdown of DOD supplies would be $25 million and
humanitarian assistance of $1 million, for a total of $1.104 billion. I
think that is a pretty clear indication.
Now, our chairman is absolutely correct. They have not asked for a
supplemental here. They are going to use existing funds that we have
already appropriated to take care of this operation. And of course we
would all like to see this thing resolved as quickly as possible, and a
political settlement may be possible. But I think it would be wrong to
undermine the President and our country and our involvement with NATO
and with the U.N. and with our Arab allies on this subject.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Amash-Kucinich amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, last month, the House voted against defunding
the American military mission in Libya. That was the right decision,
and it still is: along with our NATO allies, we intervened in Libya in
response to Moammar Gadhafi's violent repression of his own people, and
the explicit promise of worse to come. It's also important to remember
that Gadhafi has more American blood on his hands than anyone other
than Osama bin Laden. And we must remember that we intervened in
response to calls from the Arab League, the United Nations, the
European Union, and a unanimous NATO.
Our allies have taken the leading role in Libya, but it is crucial
that America continue to
[[Page 10586]]
support them. It's crucial because the campaign against Gadhafi has
made significant progress, which would be dramatically set back by a
sudden withdrawal of American support; because that sudden withdrawal
of support could endanger civilian lives and stall democratic movements
across the Middle East; and because it would represent a failure to
keep faith with our NATO allies. As I said the last time this issue
came to the floor: either we are in an alliance, or we are not. And if
we are, that means supporting our allies in their time and place of
need, so that they will continue to do the same for us--a principle
that is especially important when civilian lives are at stake. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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 Michigan will be postponed.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Lee of California.
An amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California.
An amendment by Mr. Nadler of New York.
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Poe of Texas.
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Lee of California.
Amendment No. 41 by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
An amendment by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
An amendment by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Poe of Texas.
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
An amendment by Mr. Amash of Michigan.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for the second through
the 11th vote. The final two votes will be 5-minute votes.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97,
noes 322, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 502]
AYES--97
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capuano
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Markey
Matsui
McGovern
Michaud
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
NOES--322
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Cantor
Cleaver
Conyers
Culberson
DeLauro
Giffords
Keating
Lewis (GA)
Miller, George
Payne
Pelosi
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1351
Messrs. CONNOLLY of Virginia, MILLER of North Carolina, SCOTT of
South Carolina, and LYNCH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, CROWLEY, and MURPHY of Connecticut
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on
[[Page 10587]]
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi)
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 133,
noes 295, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 503]
AYES--133
Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--295
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
{time} 1357
Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 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 174,
noes 251, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 504]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--251
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
[[Page 10588]]
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Coffman (CO)
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Neugebauer
Whitfield
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1400
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 504, had I been present,
I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) 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 131,
noes 297, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 505]
AYES--131
Adams
Amash
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Campbell
Capuano
Chaffetz
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Hall
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lummis
Lynch
Marchant
Markey
McCaul
McClintock
McKinley
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Nugent
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Schilling
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Slaughter
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--297
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Ellison
Ellmers
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1404
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page 10589]]
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114,
noes 314, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 506]
AYES--114
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McGovern
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schrader
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--314
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1408
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) 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 210,
noes 217, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 507]
AYES--210
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
[[Page 10590]]
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--217
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Camp
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1411
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado changed his vote from to ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 507 I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ''no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Cicilline) 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 145,
noes 283, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 508]
AYES--145
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Campbell
Capps
Cardoza
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cummings
DeFazio
DeGette
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lummis
Maloney
Matsui
McGovern
McIntyre
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
NOES--283
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
[[Page 10591]]
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in the vote.
{time} 1415
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) 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 119,
noes 306, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 509]
AYES--119
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McGovern
Mica
Michaud
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOES--306
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Berman
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
King (IA)
Stivers
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1419
Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) 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 140,
noes 285, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 510]
AYES--140
Adams
Amash
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Campbell
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Chaffetz
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cummings
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hall
Harris
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
LaTourette
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lummis
Lynch
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McKinley
McNerney
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Nugent
Paul
Pearce
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Schilling
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shuster
Slaughter
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Welch
West
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NOES--285
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
[[Page 10592]]
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gibbs
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Markey
Smith (NJ)
Stivers
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1422
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. McCollum
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum) 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 226,
noes 201, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 511]
AYES--226
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Butterfield
Campbell
Cantor
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
DesJarlais
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Waxman
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (IN)
NOES--201
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Carson (IN)
Carter
Clyburn
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Webster
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page 10593]]
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Markey
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1427
Messrs. McCARTHY of California and BURGESS changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. McCollum
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum) 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 167,
noes 260, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 512]
AYES--167
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
Kingston
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moran
Neal
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sutton
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--260
Adams
Aderholt
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Holden
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Issa
Keating
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1432
Messrs. LoBIONDO and MACK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GUTIERREZ and Ms. SUTTON changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Cole
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
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 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 201, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 513]
AYES--225
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cummings
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kingston
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
[[Page 10594]]
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McGovern
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--201
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Butterfield
Canseco
Cantor
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grimm
Gutierrez
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nunes
Olson
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
McHenry
Scott, David
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1439
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 513, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Amash) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 229, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 514]
AYES--199
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Capito
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
McCaul
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NOES--229
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Fattah
Filner
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
[[Page 10595]]
Quayle
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tonko
Turner
Van Hollen
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes left in this
vote.
{time} 1446
Mr. WESTMORELAND changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rigell
Mr. RIGELL. 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:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to support Operation Odyssey Dawn or Operation
Unified Protector.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, each Member of this body has the duty to
protect the separation of powers that was so wisely woven into our
Constitution by our Founding Fathers and which forms the very
foundation of how we govern this great Nation.
Mr. Chairman, an egregious ongoing breach of the separation of powers
is taking place at this very hour; specifically, the usurpation of a
power given only to Congress, that found in article I, section 8 of the
Constitution: only Congress can declare war.
Known initially as Operation Odyssey Dawn and now as Operation
Unified Protector, military intervention easily rising to the
definition of war is being carried out in Libya. It is being carried
out with the bravery, exceptional professionalism and commitment to
victory that define our fellow Americans who serve in our Armed Forces.
And before I address the mission itself, I first applaud their
willingness to sacrifice so much for their fellow Americans.
Mr. Chairman, a careful review of the President's case for support of
his actions in Libya leads me to this sobering but firm conclusion. The
President's use of force in Libya is unwise and it is unconstitutional.
The level of military resources being employed both in personnel and
equipment, the amount of ordnance delivered, and the damage inflicted
constitute acts of war. At the very minimum, they meet the definition
of ``hostilities'' under the War Powers Resolution. Yet not one of the
three criteria delineated in the War Powers Resolution that would
justify his action has been met.
There has been no declaration of war. There has been no statutory
authority issued. There has been no evidence that an attack on American
forces was imminent or had occurred.
Now if a Tomahawk missile was launched into any American city,
whether Los Angeles, Chicago, or even my home city of Virginia Beach,
would that not meet our definition of hostilities? Absolutely, it
would.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the pivotal issue: The military force
being directed toward Libya easily triggers the definition of
hostilities. The legal opinion upon which the administration stakes the
legitimacy of its actions in Libya is thinner than the paper on which
it is written. It is not based on law but something that he refers to
as the ``national interest,'' a term that the President, in his wisdom,
believes he can solely define himself. His Office of Legal Counsel
concluded that: ``President Obama could rely on his constitutional
power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated
military operations in Libya which were limited in their nature, scope,
and duration''--listen carefully here--``without prior congressional
authorization.''
{time} 1450
Disregarding the legal opinions of the Pentagon's general counsel and
the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel,
both of whom told the White House they believed that the military's
operations in Libya amounted to ``hostilities,'' the President plowed
ahead.
Mr. Chairman, a President's opinion of the War Powers Resolution does
not negate its authority.
Though required by law, there was no check; there was no balance.
Even the broadest interpretation of article I, section 8 cannot corral
the interpretation held by the President of his unilateral right to
engage U.S. forces in combat. It is irreconcilable with our
Constitution. The President has taken America into a war in the midst
of a financial crisis, in yet another Muslim nation, in pursuit of a
military objective that is ambiguous and constantly morphing.
Though I disagree with the President's actions in Libya, I stand here
today not motivated by partisanship. Now, if I woke up tomorrow morning
and learned that the President had taken action to defend this great
country from imminent danger and attack, I would be the first to stand
next to him and affirm his action. If America should go to war, it must
be done so in a very careful, deliberative manner and as a last
measure.
It must be done so in a way that is fully consistent with our
Constitution. That is not the case here.
My amendment is necessary because only by using the power of the
purse can we end an unwise war and meet our duty, our high duty, to
preserve the separation of powers. Now is the time to act.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. On March 19, 2011, coalition forces launched Operation
Odyssey Dawn to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to
protect the Libyan people from the brutal regime of Muammar al Qadhafi.
Operation Odyssey Dawn ended on March 31, 2011, and transitioned to the
NATO-led Operation Unified Protector, which continues today.
Operation Odyssey Dawn has ceased operations; therefore part of this
amendment is no longer relevant. However, the NATO-led mission to
defeat Qadhafi and to protect the people of Libya was undertaken in
concert with a broad coalition of nations, including the Arab League,
and it followed resolutions adopted in the United Nations Security
Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures.''
This amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this
could materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from whom we
will undoubtedly require support in the future and who have been our
partners since 1949. We should let the mission with our NATO allies
continue so we can defeat Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RIGELL. 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 gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page 10596]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for ``Operation and Maintenance--Environmental Restoration,
Formerly Used Defense Sites'' is hereby reduced and increased
by $1,000,000.
Ms. NORTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to waive the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, more than 25 years ago, the Congress
charged the Defense Department to identify and then to clean up and
remediate properties which the department had owned or leased in order
to test chemical munitions. Congress did so because these munitions had
left hazardous substances related to the work of the department. There
are more than 2,000 such sites in nearly every State, all the
Territories and in the District of Columbia.
My concern is with those sites in congested residential parts of our
country where there may be dense populations located by formerly used
defense sites. A classic case and perhaps the most important--but I'm
sure not the only one--was the World War I chemical weapons site for
the United States of America. It happened to have been right here in
Northwest Washington, DC, in a portion of what is now American
University and its surrounding neighborhood known as Spring Valley.
The Army is making good on its duty to clean up these formerly used
defense sites (FUDS), including the site in the District of Columbia,
but we have no information on the health effects of these leftover
chemical munitions. They have been found in people's back and front
yards. They have been found, at least here, in people's gardens. Entire
houses and garages, as it turns out, unknowingly were built on this
debris. The site here in the District of Columbia was found by accident
by a utility contractor digging into a trench. The neighborhood had no
knowledge. The city had no knowledge of these leftover munitions.
Again, I stress that there are surely other sites around the United
States, and I cite this case as an example.
This land, in the District of Columbia at least, was used for the
research and development and testing of chemical explosives, and it was
able to be done in this city because there wasn't any local government,
and there wasn't any home rule. I guess, since the city was
administered by the Federal Government, they could simply make a
munitions testing site in this city. Hundreds of pounds of chemical
agents and explosives were developed and released throughout the
environment. We have found in the Spring Valley section of the city
arsine projectiles, mustard gas projectiles, lewisite projectiles, and
other kinds of chemical toxic waste left over from undetonated
ordnances.
When World War I was over, the Army simply used the site where they'd
been doing the testing as a dumpsite. They buried these munitions right
where they were testing. Now, that was the way in which you disposed of
these munitions at the time. In the Spring Valley area that is a
classic case, there are 1,200 private homes, 30 Embassies and foreign
properties, Sibley Hospital, Wesley Seminary. There may be other
metropolitan areas that have formerly used defense sites as well.
Spring Valley may be the prime target because it is such a well-
established neighborhood where chemical agents and munitions were once
used.
{time} 1500
The amendment requires the Secretary to allocate $1 million to study
the human health effects of left-over munitions in congested
residential areas. Just as the Department of Defense and the Army have
acknowledged their obligation to clean up and remove hazardous
substances, especially munitions that have been left behind through
their testing, they also have the obligation to investigate whether
there are any remaining health effects. That is all we are asking; that
there be a study as to whether there are any remaining health effects
at this former munitions site from World War I and other sites like it
in congested residential areas.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to acknowledge the gentlewoman's hard
work to clean up this part of the District of Columbia.
Our bill provides $276.5 million in the Environment Restoration
Account, formerly the Used Defense Site Account. The Department has the
authority to provide funding to those projects that it deems of the
highest priority and that pose the greatest risk to environmental and
human health.
If the Department believes that funding such a study as the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia suggests is important, the
Department has the ability to do so. For these reasons, we do oppose
the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I also appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment, and I will
work with you on seeing if we can talk to the military to use
environmental restoration funds if your amendment doesn't succeed.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Chairman, to engage in a colloquy on the need for traumatic brain
injury funding for post-acute guidelines for our returning troops.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that medical treatment
guidelines for post-acute rehabilitation of moderate and severe TBI do
not exist today. Recognizing this, Mr. Platts from Pennsylvania and Ms.
Giffords from Arizona included an amendment in the National Defense
Authorization for fiscal year 2012 that would require the Department of
Defense to implement post-acute treatment guidelines for traumatic
brain injury. This provision was supported by the cochairs of the Brain
Injury Task Force--myself, Mr. Platts, bipartisan. It is my hope that
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences be able to
begin the project as soon as possible. Over the years, the TBI Task
Force has addressed many gaps for our servicemembers.
I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
Mr. PLATTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As cochair of the Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force, I am honored to
join with the gentleman from New Jersey in support of implementing
post-acute treatment guidelines.
Before 2007, there were no funds in the budget for traumatic brain
injury treatments, but with the dedicated efforts of Chairman Young and
other members of the Appropriations Committee, through their efforts we
were not only able to provide funding, but more importantly, to sustain
a significant level of funding over the past number of years.
As we continue to address new gaps for our servicemembers suffering
TBIs,
[[Page 10597]]
in this 2012 authorization bill that was passed in the committee and
moving forward through the process we requested $1 million to fund
these post-acute guidelines that the gentleman from New Jersey has
referenced. It is our understanding that while TBI funding in the
Defense appropriations bill is not separated by purpose, it is our
understanding that the Department uses the overall funding for
traumatic brain injury research for authorized purposes.
Is our understanding correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct. In this bill, the
committee has provided an additional $125 million for TBI research.
It's above the fully funded budget request of $415 million. And it has
been our long-standing policy that this increased funding is provided
at the discretion of the Department. Historically, this subcommittee
has provided increased funding for TBI research but refrained from
directing how that money should be spent, allowing the Department to
prioritize how best to use that funding for authorized purposes.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, may I also clarify
that should the authorization bill pass with this provision on post-
acute guidelines that the Department then has the needed amount of $1
million to really accomplish this objective which we have.
Mr. Chairman, I would request, as usual, your deepest cooperation.
And no one has done more for our troops than you.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
I would say to the gentleman that he is correct; should the provision
be carried on the final authorization bill, then the Department would
have sufficient resources to fund the provisions should they decide to
based on this appropriations bill.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield to my brother, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
Mr. PLATTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just like to add my words of great thanks to Chairman Young,
who has been a great leader in doing right by our men and women in
uniform in all fashion, and especially those who have suffered
traumatic brain injury. As a Nation, we are indebted to you and your
staff for your great leadership.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 61 Offered by Ms. Foxx
Ms. FOXX. 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:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United
States Code (the Defense of Marriage Act).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, what sets the United States apart from many
other countries that have lots of resources are our values, and that we
are a Nation of laws. We may not agree with all of our laws, but they
are the laws of our land, and not even the President can decide which
laws to enforce and which not to enforce. Yet this administration has
said it will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Department of Defense maintains that the repeal of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell does not directly challenge the Defense of Marriage Act,
which protects the right of individual States to define marriage as the
union between a man and a woman. In February, 2011, Attorney General
Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would no longer
defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Federal court. However, the House
of Representatives has expressed its intent to continue legal defense
of the statute along with other laws of our country.
My proposed amendment would reaffirm Congress' assertion that funds
may not be used in contravention of section 7 of title I, United States
Code, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Department of the Navy has
already demonstrated how pressures to accommodate same-sex couples can
quickly lead to policy changes that are ultimately contrary to previous
assurances given with regard to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and
in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act.
On April 13, 2011, the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains, in a
memo titled ``Revision of Chaplain Corps Tier 1 Training,'' directed
that training be revised to accommodate same-sex marriages on military
bases that are located in States where same-sex marriage is legal. The
memo stated, ``This is a change to previous training that stated same-
sex marriages are not authorized on Federal property.'' The memo
further authorized the participation of a military chaplain in a same-
sex civil marriage ``if it is conducted in accordance with the laws of
a State which permits same-sex marriages or unions,'' and if the
chaplain is otherwise certified to officiate. This calls into question
the intent of the Department of Defense with regard to compliance with
existing Federal law under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Congress should establish policy guidance on this issue that will
cover numerous contingencies and unexpected situations in the future.
It is irresponsible for the Department of Defense to dismiss all
concerns about issues involving marriage status by pointing to the
existence of the Defense of Marriage Act.
{time} 1510
There's no contingency plan to address this issue should the Federal
courts invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, the
administration is inviting that very policy. Federal court orders could
suddenly overturn current policies of the Department of Defense, which
is not likely to resist or oppose new directives that disregard the
intent of the Defense of Marriage Act. Congress can and should enact a
policy making it clear that Defense Department funds should not be used
in ways that violate Federal laws, including the Defense of Marriage
Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying
bill.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Issues such as the Defense of Marriage Act represent
policy questions that are not suited to appropriation bills. Indeed,
this amendment does not address any specific program funding matter
addressed in the bill now before the House.
To the extent that this amendment has any connection to the
Department of Defense, I believe that such a policy issue is
appropriately addressed within the domain of the House Armed Services
Committee. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I won't be redundant. I'll just follow up on
what my colleague Representative Foxx said in proposing this amendment
for the two of us.
This is merely a move to make sure that legislation that has already
passed, the Defense of Marriage Act and in the authorization bill
dealing with the Department of Defense, coincides with the
appropriation bill that we're talking about today.
There's been some confusion in the Department of Defense, in the
facilities at these military bases, that there could be marriages
between two men or two women. The Defense of Marriage Act and the
authorization bill clearly state that that cannot happen and will
[[Page 10598]]
not happen because it would be a violation of the Defense of Marriage
Act which has passed this body.
And even though the administration has chosen not to be involved in
this issue, I believe it's incumbent on the Congress to make this issue
very clear so that we don't have confusion on these military bases when
we talk about same sex marriages.
I think it is imperative that we make absolutely clear in both the
appropriation bill and the authorization bill, as well as the Defense
of Marriage Act, what the law is, what it's intended to do, so that
it's very clear to the military so they don't have any difficulty in
making decisions on this particular issue.
I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Representative Virginia
Foxx for introducing this amendment on behalf of the both of us.
She and her staff, especially Javier Sanchez, have thoroughly
examined the confusing messages and conflicting protocols within the
Department of Defense related to the implementation of the Defense of
Marriage Act.
Why is this Amendment Needed?
(1) This amendment reinforces language that was included in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that passed the
House on May 26, 2011.
Section 534 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act
reaffirms the policy of the Defense of Marriage Act by stating that the
word ``marriage'' included in any ruling, regulation, or interpretation
of the Department of Defense (DoD) applicable to a service member or
civilian employee of the Department of Defense shall mean only a legal
union between one man and one woman.
And, Section 535 establishes that marriages performed on DoD
installations or marriages involving the participation of DoD military
or civilian personnel in an official capacity, to include chaplains,
must comply with the Defense of Marriage Act.
This amendment does not impose a new restriction on the Department of
Defense.
It is a straightforward in its purpose and text. It simply aligns the
Department of Defense appropriations bill we are considering today with
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that passed
the House May 26, 2011.
The amendment ensures that defense dollars are not used to implement
policy changes that violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
I believe that appropriations and authorization bills should be
compatible, where possible, and by adopting the Foxx-Burton amendment,
we will do just that for the Defense of Marriage Act.
This is the only opportunity we have to synchronize DoD funding to
the DOMA policy provisions contained in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
(2) The amendment settles--once and for all--any confusion and/or
misinformation within the DoD about the abilities of its personnel to
perform same-sex marriages as well as the use of its facilities.
It is important that we pass this amendment, which is a
straightforward statement reaffirming Congress' assertion that funds
may not be used in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United States
Code (Defense of Marriage Act).
The law ensures the States would not have to recognize same-sex
marriages from other States, and that the Federal Government would
recognize only the union of one man and one woman as marriage.
Offering up Federal facilities and Federal employees for the use in
same-sex marriages violates DOMA, which is still the law of the land
and binds our military.
(3) President Obama's Administration is on record that it will no
longer defend DOMA thus leaving it up to Congress to defend against
challenges to DOMA.
I am confident that activist lawyers and judges will begin
challenging inconsistencies in marriage status for military personnel.
For example, a same-sex couple who was married in a State where same-
sex marriage is recognized sues because they are denied military family
housing. The resolution of this kind of litigation would propel the
courts into policy matters that Congress should decide.
Bottom line.
This amendment--in conjunction with the Sections 534 and 535 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012--will allow
Congerss to speak with one voice on the Defense of Marriage Act.
If Congress fails to speak clearly on this issue, we are certain to
see more conflicting and confusing DOMA protocols emerging in the
Department of Defense. And, it will be with the blessing of the White
House.
Let's keep our Department of Defense focused on the missions at hand.
Congress can and should make it clear that Defense Department funds
should not be used in ways that violate Federal laws, including the
Defense of Marriage Act.
Support the Foxx-Burton Amendment. Let's leave the guesswork out of
it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, last year, Congress voted to repeal the
counterproductive and unjust policy of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''
But despite overwhelming evidence that repeal will strengthen our
military, despite strong support for repeal among our troops and the
American people, despite support for repeal from military leaders like
the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and despite a Federal court order that the Government stop enforcing
DADT immediately, Republicans are still pushing to keep this shameful
policy in place.
Under DADT, 13,500 gay men and women were discharged simply because
of who they were. These were troops who had served our country
honorably and bravely; 1,000 of them filled what the military calls
``critical occupations,'' such as engineering and interpretation of
languages like Arabic and Farsi.
Our closest allies--countries like Britain, Canada, and Israel--know
better than to throw that kind of service and expertise away.
Yet the amendment offered by Mr. Huelskamp would force our military
to stop training its Chaplain Corps to prepare for the repeal of DADT.
This amendment would substitute Congress's micromanagement for the
judgment of our military leaders on training issues, and it is a
transparent attempt to interfere with the repeal of DADT in any way
possible.
The amendment offered by Ms. Foxx is in a similar vein. It would
prohibit defense appropriations in contravention of the Defense of
Marriage Act, or DOMA.
DOMA is discriminatory and should be ruled unconstitutional--but as
long as it is law, it clearly applies to all Federal agencies,
including the Defense Department.
That makes this amendment entirely unnecessary. Let's see it for what
it is: Republicans' effort to change the subject from open service--an
argument they've lost--to marriage equality--an argument they're still
in the process of losing.
I urge my colleagues to oppose both amendments which put partisan
belief in the exclusion of gays above the strength of our military.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BERMAN. I rise to engage Mr. Dicks in a colloquy regarding an
important area of funding for the Department of Defense.
For more than a decade, the Department of Defense has funded programs
to support established university programs that promote region-wide
informal conferences and task forces on arms control, regional
security, and related topics to the Middle East for Arab, Israeli, and
other officials and experts.
These programs serve an important national security objective--
fostering an alternative means of dialogue and engagement in an area of
unparalleled significance to the United States. I know of one such
program in Los Angeles, and I urge the Department to continue funding
such programs.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking
member, for his thoughts on this issue.
Mr. DICKS. First of all, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
And I thank you, Mr. Berman, for your comments and agree that such
programs that support university programs promoting Middle East
conferences and task forces on arms control, regional security, and
other issues for Arab, Israeli, and other officials are important and
beneficial. I hope the Department of Defense funds such programs
accordingly, and I will work with the gentleman to ensure that that
happens.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Michaud
Mr. MICHAUD. I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page 10599]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 2533a of title 10, United
States Code (popularly known as the ``Berry Amendment'').
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MICHAUD. I rise today to offer an amendment with Mr. Kissell to
ensure that no funds in this bill are spent in violation of the Berry
Amendment.
The Berry Amendment requires DOD to procure certain categories of
products from American manufacturers including food, clothing, fabrics,
stainless steel, and certain tools. It was enacted to ensure that the
United States troops wore military uniforms made in the U.S.A. and to
ensure that U.S. troops were fed American-made food.
The Berry Amendment has been on the books for 70 years. Yet, in
recent years, some in Congress have tried to weaken it. At a time of 9
percent unemployment and when employment in the U.S. manufacturing
sector is on the decline, it is more important than ever for Congress
to reiterate its support for existing law that promotes domestic
procurement.
I urge my colleagues to support American manufacturing and to promote
American food and uniforms for our troops by voting for the Michaud-
Kissell Amendment.
At this time, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Kissell).
Mr. KISSELL. I would like to thank my colleague for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, for 70 years, as my colleague pointed out, the Berry
Amendment has served this Nation well. It has given our fine military
forces the best of American-made equipment and has guaranteed the
American people the opportunity to make that equipment. It is a matter
of national security. And it should not be a matter, as the intent of
Congress has been clear for 70 years, it shouldn't be a matter of us
standing up to reaffirm this amendment.
But as my colleague said, there have been efforts made to weaken the
Berry Amendment, to get around the Berry Amendment, and we simply want
to remind all folks involved that the Berry Amendment is the intent of
Congress. It has been the law for 70 years. And we need to continue
with the Berry Amendment that any funds that are being spent should be
spent in total compliance with the Berry Amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to advise him that we're prepared to accept this
amendment.
Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the chairman very much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kissell
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, or provide a
loan or loan guarantee to, any United States commercial air
carrier if that contract, memorandum of understanding,
cooperative agreement, loan, or loan guarantee allows the air
carrier to charge baggage fees to any member of the Armed
Forces who is traveling on official military orders and is
being deployed overseas or is returning from an overseas
deployment.
{time} 1520
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple, to-the-point
amendment.
We have heard recently about members of our armed services traveling
on official military business being charged excess baggage fees by our
commercial airlines here in the United States. This amendment would not
make any funds available for entering into any contracts, memorandums
of understanding, cooperative agreements, loans or loan guarantees with
any United States commercial airlines where those contracts,
memorandums of understanding, cooperative agreements, loans or loan
guarantees would allow for excess baggage fees for any member of the
armed services traveling on official military business.
Our folks, when they're traveling and protecting our Nation,
shouldn't have to worry about this, and we as a Nation shouldn't have
to pay extra fees beyond the millions upon millions of dollars that we
already pay to these airlines. This just should be business as usual,
and I encourage all my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment.
Our troops and their families are being asked to make sacrifice after
sacrifice after sacrifice. We should be at a point of trying to make
things better for them, make things easier for them; and I would say
that one of the things that we can do is to adopt the gentleman's
amendment to at least give them some relief when they're coming back
from the war that we sent them to without charging them extra money to
get back home with their belongings.
I applaud the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I rise in
strong support.
Mr. DICKS. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I, too, agree with the chairman. This is one of those
situations where I think we have to step in and take action for our
troops. This is a good amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Eshoo
Ms. ESHOO. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with a corporation or other
business entity that does not disclose its political
expenditures.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the third time this year to call
for transparency and disclosure in our system and throughout our
government. This appropriations bill will spend hundreds of billions of
taxpayer dollars next year; and a huge portion of it, a portion that's
impossible to quantify, will go to contractors. Some are small, others
rank among the world's largest companies. As we meet today, the
workforce of contractors in Afghanistan is the same size as the
workforce of the uniformed personnel there; and since 2005, we've spent
approximately $12 billion on contractors in Afghanistan. Today, there
are more private contractors than uniformed personnel in Iraq, and
we've spent $112 billion on contractors in Iraq since 2005.
The Federal Government does business with thousands of contractors
who receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money. They should be
required to disclose their political spending, and
[[Page 10600]]
that's what my amendment will accomplish.
In 2002 when we voted to pass the historic McCain-Feingold campaign
finance bill, most Republicans voted ``no,'' saying we needed
disclosure, not soft money restrictions. They said we needed to put
spending out in the open and let the voters assess it. Today, when the
President proposes requiring contractors to simply disclose their
spending, not to limit it, Republicans are up in arms. They say it will
politicize the contracting process; but when contractors can spend
money in elections, the contracting process is already politicized.
My amendment is modest and it's simple: It will bring this
information out into the open and let the public decide for themselves.
The public deserves to know what happens with their tax money.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a revolutionary idea. For the last 17
years, the SEC requires bond dealers to limit their campaign
contributions to the officials in the cities that issue bonds. It
requires them to disclose their contributions, providing the public
with transparency. The rule was challenged and upheld in court, and my
amendment really adheres to the same principle. To quote Senator Mitch
McConnell from 2003: ``Why would a little disclosure be better than a
lot of disclosure?''
I agree with Senator McConnell. With public dollars come public
responsibilities. Disclosure would fulfill this responsibility. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.'' This amendment requires a new
determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of
order? Seeing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination of whether certain political contributions were
disclosed. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mulvaney
Mr. MULVANEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act is hereby reduced by $17,192,000,000, not to be
derived from amounts of appropriations made available by
title IX.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
By way of brief summary, this amendment would freeze the base
Department of Defense funding at 2011 levels. It is roughly a $17
billion reduction, or a 3 percent reduction over the bill that's
currently before us. Again, it takes it back to the 2011 levels that we
passed just recently in H.R. 1 during the continuing resolution debate.
This is not, Mr. Chairman, a new idea. It's not even my idea. The
Domenici-Rivlin bipartisan deficit reduction plan also proposed exactly
this--freezing base defense spending at 2011 levels.
{time} 1530
During the budget debate, the one substantive bipartisan amendment
that passed was an amendment that was a sense of the Committee that
said that defense spending needed to be on the table as we look at
spending reductions for 2012. And most importantly, the President's
fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, also recommended
exactly what this amendment does today, keeping defense spending at
2011 levels.
I happen to believe that at least, especially in this area, the
Simpson-Bowles Commission is correct. And I want to read from the
commission's report: ``Every aspect of the discretionary budget must be
scrutinized. No agency can be off limits, and no program that spends
too much or achieves too little can be spared. Any serious attempt,''
and I will say that again, ``any serious attempt to reduce the deficit
will require deliberate, planned reductions in both domestic and
defense spending.''
Personally, I like to think that I am serious about cutting our
deficits. I hope that I am not alone. Many of us have gone around back
home and told people how serious we are. But how can we look them in
the eye and tell them that we are serious about cutting this deficit
and about cutting spending and then come in and plus-up the base
defense budget?
Admiral Mullen himself said that with the increasing defense budget,
which is almost double over the last 10 years, it has not forced us,
that's the Defense Department, to make the hard trades. It hasn't
forced us to prioritize. It hasn't forced us to do the analysis.
We just received a Budget Committee memo today that said of the 92
major defense acquisition programs, 69 percent of them are over-budget.
One in every five of them is over-budget by at least 50 percent. That
is simply not right. It's not what our families are having to do. It's
not what our States are having to do. It's not even what we have chosen
to do in other areas of the budget. We have made hard decisions. We
have made hard choices. The Defense Department needs to do exactly the
same.
This amendment will not in any way limit our national defense
capabilities. It will not put a single soldier at more risk. It simply
holds defense spending exactly where we were 3 months ago when we
approved the CR.
Having been here about 6 months, there is one thing that I have
learned being a freshman. And for the folks who are here for the first
time, the message is this: talk is cheap. Talk is especially cheap.
It's very easy for us to go home and tell folks how important it is to
cut spending, how serious we are about cutting spending. But nothing
sends the message that we are really serious about it like cutting
spending on something that is important to us. It's easy to cut things
that we don't like. It is hard to cut things that are important to us.
And defense spending is critically important to me and to the folks of
this Nation and to the folks of South Carolina.
But if we're going to send a message that we are really serious about
cutting spending, then everything needs to be on the table. And holding
defense spending simply at 2011 levels and passing this amendment would
help show everybody that we are really serious about fixing this
difficulty.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. This amendment follows the Lee amendment and the Garamendi
amendment in cutting about $17.1 billion from the Overseas Contingency
Operation Fund. I myself feel that we could be reducing our troop
levels faster, but I don't think we should take the money out at this
point until we have a better understanding of the pace of the
withdrawal.
Now, we know the President's plan is 10,000 this year and another
23,000 next year. And so there will be some savings in the overseas
contingency account as those troops come home. But I think it's too
early to make a decision on that. Better left to do it in conference,
where we can make a reasoned judgment and talk to the Pentagon and the
Congressional Research Service so that we have a better idea of how
much savings this will be. I feel that this is premature at this point.
The other two amendments were soundly defeated, and I think the same
fate will be here.
I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
[[Page 10601]]
Mr. MULVANEY. Just for clarification, the amendment only makes the
change to the base spending. It does not change anything in title IX.
It does not change overseas contingencies in any way. It is simply the
base portion of the DOD budget. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. DICKS. That's even worse. I would doubly oppose the gentleman's
amendment on that part of it. So let's defeat this amendment, as we
defeated the others.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am
one of the original budget cutters in this Congress. But I will not cut
a defense budget to the point that it adversely affects our troops or
adversely affects our country's readiness. And we could be getting
close to that.
This year, Secretary Gates made his recommendation, which resulted in
the President's budget request being $13 billion less than we had
anticipated for national defense. In addition to that, this committee
recommended, and this Congress will pass sometime today or tomorrow, a
bill that is $9 billion less than the President requested. So we have
cut and saved money everywhere we could without affecting readiness and
without having an adverse effect on our troops.
If we start cutting too deep--and we were careful with this $9
billion reduction, very careful--we don't want to see that we have to
cancel training for returning troops. We don't want to have to cancel
Navy training exercises. We don't want to have to slow down or reduce
Air Force flight training. We don't want to delay or cancel maintenance
of aircraft, ships, and vehicles. We don't want to delay important
safety and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and to military
barracks. If we do those things, we are affecting our readiness.
Training relates to readiness.
Training is a large part of the money in the base bill, not the
overseas contingency operations account, but the base bill, which is
what this amendment reduces. This amendment could be getting us very
close to a dangerous situation where troops and readiness are affected.
And there is just no way that I can even appear to support this
amendment. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MULVANEY. 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 gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.
Amendment No. 71 Offered by Ms. Bass of California
Ms. BASS 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:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 1590 or 1591 of title 18,
United States Code, or in contravention of the requirements
of section 106(g) or (h) of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g) or (h)).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is
simple. It prohibits the Defense Department from being used to engage
in or facilitate human trafficking. Thousands of private contracting
defense firms, including some of the industry's biggest names, such as
DynCorp International and Halliburton subsidiary KBR, have been linked
to trafficking-related incidents. Thousands of nationals from
impoverished countries are lured by the promise of good jobs, but
sometimes end up victims of scams that leave them virtual slaves, with
no way to return home or seek legal recourse.
Despite this, allegations against Federal contractors engaged in
illegal labor practices ranging from contract-worker smuggling to human
trafficking in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to surface in the media.
A recent New Yorker article illustrates the urgent need for this
amendment. The article tells the story of two women from Fiji who
thought they were going to lucrative jobs in Dubai, but ended up,
quoting the article, unwitting recruits for the Pentagon's invisible
army of more than 70,000 cooks, cleaners, construction workers,
beauticians, et cetera, from the world's poorest countries who service
U.S. military contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These two women were asked to deliver resumes, hand over passports,
submit to medical tests, and they had to pay $500 to a recruiting firm.
They were lured to Iraq under false pretenses and then told they would
be making $700 a month. That was after they believed they were going to
be making $3,800 a month, 10 times the normal salary in their home
country.
{time} 1540
What they didn't realize was that they were contracted to work 12
hours a day, 7 days a week. They were also victims of sexual harassment
and assault.
After complaining, they were sent off base for making trouble and
held for a month while their passports and ID badges were confiscated
by the subcontracting company. The company that hired them was
initially reprimanded but still operates in Fiji and still has a
contract with the U.S. military.
Meanwhile, allegations against Federal contractors engaged in
commercial sex and labor exploitation continue.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will
prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from being used to facilitate human
trafficking and labor abuses on U.S. military bases.
As cochair of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on Human
Trafficking, I am particularly concerned that workers from South Asia
and Africa are being trafficked to work on U.S. military bases and that
U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent to unlawfully lure and transport them
to work in extreme conditions.
It is Army policy to oppose all activities associated with human
trafficking. This must include the supply chain that provides services
to our servicemembers defending our country.
We must have strong oversight over our contracting system to ensure
that it is free from human rights abuses, and this amendment works
toward that end.
I urge my colleagues to join us in fighting human trafficking and
support this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BASS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would just like to advise the gentlewoman
that I consider this an extremely important amendment and I am happy to
accept it.
Ms. BASS of California. Thank you.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BASS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. We will be glad to accept the amendment. We appreciate
your hard work in this effort.
Ms. BASS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I would like to thank the gentlemen for
accepting the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Bass-Maloney Amendment,
which cuts funding to subcontractors in the U.S. Defense Department.
This amendment would prevent funding from being used by subcontractors
hired by the Defense Department who engage in unlawful activities of
human trafficking and labor abuses on military bases.
[[Page 10602]]
At a time where we are going across the board looking for all the
budget cuts we can find to help reduce the national debt, it only makes
sense to eliminate funding to these nefarious individuals who are
performing atrocious acts on our military soil and are not representing
what this great country stands for. We as Americans cannot fund human
trafficking nor can we allow labor abuse; these abuses are not what
this country stands for and it's our job as lawmakers to do everything
in our power to put an end to such crimes.
We can send a loud message with this amendment that the United States
does not stand for such horrible crimes. So I join my colleagues in
support of the Bass-Maloney Amendment to H.R. 2219.
Ms. BASS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
procure air transportation from a commercial air carrier for
a member of the Armed Forces who is traveling under orders to
deploy to or return from an overseas contingency operation
under terms that allow the carrier to charge the member fees
for checked baggage other than for bags weighing more than 80
pounds or bags in excess of four per individual.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUNYAN. I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Grimm) for his
support on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Runyan-Grimm amendment
which seeks excess baggage fees being charged to servicemembers
deploying or returning from an overseas contingency operation.
This issue was brought to light early in June when a group of Army
Reservists traveling back from Afghanistan were charged $200 each for
checking a fourth bag, some of which contained U.S. Government
equipment like an M4 rifle, a grenade launcher, and a 9-millimeter
pistol. The soldiers posted a YouTube video, titled, ``Delta Airlines
Welcomes Soldiers Home,'' expressing their frustrations for what they
had experienced.
After serving our country in theater and enduring an 18-hour layover
on their trip home, the warm welcome this group received was a $2,800
out-of-pocket expense. This is an unacceptable slap in the face,
whether it was intentional or not. Applying these charges to those
headed to or returning from the fight is an insult to them and their
service to our Nation.
My amendment would make none of the funds available by this act to be
used to pay any commercial air carrier if that airline charges excess
baggage fees for the first four pieces of checked luggage that are 80
pounds or less per servicemember. This amendment is a reasonable
compromise, whose primary purpose is taking care of our warfighters
while not allowing the system to be abused.
Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines risk their lives to
protect the freedoms we all enjoy. They take great personal sacrifices
to defend our country. There is no doubt they should be provided with
any reasonable accommodations while traveling on orders to or from
theater of operations. Most importantly, they should not have to endure
personal financial hardship as a result of traveling to and from
overseas contingency operations. $200 is a large amount of money to pay
out of pocket, especially for those who are enlisted.
It shouldn't take a YouTube video and bad publicity to convince any
of us to do the right thing. With this amendment, we are sending a very
strong message that our warfighters are individuals who are serving our
country and not for an addition to a profit margin.
The amendment is endorsed by the VFW and the National Guard
Association of the United States. I hope all my colleagues will stand
with me in support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines by
voting in favor of this amendment.
National Guard Association
of the United States, Inc.,
Washington, DC., July 7, 2011.
Hon. John Runyan,
House of Representatives, Longworth Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Runyan: We are writing to express our
strong support for your recently proposed amendment to H.R.
2219, the FY12 Defense Appropriations bill to target and deny
funds to commercial airlines who would charge excess baggage
fees to servicemembers deploying and returning from overseas
contingency operations. The National Guard Association of the
United States represents over 45,000 members of the National
Guard, their families and employers.
NGAUS believes in the fair treatment of our servicemembers,
including our Guard and Reserve, when they deploy and return
from overseas operations. The incident this past June where
soldiers were charged excess baggage fees for equipment by an
airline was outrageous. This amendment would appropriately
target the program airlines participate in for supporting
additional airlift capability for troops/baggage and
equipment while denying funds made available in the bill to
those airlines who violate tile program and charge baggage
fees for the first four pieces of baggage (not exceeding 80
lbs and not including any carry-on baggage).
The National Guard Association of the United States
strongly supports your efforts to correct unfair treatment by
airlines in regards to our members of the National Guard and
our Armed Forces deploying or coming home from overseas
contingency operations.
Sincerely,
Gus Hargett,
Major General, USA (Ret),
President, NGAUS.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman for
the hard work that he has done on this amendment. I associate myself
with his comments because I strongly agree with everything that he
said, and I am happy to accept the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sherman
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. I ask that the Clerk read the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution (50
U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. I had the Clerk read the amendment to show how short and
how simple it is. It simply says that none of the money appropriated in
this bill can be used to violate the War Powers Resolution, which is
the law of the land found in title 50.
The War Powers Resolution simply states that a President may not
deploy our troops into hostilities or our military forces into
hostilities for more than 60 days if the President does not have
congressional authorization. In the absence of such authorization, the
President has 30 days to withdraw.
This is the exact same amendment that we considered 3 weeks ago on
the MilCon appropriations bill. At that time it got the support of 60
percent of the Republicans and 61 percent of the Democrats, and I hope
that those who voted for the bill or the amendment 3 weeks ago would
vote the same way today. I hope to be able to persuade a few who voted
the other way last time.
This amendment is important, even if we weren't engaged in Libya at
all, because for the last several administrations, Presidents have been
captured by the siren song of extremist lawyers who are part of the
permanent executive branch. They tell the President that the President
of the United States, acting alone, can deploy our troops into
hostilities for unlimited duration, for any purpose, and, in any
quantity, any assets can be deployed.
[[Page 10603]]
{time} 1550
We are told that there are no limits on the President's power as
Commander in Chief. Well, the War Powers Act says otherwise, and it is
the law of the land. Now these extremist attorneys in the executive
branch have gone a little further. They have added insult to injury by
floating the idea that a resolution by NATO, the Arab League, or the
United Nations can substitute for an authorization from both Houses of
Congress, or they have said that briefing the leadership of Congress is
a substitute for enacting an authorization. But even the most extremist
attorneys in the executive branch admit we have the power of the purse,
and we can prevent the funds provided by this appropriations bill from
being used to violate the War Powers Act.
If we were to do otherwise, we would be abdicating our own
responsibility, for if Congress habitually appropriates funds knowing
that they will be used to violate the law of the land, then we would be
complicit in undermining democracy and the rule of law here in the
United States.
Now we on this side admire the President of the United States. But
even if you would grant this President unlimited power to deploy
unlimited forces for unlimited duration, if you ignore the War Powers
Act today, you are granting that power to the next President. And those
of us who are in good health will all live to see a President that we
disagree with. And even if you agree with exactly what's happening in
Libya, it is important that we draw a line and say that the conduct of
our foreign policy must be consistent with U.S. law.
Now as a practical matter, this President has taken the extreme
position that we are not engaged in hostilities in Libya. So what will
be the practical effect of this amendment? First, I think he will
reconsider that decision, because I think the lawyers behind it took
refuge in the belief that the War Powers Act was somehow not binding on
the administration. With this amendment, the War Powers Act is binding
because we do have the constitutional right to limit the use of funds.
Furthermore, at a minimum, this amendment would prevent the President
from deploying regular ground forces to Libya. Now I realize he doesn't
intend to do that at this time. But, clearly, this President could not
claim that armored divisions deployed in a war zone were not engaged in
hostilities. So the minimum practical effect of this amendment is to
limit Presidential power to what is going on now and not to introducing
major combat operations.
Now, I support a limited effort to bring democracy and the rule of
law to the people of Libya. That's not what this amendment is about.
This amendment is about democracy and the rule of law here in the
United States. I think that if we pass this amendment, and if we can
get the Senate to do likewise, that the President will come to Congress
and seek an authorization for what is going on in Libya. And at that
time, Congress will be able to influence our policy. I think we would
insist on a legal limitation to limit our efforts to just air forces
and perhaps ground rescue operations. I believe that we would insist
that we have the right to review that policy every 3 or 6 months. I
believe that we would insist that the $33 billion of Qadhafi assets
which have been frozen by the U.S. Treasury be used to finance this
operation, instead of American taxpayer dollars. And I believe that we
would insist that the rebels in Benghazi disassociate themselves from
the al Qaeda operatives in their midst and from the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group.
But we can't insist on anything if we accept the view of extremist
attorneys in the executive branch who view Congress as merely an
advisory body. A review of the law and a review of the Constitution
indicates that Congress has and should not be derelict in exercising a
role in forming American foreign policy.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The amendment prohibits the use of funds in this bill to
breach the War Powers Act. However, the proponents hope this language
will compel the administration to change our response to the crisis in
Libya.
I oppose the amendment on two different grounds. First, the language
of the amendment cannot possibly deliver what the proponents claim.
Second, what the proponents hope to accomplish would harm the efforts
of our allies, working against our national interests and benefiting
Qadhafi.
The language can't deliver on the proponents' promises for two
reasons. First, the amendment restricts the use of funds in this bill,
but none of the $118.7 billion in the overseas contingency portion of
the bill are designated for Libya. Second, the language merely requires
compliance with the War Powers Act, but the heart of the proponents'
difference with the President is a matter of interpretation about what
constitutes compliance. The amendment takes us no closer to a
resolution of that difference.
I would oppose the amendment even if the language could accomplish
what the proponents hope for. To further restrict our role in Libya
puts us on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the Arab
Spring. It would hinder the efforts of our allies, if not making NATO's
mission impossible and prolonging Qadhafi's tenuous hold on power.
To address the matter of Libya, I believe that language--similar to
the language introduced in the other body by Senators Kerry and McCain,
is the appropriate course of action at this time--this language
preserves the understanding between the administration and Congress
that U.S. ground forces are not appropriate at this time, and it
requires regular and detailed reports from the administration to the
Congress.
Now I must say that I, too, agree that the President would always be
better served, as President Bush did and President Clinton, to come to
Congress to get approval of the authorization. But to unilaterally
overturn an effort that includes NATO, the Arab League, and the United
Nations saying that this horrific act would take place against the
people of Libya, is just, I think, a big mistake, and it would
undermine U.S. foreign policy that's been consistent since 1949 when
NATO was established. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHERMAN. 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 gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to provide assistance to Pakistan.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment,
which states, as you have just heard, no funds in this bill may go to
Pakistan.
Pakistan is a country on which we have spent billions and billions of
dollars. We've given them $18 billion just since 9/11--not to mention
the many billions of dollars we gave to them during the Cold War. What
has all that spending achieved for the people of the United States?
Pakistan is now the best friend to America's worst enemies: radical
Islam and, yes, an emerging and belligerent China. Wake up, America.
[[Page 10604]]
Was anyone really surprised to find Osama bin Laden was living in a
luxurious mansion in plain view in a military-dominated Pakistani city?
Let me admit that even I was surprised that the Pakistani Government
was so bold, so open in its contempt of the people of the United
States, as to arrest five of its citizens for helping us bring to
justice Osama bin Laden, that terrorist radical fiend whose leadership
led to the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
The Pakistan Intelligence Service, the ISI, is today, as it always
has been, a friend of radical Islam and an enemy of Western democracy.
With American acquiescence and Saudi financing, the Pakistani
Government--read that the ISI--the Pakistani Government created the
Taliban as Islamabad's vanguard for the conquest of Afghanistan. In the
process, they set in place a fundamentalist anti-Western radical
Islamic terrorist state.
Let's note that even after 9/11, after 3,000 of our citizens had been
slaughtered, the ISI continued to covertly support radical Islamic
terrorists, and they are still engaged in such hostile acts, even as
American lives are being lost even today.
{time} 1600
In 2010, the London School of Economics published a report that found
agents of the ISI--this is 2010, long after 9/11--were ``funding and
training the Afghan Taliban.'' And to top things off, there is
substantial reporting that has been done that suggests that Pakistani
diplomats are lobbying the Afghan Government leaders, suggesting that
they dump the United States and turn to China for a partnership and
reconstruction.
This isn't shame on them; this is shame on us. Washington may be able
to coerce and bribe Islamabad into doing us a favor now and then, but
it is time to face reality. The goals and values of the United States
and Pakistan are fundamentally at odds. Wake up, America. This bill
would provide for another $1 billion to Pakistan. The Pakistani
Government and Pakistan, they are not our friends. Why are we borrowing
money from China to give to a government that has betrayed us time and
time again?
Therefore, I urge adoption of my amendment to eliminate any funding
in this appropriations bill from going to Pakistan.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The bill includes approximately $2.4 billion to support
the Pakistani military. Of this amount, $1.1 billion is for the
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, and approximately $1.3 billion is
provided through Coalition Support Funds.
The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund provides for the training and
equipping of Pakistani forces specifically to aid U.S. counterterrorism
objectives. Coalition Support Funds are used to reimburse the Pakistani
military for operations which generally support U.S. counterterrorism
objectives.
In the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing by U.S. Special Forces,
serious questions have arisen about Pakistan's reliability as a
strategic partner, and I agree with the gentleman from California that
this has raised serious questions here in the United States about the
reliability of one of our partners. And also, there are questions about
President Karzai in Afghanistan as well.
Now, the relationship with Pakistan has always been difficult. It
reminds me a great deal, during World War II, of our relationship with
the Soviet Union, Russia. That was a difficult relationship, but it was
essential at that time. And it is essential at this point. This
relationship has helped the U.S. make progress against terrorism, and
the Pakistanis have allocated a significant part of their forces within
their own borders to this mission, which we need to do more of on the
federally administered tribal areas and in Quetta, where the Afghan
Taliban leadership exists. And we need them to let us bring our Special
Forces into Pakistan.
Now, a complete withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize
Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within
their military and their government generally. Aggravating this divide
would be counterproductive to U.S. objectives in the region.
In addition to the counterterrorism activity, the fact of Pakistan's
nuclear weapons capabilities provides ample reason for the United
States to continue positive engagement, so I urge my colleagues to
reject this amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is any of the money that we have in this bill going
to end up financing the ISI? Will any of that money end up in the hands
of the ISI?
Mr. DICKS. I cannot say for certain. I don't think there is anything
in this bill that I know of, any provision that provides funding
directly to the ISI. Now, there may be. As the gentleman knows, there
are other avenues in the intelligence world. But I don't know of
anything specifically in this bill. And the ISI, I have just as much
trouble with them as you do. But I don't think that we have anything
specifically in the bill that funds them.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is there any language in the bill that would prevent
the money in this bill from going to the ISI?
Mr. DICKS. No, I don't think there is any prohibition in this bill.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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 gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 61 Offered by Ms. Foxx
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
voice vote by which amendment No. 61 offered by the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) was adopted be vacated to the end that the
Chair put the question de novo.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Utah?
If not, the earlier voice vote is vacated.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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 North
Carolina will be postponed.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would ask the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Young,
if he would enter into a colloquy regarding the Minuteman III Warm Line
Solid Rocket Motor Sustainment program.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, I would be very
happy to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As the chairman is aware, the Air Force has
proposed to terminate the Minuteman III Warm Line Solid Rocket Motor
Sustainment program beginning in FY 2012. The Air Force has not
presented this committee a viable plan to sustain this strategic weapon
system beyond
[[Page 10605]]
the year 2020 as these motors age out, and the program of record now
requires the system to be deployed until 2030, which does leave a 10-
year gap of vulnerability with no Minuteman III-specific industrial
base to support this weapon system.
Would the chairman agree that it is vitally important that the Air
Force undertake what is called a smart closeout of this program to
include taking definite steps to preserve the essential tools, the
uniquely skilled workforce, suppliers, equipment, and production
facilities needed to continue to produce and support the readiness of
Minuteman III motors through their current operational life cycle
through at least 2030?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Utah for bringing
this matter to our attention, and we do share his concern for the solid
rocket motor industrial base.
We understand that the Air Force is considering their options, and we
certainly intend that they use closeout funding from the Minuteman III
mod line in a wise manner. We believe that they should seriously
consider a smart closeout, as the gentleman from Utah described, and
should also consider incorporating the essential elements from the
Minuteman III production line into existing production lines for other
defense solid rocket booster programs in order to preserve both
military capabilities and to ensure the best use of taxpayer funds.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, do you also
agree that all funds provided for Minuteman III modification in this
bill may only be used to support the current Minuteman III system and
that no funds have been either requested in the President's budget
request or provided by this committee to begin a new start program for
a future, currently unauthorized Minuteman III follow-on capability?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would respond that the purpose of the funding
that we have provided for the Missile Modifications program is to
support the operational capability of the Minuteman through 2030. This
includes $34 million, as requested, for closeout of the warm line
program. Development of any follow-on capability is still years away.
And the gentleman is correct, a new start system would require
authorization and appropriation by the Congress, which the Air Force
has not requested and we have not provided. We intend that warm line
funds be used in a manner that preserves the industrial base and does
not diminish our future strategic capabilities.
I commend the gentleman for his leadership in this area and look
forward to working with him further on this issue.
{time} 1610
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his
kindness and his answers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert
Mr. GOHMERT. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated, expended, or used in any manner to support
military operations, including NATO or United Nations
operations, in Libya or in Libya's airspace.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, we have had a couple of amendments we've
already voted on. In reviewing whether or not to withdraw my amendment,
my concern comes on the review of Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, my dear friend,
and the amendment that passed that he provided. His amendment says that
none of the funds in the act may be used for supporting military
activities of any group or individual not part of a country's Armed
Forces. So it still could be used to supplement another country's Armed
Forces through NATO or through the U.N.
We have here a case where people on both sides recognize that the
President moved forward and put our military in harm's way to go after
a man who until March 1 was recognized by the United Nations as being a
leader in human rights. In fact, it had elected him in 2003 to be the
chairman of the Human Rights Commission of the U.N. We also know from
our office's inquiry of our own military that we comprise 65 percent of
NATO's military. So it is not comforting to think that this President
has already gone beyond seizing on loopholes and is just ignoring laws
in order to do what he wants because the Arab League asked him--not
Congress, not the population of the United States, but the Arab League
and some in NATO.
It has not been established--and there are no indications it will be
established--that the people who are going to replace Qadhafi will be
better for us, for our national security or for our allies like Israel.
So, if it's not good for this country's national security and if it's
true as to what the gentleman Secretary Gates said, to whom the
President recently awarded a Medal of Honor, that we have no national
security interests in Libya, then we should not be committing our
military in that direction.
Even though the U.N. may support action in Libya and even though they
may buy into this Arab Spring, we are already seeing that Iran is
excited because it looks like they're going to get additional puppets.
We found out this week that the leader of Iraq, Maliki, is giving in to
the request of the leader of Iran and is going against his promise to
us and to the people of Camp Ashraf that they'll be safe and secure.
Now he's saying he's going to disband the camp.
It is time to put America's national security and national interests
first and not some whim of some President because someone outside the
U.S. asked him. We know the Muslim Brotherhood, despite what some say,
has been supporting terrorism. The evidence was clear in the Holy Land
Foundation trial. We know that this administration has bent over
backwards to appease such folks, so it is time for an amendment to make
very clear, which this one does:
Mr. President, it doesn't matter whether you're going to try to use
our military through NATO, our military through the U.N., our military
head-up for a reconnaissance rescue. It doesn't matter. You're not
going to use them.
For those who argue the War Powers is constitutional or is
unconstitutional, I would humbly submit it does not matter. Even though
the War Powers Act was passed as a curb against the President at the
time, it is actually a gift to a President. This body has the power of
the purse to cut off funding at any time it so desires, and the War
Powers gave him a gift that said, Look, we'll give you days and days
and days to come make your case before we cut you off.
That's a gift.
This President has shoved it back down our throats, and has said, I
don't care what you think.
It is time to use the constitutional powers of this body and say,
``Enough.''
In the hopes that people will vote for this amendment, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I find it a little difficult to listen to the
arguments about the War Powers Act, because I agree with those
arguments.
First of all, in 1973, I think the Congress did give Presidents a
gift of power not intended by the Constitution. The Constitution is
very clear. It intends that war-making decisions would be made in
conjunction with the Commander-in-Chief and the Congress, not the
Commander-in-Chief by himself or herself and not the Congress alone,
but while working together. That's not the way it has been happening
lately. There hasn't been a real declaration of war under the
Constitution since World
[[Page 10606]]
War II, but we have fought in a lot of wars, and we have killed and
wounded a lot of our kids.
That's not the argument, though. I agree with all of those points. I
think that Congress has a serious responsibility to review the War
Powers Act and to make it what we think it ought to be, and that is a
partner relationship between the Congress and the executive branch.
Yet, while we hear these strong arguments about the War Powers Act
and the separation of powers, these amendments don't really get the job
done. If you want to cut off all funding for any activities in and
around Libya, you would have to introduce a separate resolution that
would simply say: No funds appropriated here or anywhere else can be
used in the Libya operation.
In this particular bill, there is no money for Libya, and the
President has made it very clear that he is not going to use any funds
from the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for Libya. We'll see if that
changes, but we have that in writing. We're already there. We're
already in the area. We're already flying missions. If this amendment
should be agreed to, here is what we would not be able to do:
We could not fly search and rescue missions for a downed pilot. We
could not do ISR--Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. We
could not do aerial refueling for our coalition partners. We could not
even be part of operational planning under this amendment.
As much as I agree with what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, I
can't support this amendment, because of the effect that it really has.
If it could amend the War Powers Act and make the President be a
partner with Congress, I'd say, Amen. Let's do it quickly. I think the
Congress ought to do that, and I think we ought to be serious about
doing that; but on this particular amendment, I've got to oppose it
because this is what we're dealing with, not the emotional discussions
about the War Powers Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The brutal regime of Muammar al Qadhafi has caused an
international outcry, and the people of Libya have asked for our help.
The NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and protect the people of Libya
was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, including
the Arab League, and it followed resolutions adopted in the United
Nations Security Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures.''
{time} 1620
The amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this
could materially harm our relationship with our NATO allies from whom
we will undoubtedly require support in the future, and our NATO
alliance has been a vital and successful part of U.S. foreign policy
dating back to its formation in 1949.
I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the
cost of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, but I
would point out that the administration did send up a detailed document
that shows the money that has been spent thus far and what will be
spent through the end of this fiscal year. We should let the mission
with our NATO allies continue so we can replace Qadhafi and protect the
Libyan people.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. And I
would just remind everyone that in 1986 President Reagan authorized a
military strike following the bombings in Berlin and definitive proof
of Qadhafi's involvement in other terrorist activities. At the time,
President Reagan publicly denounced Qadhafi, the ``Mad Dog of the
Middle East who espoused the goal of world revolution.''
Mr. Chairman, I can only wonder what Ronald Reagan would say today
about those who would propose immediate withdrawal of U.S. assistance
to the broad coalition of nations attempting to finish the job that
President Ronald Reagan started.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOHMERT. 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 gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Defense to lease or purchase new
light duty vehicles, for any executive fleet, or for an
agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with
Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet Performance, dated May
24, 2011.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, President Obama issued a
Memorandum on Federal Fleet Performance, which requires all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles, such
as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31, 2015. My
amendment echoes the Presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds in
the Defense Appropriations bill from being used to lease or purchase
new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the President's
memorandum. I have introduced similar amendments to the Homeland
Security Appropriations bill and the Agriculture Appropriations bill
and intend to do it with other appropriations bills. Both were accepted
by the majority and passed by voice vote.
Our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing
costs, but America doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of
oil for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist today that,
when implemented broadly, will allow any alternative fuel to be used in
America's automotive fleet.
The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty
vehicles in America. According to GSA, there are over 660,000 vehicles
in the Federal fleet, with almost 197,000 being used by the Department
of Defense. By supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in
our Federal fleet, we will encourage development of domestic energy
resources--including biomass, natural gas, coal, agricultural waste,
hydrogen and renewable electricity. Expanding the role these energy
sources play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage
over Americans held by foreign government-controlled oil companies and
will increase our Nation's domestic security and protect consumers from
price spikes and shortages in the world oil markets.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment as both sides of the
aisle have done in previous bills; and I want to mention on a similar
note, I have worked in a bipartisan fashion with my colleagues, John
Shimkus, Roscoe Bartlett and Steve Israel, to open the bipartisan Open
Fuel Standard Act, H.R. 1687.
Our bill would require 50 percent of new automobiles in 2014, 80
percent in 2016, and 95 percent in 2017 to be warranted to operate on
nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead of petroleum-based fuels.
Compliance possibilities include the full array of existing
technologies, including flex fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel,
plug-in electric drive and fuel cell, and a catch-all for new
technologies. I mention it because it's similar to this, and I really
believe that our energy policies obviously can only be done on a
bipartisan basis.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, again as we've
done
[[Page 10607]]
on all the other bills where I have introduced it, and the Open Fuel
Standard as we work toward breaking our dependence on foreign oil.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I think the gentleman's amendment is a good
amendment. I think we've seen this on other bills, and I am happy to
accept the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to accept the
amendment, and I too think it's a good amendment and a good idea.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. 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:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to reduce the number of B-1 aircraft of the Armed
Forces.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the B-1
bomber.
This is a very simple amendment. Basically, it just says it prevents
any funds in this bill from being used to retire the B-1 bombers during
the coming fiscal year.
Currently, as you know, about 163 planes are in our bomber fleet,
which is about 3 percent of our total fleet. Currently, we are going
through an analysis of what our bomber fleet is going to look like in
the future, and part of that is from the START Treaty. What we feel is
appropriate is for us to not look at reductions in the bomber fleet on
a piecemeal basis, but to look at it as a total picture once we have
done the analysis and seen how many of the planes will not be needed
for nuclear capability moving forward.
The B-1 is kind of an interesting plane. It doesn't get a lot of
attention, but what it does is it works 24-7 and has in the theaters
that we're involved in for a number of years. In fact, it has been our
number one bomber of choice for a number of years and until recently
was the only bomber seen in active duty.
I am pleased to be supported in this effort by Congressman
Thornberry, who is vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as
well as my colleague, Mr. Conaway.
At this time, I would like to yield to one of the cosponsors of this
amendment, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment that is
offered by the gentleman from Texas.
The B-1 bomber is the workhorse of our long-range bomber fleet and
has been flying missions over Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade.
More importantly, the B-1 bomber from the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth
Air Force Base in my home State of South Dakota just carried out air
strike operations in Libya. In just under 2 days, Ellsworth generated
aircraft loaded with conventional weapons that were able to strike
targets halfway across the world.
Regardless of what one thinks about our involvement in Libya, one
thing that one cannot dispute is the B-1's capability to respond
globally and its vital importance to our bomber fleet. Mr. Chairman,
with the next generation bomber development still a decade or more
away, the administration's proposal to retire six B-1s is short sighted
and it's premature. What's more, it can't be reversed. Retired planes
aren't mothballed and put away for a period of time. They are sent to
the bone yard and they are used for parts. Mr. Chairman, we propose
that no B-1s be irreversibly retired this year because of questions
regarding the future of our bomber force structure and the B-1's proven
track record in theater as our workhorse.
I urge my colleagues to vote for a strong bomber fleet, a strong
national defense, and I ask them to support this amendment.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentlelady from South Dakota just made a speech that I was about
to make, so I would just simply say it's a good amendment, and I accept
it.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the chairman, and I urge our colleagues to
support a strong national defense and making sure that we have the
appropriate number of bombers, and to vote in favor of the Neugebauer
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I would just say to the gentleman that the B-2 bomber has
been used also on several of these military operations that we've used,
and the B-2 is a stealthy airplane. We only have 20. As a member of the
committee, I offered the multiyear purchase agreement so we could buy
the B-1s. And we had a unanimous vote, I think, in our committee on
that. It was very bipartisan.
I agree with the gentleman that we don't have enough bombers. That's
why I'm so strongly committed to the next-generation bomber. But as has
been pointed out, that's going to be several years away. We tried to
add some money this year to accelerate that because we do need a
follow-on bomber.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I agree with the gentleman. And I think that our
bomber fleet is extremely important, the B-1, the B-2, and obviously
the B-52s. And as the gentleman knows, as we do not have a replacement
bomber in the works at this particular point in time and until such
time as we develop that, I think it's extremely important that we be
strategic about what level we maintain our current fleet until we know
what the replacement is going to be. And I agree with the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, we only have 20 stealthy bombers.
That's what some people don't understand. And the ability to penetrate
China or the Soviet Union or wherever we might have to penetrate at
some point, North Korea, we would be vulnerable with the B-52s and the
B-1s to surface-to-air missiles.
So making sure that we get a high-quality stealthy airplane to follow
the B-2 is a matter of national importance. I support the amendment.
I yield back my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of the B-1
bomber fleet. To echo what my colleague, Mr. Neugebauer has said, I too
believe that we should carefully examine the way we modify our bomber
fleet for the future.
As part of the New Start Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will limit their
nuclear capable delivery vehicles to a total of 700 deployed assets,
including heavy bombers. At this time, we do not yet know what those
cuts will look like. Preserving the size of our non-nuclear bomber
fleet until we know the results of the New Start Treaty analysis is
simply good policy.
My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and I are very
concerned that if we go down this path and prematurely reduce a portion
of the fleet, that we will regret that decision.
Mr. Chair, I recognize that cuts need to be made. Every aspect of the
budget needs to be thoroughly reviewed, but let's not make bad
budgetary decisions without considering our mission capabilities first.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
[[Page 10608]]
The amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to address the ranking
member of the House Appropriation's Committee on Defense, Mr. Dicks,
and also the chair in a colloquy on the critical need to improve the
recruitment, retention, and competitive compensation of the mental
health professionals who can work with our Iraq and Afghanistan
military servicemen and -women.
Since 2001, 2,103 military members have died by suicide. And one in
five servicemembers currently suffer from post-traumatic stress and/or
major depression. We must ensure that an adequate number of mental
health professionals are available to treat our soldiers.
Mental health professionals must be retained by providing adequate
pay and competitive benefits that are also available in the private
sector. It is our duty and responsibility to our wounded warriors that
we ensure their mental health services are secure and available when
and where needed.
I am submitting for the Record an article from the Army Times dated
April 7, 2011, regarding the Senate Appropriations Committee Defense
Subcommittee meeting of April 6 and quoting Army Surgeon General
Lieutenant General Schoomaker, who stressed the severe lack of mental
health professionals in the military, and his concern about retention,
especially in the rural areas. The article states, ``Congress has been
pressing the military health system to add more psychiatric doctors,
nurses and social workers for several years. That has prompted the
services to add about 1,500 full-time mental health professionals since
2006--a 70 percent increase.''
The article further says, ``But demand has continued to outpace that
growth. Active-duty troops and their families were referred to off-base
civilian mental health care professionals nearly 4 million times in
2009, roughly double the number of off-base referrals in 2006, military
data show.
``The dramatic increase in military suicides during the past several
years has added urgency to congressional concerns. At the April 6
hearing, all three military surgeons general told lawmakers about
efforts to improve training, recruiting and retention of mental health
professionals.''
Senator Mikulski has suggested military training may be uniquely
important because some civilian doctors and social workers have trouble
understanding the troops' problems and mindset.
I am also submitting for the Record a witness statement of July 14,
2011, from the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Veterans Affairs, where the Deputy Director of Veterans
Affairs and Rehabilitation Division, Jacob Gadd, expressed the
challenges of hiring and retaining quality mental health specialists.
Our servicemembers should not have to wait one more day for the help
they deserve.
As cochair of the Congressional Mental Health Care Caucus, I have met
with many key military leaders to learn what the most critical issues
are in addressing mental health services for our military men and
women. I've repeatedly been informed that there have been woefully
inadequate numbers of mental health professionals available to care for
our men and women.
Congress has a responsibility to see that our soldiers and veterans
have the resources for quality care. Because this quality of care is
dependent on the quantity of behavioral health specialists trained in
war, PTS, we must successfully recruit and retain to work with our men
and women who fight to ensure our precious daily freedoms.
The legislation before you today provides $32.3 billion for the
defense health program and military family programs, with $125 million
of this going towards research of traumatic brain injury and
psychological health treatment, hopefully to also include hyperbaric
treatment research.
We must insist on accountability that adequately trained behavioral
health professionals are on hand when and where needed. I would like to
work with the ranking member to obtain from the Department of Defense a
detailed outline on their efforts for each military service--Army, Air
Force, Navy, Marines, et cetera--to recruit, retain, and formulate the
competitive salaries and benefits that will keep behavioral health
specialists serving our men and women who have given so much to protect
our freedoms.
We place them in harm's way. It is our duty and obligation to ensure
the best care is given to them.
I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. DICKS. I will work with the gentlelady on the Defense
Department's plan to ensure adequate mental health services for our
servicemembers.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Napolitano
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady continue to yield?
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I would point out that the chairman of this committee, Mr.
Young, and his wife, Beverly, have been some of the strongest advocates
for our Wounded Warriors and he has led the fight in our committee to
increase the funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic
stress disorder. So our committee has been very committed to this. It
is one of our highest priorities.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank Mr. Dicks, the ranking member, for working
with me on this critical issue and look forward to working soon enough
on this.
[Apr. 7, 2011]
Panel Questions Adequacy of Mental Health Care
(By Andrew Tilghman)
The military's top doctors faced heated questions on
Capitol Hill about whether there are enough mental health
professionals to meet the soaring demand from troubled
troops.
``Do you feel you have adequate mental health personnel?''
asked Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., at an April 6 hearing of
the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense panel.
Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general,
acknowledged that the military would prefer to have more, but
cited an overall lack of mental health professionals
nationwide as a key challenge. ``I think the nation is facing
problems. As a microcosm of the nation, we have problems,''
Schoomaker said.
Congress has been pressing the military health system to
add more psychiatric doctors, nurses and social workers for
several years. That has prompted the services to add about
1,500 full-time mental health professionals since 2006--a 70
percent increase.
But demand has continued to outpace that growth. Active-
duty troops and their families were referred to off-base
civilian mental health care professionals nearly 4 million
times in 2009, roughly double the number of off-base
referrals in 2006, military data show.
The dramatic increase in military suicides during the past
several years has added urgency to congressional concerns. At
the April 6 hearing, all three military surgeons general told
lawmakers about efforts to improve training, recruiting and
retention of mental health professionals.
Mikulski suggested military training may be uniquely
important because some civilian doctors and social workers
have trouble understanding troops' problems and mindset.
``From what I understand . . . often in the first hour of
the first treatment, the military [patients] facing this
problem walk out and tell the counselor, essentially, to go
to hell because they don't feel they get it,'' she said.
Schoomaker downplayed issues with nonmilitary
professionals.
``Frankly, I think . . . this warrior culture issue might
be present in some cases but not universally. Our people do a
good job with that,'' he said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., was concerned about reservists
who may not live near a military treatment facility and may
have problems finding mental health care. Schoomaker agreed
that reservists can face a significant challenge.
``We have residual problems . . . in reserve communities.
You go home to a community where access to care is a problem
for all care, but especially behavioral health,'' Schoomaker
said.
That's also a problem for some active-duty posts in rural
areas. ``In the desert of California, for example, it's hard
to recruit and retain high-quality people,'' he said.
[[Page 10609]]
____
Statement of Jacob B. Gadd, Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Division, The American Legion, to the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, United
States House of Representatives, on ``Examining the Progress of Suicide
Prevention Outreach Efforts at the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs'', July 14, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to submit The American
Legion's views on progress of the Suicide Prevention efforts
at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to the
Subcommittee today. The American Legion commends the
Subcommittee for holding a hearing today to discuss this
timely and important issue.
Suicide among service members and veterans has always been
a concern; it is the position of The American Legion that one
suicide is one too many. However, since the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan began, the numbers of service members and
veterans who have committed suicide have steadily increased.
As our service members are deployed across the world to
protect and defend our freedoms, we as a nation cannot allow
them to not receive the care and treatment they need when
they return home. The tragic and ultimate result of failing
to take care of our nation's heroes' mental health illnesses
is suicide.
Turning first to VA's efforts in recent years with Mental
Health Care, The American Legion has consistently lobbied for
budgetary increases and program improvements to VA's Mental
Health Programs. Despite recent unprecedented increases in
the VA budget, demand for VA Mental Health services is still
outpacing the resources and staff available as the number of
service members and veterans afflicted with Post Traumatic
Stress (PTS) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) continues to
grow, this naturally leads to VA's increase in mental health
patients.
In 2008, RAND's Center for Military Health Policy Research,
an independent, nonprofit group, released a report on the
psychological and cognitive needs of all servicemembers
deployed in the past six years, titled, ``Invisible Wounds of
War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their
Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery,'' which
estimated that more than 300,000 (20 percent of the 1.6
million) Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are suffering from PTS
or major depression and about 320,000 may have experienced
TBI during deployment.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates
30,000-32,000 U.S. deaths from suicide per year among the
population. VA's Office of Patient Care and Mental Health
Services reported in April 2010 that approximately 20 percent
of national suicides are veterans. The National Violent Death
Reporting System reports 18 deaths per day by veterans and
VA's Serious Mental Illness Treatment, Research and
Evaluation Center reported about five deaths occur each day
among VA patients. In a recent AP article, it was cited that
there have been more suicides than service members killed in
Afghanistan.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has made
improvements in recent years for Mental Health and transition
between DoD and VA such as the Federal Recovery Coordinators,
Polytrauma Rehabilitation System of Care, Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) case
management teams, integrating mental health care providers
into primary care within VA Medical Center Facilities and
Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), VA Readjustment
(Vet) Centers hiring of Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)
Counselors, establishing directives for TBI screening,
clinical reminders and a new symptom and diagnostic code for
TBI.
Regarding suicide prevention outreach efforts, VA founded
the National Suicide Prevention Hotline, 1-800-273-TALK
(8255) by collaborating with the National Suicide Prevention
Lifeline where veterans are assisted by a dedicated call
center at Canandaigua VA Medical Center in New York. The call
center is staffed with trained VA crisis health care
professionals to respond to calls on a 24/7 basis and
facilitate appropriate treatment. VA reported in 2010 a total
of 245,665 calls, 128,302 of which were identified as
veterans. Of these veterans, 7,720 were rescues.
VA hired Local Suicide Prevention Coordinators at all of
the 153 VA Medical Centers nationwide in an effort to provide
local and immediate assistance during a crisis, compile local
data for the national database and train hospital and local
community on how to provide assistance. One of the primary
responsibilities of the Local Suicide Prevention Coordinators
is to track and monitor veterans who are placed on high risk
of suicide (HRS). A safety plan for that individual veteran
is created to ensure they are not allowed to fall through the
cracks.
In 2009, VA instituted an online chat center for veterans
to further reach those veterans who utilize online
communications. The total number of VeteransChat contacts
reported since September 2009 was 3,859 with 1471 mentioning
suicide. VA has also had targeted outreach campaigns which
included billboards, signage on buses and PSA's with actor
Gary Sinise to encourage veterans to contact VA for
assistance.
The American Legion Suicide Prevention and Referral Programs
The American Legion has been at the forefront of helping to
prevent military and veteran suicides in the community. The
American Legion approved Resolution 51, The American Legion
Develop a Suicide Prevention and Outreach Referral Program,
at the 2009 National Convention. In addition, VA's National
Suicide Prevention Coordinator Dr. Janet Kemp facilitated an
Operation S.A.V.E. Training for our Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Commission members. VA&R Commission members
and volunteers subsequently developed American Legion state,
district and post training programs to provide referrals for
veterans in distress with VA's National Suicide Prevention
Hotline. The American Legion currently has over 60 posts with
active Suicide Prevention and Referral Programs.
In December 2009, The American Legion took the lead in
creating a Suicide Prevention Assistant Volunteer Coordinator
position, under the auspices of VA's Voluntary Service
Office. Each local suicide prevention office is encouraged to
work with veteran service organizations and community
organizations to connect veterans with VA's programs in their
time of transition and need. The Suicide Prevention offices
can increase their training of volunteers to distribute
literature and facilitate training in order to further reach
veterans in the community.
This year, The American Legion entered into a partnership
with the Defense Centers of Excellence's Real Warrior
Campaign to educate and encourage our members to help
transitioning service members and veterans receive the mental
health treatment they need. Additionally, during our 2010
National Convention we will have a panel to discuss
prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment of TBI with
representatives from DoD, VA and the private sector.
Challenges
Despite recent suicide prevention efforts, yet more needs
to be done as the number of suicides continues to grow. The
American Legion's System Worth Saving (SWS) program, which
conducts site visits to VA Medical Center facilities
annually, has found several challenges with the delivery of
mental health care. VA has the goal to recruit psychologists
from their current nationwide level of 3,000 to 10,000 to
meet the demand for mental health services. However, VA
Medical Center Facilities have expressed concerns with hiring
and retaining quality mental health specialists and have had
to rely on fee basis programs to manage their workload.
The American Legion applauds last year's action by Congress
in passing Advance Appropriations for mandatory spending.
However, problems exist in VA itself in allocating the funds
from VA Central Office to the Veteran Integrated Service
Networks (VISNs) and to the local facilities. This delay in
funding creates challenges for the VA Medical Center Facility
in receiving its budget to increase patient care services,
hiring or to begin facility construction projects to expand
mental health services. VA's 2011 budget provides
approximately $5.2 billion for mental health programs which
is an 8.5 percent, or $410 million, increase over FY 2010
budget authorization. The American Legion continues to be
concerned about mental health funds being specifically used
for their intent and that Congress continue to provide the
additional funding needed to meet the growing demand for
treatment.
Challenges in preventing suicide include maintaining
confidentiality and overcoming the stigma attached to a
service member or veteran receiving care. Additionally, the
issue of a lack of interoperable medical records between DoD
and VA, while being addressed by Virtual Lifetime Electronic
Records (VLER), still exists. The American Legion has
supported the VLER initiative and the timely and unfettered
exchange of health records between DoD and VA. Unfortunately,
DoD and VA still have not finalized both agencies ALTA and
VISTA architecture systems since the project began in 2007,
which limits DoD and VA's ability to track and monitor high
risk suicide patients during their transition from military
to civilian life. The American Legion recommends VA take the
lead in developing a joint database with the DoD, the
National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention to track suicide national
trends and statistics of military and veteran suicides.
The American Legion continues to be concerned about the
delivery of health care to rural veterans. As mentioned, a
nationwide shortage of behavioral health specialists,
especially in remote areas where veterans have settled,
reduces the effectiveness of VA's outreach. No matter where a
veteran chooses to live, VA must continue to expand and bring
needed medical services to the highly rural veteran
population through telehealth and Virtual Reality Exposure
Therapy (VRET). DoD and VA have piloted VRET at bases at Camp
Pendleton, Camp Lejeune and the Iowa City VA Medical Center.
VRET is an emerging treatment that exposes a patient to
different computer simulations to
[[Page 10610]]
help them overcome their phobias or stress. The younger
generation of veterans identifies with computer technology
and may be more apt to self-identify online rather than at a
VA Medical Center or CBOC.
Both DoD and VA have acknowledged the lack of research on
brain injuries and the difficulties diagnosing PTS and TBI
because of the comorbidity of symptoms between the two. The
Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC) developed
and continues to use a 4-question screening test for TB
today. At the same time, Mount Sinai School of Medicine in
New York developed the Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire
(BISQ), the only validated instrument by the Centers for
Disease Control to assess the history of TBI, which has over
100 questions with 25 strong indicators for detecting TB.
Mount Sinai has published data that suggest some of the
symptoms, particularly those categorized as ``cognitive,''
when found in large numbers (i.e. 9 or greater), indicate the
person is experiencing complaints similar to those of
individuals with brain injuries. The American Legion wants to
ensure that DoD and VA are working with the private sector to
share best practices and improve on evidence-based research,
screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols of the
``signature wounds'' of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Recommendations
The American Legion has seven recommendations to improve
Mental Health and Suicide Prevention efforts for VA and DoD:
(1) Congress should exercise oversight on VA and DoD
programs to insure maximum efficiency and compliance with
Congressional concerns for this important issue.
(2) Congress should appropriate additional funding for
mental health research and to standardize DoD and VA
screening, diagnosis and treatment programs.
(3) DoD and VA should expedite development of a Virtual
Lifetime Medical Record for a single interoperable medical
record to better track and flag veterans with mental health
illnesses.
(4) Congress should allocate separate Mental Health funding
for VA's Recruitment and Retention incentives for behavioral
health specialists.
(5) Establish a Suicide Prevention Coordinator at each
military installation and encourage DoD and VA to share best
practices in research, screening and treatment protocols
between agencies.
(6) Congress should provide additional funding for
telehealth and virtual behavior health programs and providers
and ensure access to these services are available on VA's web
pages for MyHealthyVet, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention
as well as new technologies such as Skype, Apple i-Phone
Applications, Facebook and Twitter.
(7) DoD and VA should develop joint online suicide
prevention service member and veteran training courses/
modules on family, budget, pre, during and post deployment,
financial, TBI, PTSD, Depression information.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, although VA has increased its
efforts and support for suicide prevention programs, it must
continue to reach into the community by working with Veteran
Service Organizations such as The American Legion to improve
outreach and increase awareness of these suicide prevention
programs and services for our nation's veterans. The American
Legion is committed to working with DoD and VA in providing
assistance to those struggling with the wounds of war so that
no more veterans need lose the fight and succumb to so tragic
a self-inflicted end.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes my testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended for assistance to the following
entities:
(1) The Government of Iran.
(2) Hamas.
(3) Hizbullah.
(4) The Muslim Brotherhood.
{time} 1640
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask for your support of my limiting amendment that would prohibit
any military expenditure that would assist any entity that has a policy
calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.
My amendment is specific and would prohibit this type of expenditure
to any entity that has a policy calling for the destruction of the
State of Israel. Most prominent, of course, is Iran. Just last month,
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated his nation's policy
calling for the complete elimination of Israel.
It is not just formally recognized states, however, we need to be
concerned about. History has shown that entities we consider terrorist
fringe groups sometimes, through force, manipulation and popular vote,
take over the state apparatus. This happened in the Gaza Strip when
Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, won a plurality of legislative
seats, 44 percent, in the 2006 election. The United States and Israel
classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, but the United Nations, for
example, does not. The Hamas Charter of 1988, never withdrawn or
amended, states that ``Israel will exist and will continue to exist
until Islam will obliterate it, just as it has obliterated others
before it.'' This mirrors the Iranian policy, as that ``the reason for
the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its
way to annihilation.''
In the last budget, according to the State Department, U.S. military
aid to Egypt totals over $1.3 billion annually in funding referred to
as Foreign Military Financing. Currently, questions exist about the
Muslim Brotherhood, now a key player in Egypt and potentially in Libya
with the rebel opposition, and its hostility to Jews and the State of
Israel. It is quite possible that extremist groups who seek the
destruction of Israel are taking over the state operations in Egypt and
part of Libya. Time will tell.
My amendment would ensure that we do not use our money and military
assistance to help any entity that will not recognize the right of
Israel to exist and to exist peacefully. That includes the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt. No other nation on Earth except Israel has had to
face systematic, ideological and persistent existential threats.
My amendment would prohibit military aid, assistance or funding to
any nation, state or entity that espouses a policy that refuses to
recognize Israel's right to peacefully exist. With the prospect of not
receiving our money and assistance, the new Egyptian regime may take a
more respectful approach to Israel. In this sense, my amendment takes a
carrots approach.
I appreciate your support of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's
amendment. I also want to support his reasons for offering this
amendment. I think they are very well taken. The amendment is a good
amendment, and I strongly support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch
Mr. WELCH. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Not more than $200,000,000 of the funds provided
by title IX under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'' may be available for the Commander's Emergency
Response Program, and the amount otherwise provided under
such heading is hereby reduced by $200,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the major decisions that this Congress has to make and for
which we need a recommendation from the Appropriations Committee for
the Defense Subcommittee is whether nation-building is a wise strategy,
a sustainable strategy, an affordable strategy, and an effective
strategy in Afghanistan. We had a debate on that policy. There was a
bipartisan vote, with 204 Members suggesting it was time to call into
question the wisdom, sustainability and effectiveness of nation-
building.
One of the things that we have provided to our commanders in order
for
[[Page 10611]]
them to be able to do hearts-and-minds civic projects, roads, bridges,
schools is a $400 million fund that they can use completely at their
discretion. Now, this sounds like a good idea. If you're going to ask
the military to win the hearts and minds, not just use military power
to fight battles, then a discretionary fund can seemingly make some
sense. The question, though, is, upon review, it turns out that these
roads, these bridges, these canals, almost the moment they're turned
over to the Afghan authorities, fall into disrepair, disuse and
neglect. It's not surprising.
Number one, there is very little local government infrastructure in
Afghanistan, and the fact that we build a road or a school doesn't
necessarily mean there's a government or an authority there to be able
to maintain it. So we build something, and the moment we turn the keys
over, it falls into disuse and disrepair.
Second, the expenses of doing this are enormous. It may make sense to
do these civic projects, to create some goodwill, but do you do them,
Mr. Chairman, in the middle of a shooting war? Or is it better to do
that before or after the war, when you have a chance for this
implementation to occur?
Then, third, there's an immense amount of ripping off of this money
from the American taxpayer. It gets lost. It gets picked up in graft
that we all know about is too rampant in Afghanistan. According to a
report in The Washington Post, half of this money, a minimum of $400
million, is gone missing, it's wasted, and it is coming out of our
taxpayer pockets.
My amendment would cut in half the $400 million, reduce it to $200
million, basically taking away that $200 million that is being utterly
wasted. This is a commonsense, practical way to save money by stopping
a policy that may be good in theory but in practice is a failure.
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 4, 2011]
U.S.-Funded Infrastructure Deteriorates Once Under Afghan Control,
Report Says
(By Josh Boak)
Roads, canals and schools built in Afghanistan as part of a
special U.S. military program are crumbling under Afghan
stewardship, despite steps imposed over the past year to
ensure that reconstruction money is not being wasted,
according to government reports and interviews with military
and civilian personnel.
U.S. troops in Afghanistan have spent $2 billion over six
years on 16,000 humanitarian projects through the Commander's
Emergency Response Program, which gives a battalion-level
commander the power to treat aid dollars as ammunition.
A report slated for release this month reveals that CERP
projects can quickly slide into neglect after being
transferred to Afghan control. The Afghans had problems
maintaining about half of the 69 projects reviewed in eastern
Laghman province, according to an audit by the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
The spending in Afghanistan is part of the $5 billion
provided to U.S. military commanders for projects in Iraq and
Afghanistan since 2004. The new report is the latest to
identify shortcomings and missteps in the program, whose
ventures have included the Jadriyah Lake park in Iraq,
planned as a water park but now barren two years after a U.S.
military inauguration ceremony.
The dilapidated projects in Afghanistan could present a
challenge to the U.S. strategy of shifting more
responsibility to Afghans. Investing in infrastructure, notes
President Obama's December review of the war, ``will give the
Afghan government and people the tools to build and sustain a
future of stability.''
``Sustainment is one of the biggest issues with our whole
strategy,'' said a civilian official who shared details from
a draft of the report. ``The Afghans don't have the money or
capacity to sustain much.'' The official spoke on the
condition of anonymity because the Defense Department is
preparing a response to the audit.
Photos in the report show washed-out roads, with cracks and
potholes where improvised explosive devices can be hidden.
Among the projects profiled is a re-dredged canal that filled
with silt a month after opening.
Multiple reports by the Government Accountability Office
have noted a lack of monitoring by the Pentagon. And because
formal U.S. oversight stops after a project is turned over to
Afghans, it is difficult to gauge how projects are maintained
countrywide.
When asked whether the Afghans have trouble sustaining
projects, the U.S. military issued a statement saying it does
not have the information to provide an immediate answer.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in
Afghanistan, said in Senate testimony last year that CERP is
``the most responsive and effective means to address a local
community's needs.'' He previously relied on the
discretionary fund as the commanding general in Iraq, where
$3.5 billion has been spent through the program. Over the
past two years, Petraeus has pushed for stricter controls to
stop any fraud and waste.
In response to ``insufficient management,'' CERP guidance
for Afghanistan was revised in December 2009, according to a
statement by the military. The new guidance emphasizes the
need to meet with Afghan leaders when choosing what to fund.
It does not, however, require U.S. troops to continue
inspecting projects after they are placed under Afghan
control.
Under the guidance, an Afghan governor, mayor or bureaucrat
must sign a letter promising to fund maintenance and
operations. But an October SIGAR audit of projects in
Nangahar province found that only two of the 15 files
examined contained a signed letter. Nor is there formal
reporting to the national or provincial Afghan governments of
what was spent and built, the audit said. That makes it
difficult for Afghans to know what they are supposed to
maintain.
The provincial and district governments that take over the
projects do not have the money to sustain them because they
cannot collect taxes and they depend on the national
government for funding, said Army Maj. David Kaczmarek, the
civil affairs officer for Task Force Bastogne in eastern
Afghanistan.
To teach the local governments how to request additional
funds from Kabul, Kaczmarek helped launch a program in the
summer that uses CERP dollars for the operation and
maintenance of some projects.
The U.S. military tracks CERP projects with poorly
maintained computer databases. Before October 2009, the
database did not consistently record the villages or
districts where projects were undertaken, according to
military and civilian personnel who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because the master database is classified.
A civilian official who examined the contents of the
database for a government assessment said the military cannot
account for the spending without knowing the villages and
districts that were project recipients.
``Let's say the project is not working,'' the official
said. ``Why would we want to fund that project again the next
year? Very little evaluation was done to decide what we fund
next.''
The organizational problems have also frustrated attempts
to study the effectiveness of the $2 billion spent on CERP. A
paper co-written by Princeton University professor Jacob
Shapiro found that CERP funding helped reduce violence in
Iraq. Shapiro and his colleagues have struggled over the past
nine months to conduct a similar study for Afghanistan
because of the database.
``There's not a sense of how the program may or may not be
working in Afghanistan,'' Shapiro said.
Army Lt. Col. Brian Stoll tried to clean up the database
while serving in Kandahar last year. He champions CERP as a
way to build confidence in the Afghan government, despite the
mess he found.
Projects dating to 2006 had never been closed out, said
Stoll, who updated the files while working 12-hour days to
audit ongoing projects in southern Afghanistan.
We never got it all cleaned up,'' Stoll said. ``It was like
a Hydra. You get part of it cleaned up and you find some more
along the way.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment for a number of reasons, although I think he's made some good
points, and certainly we want accountability to apply to this program
as much as we want it to apply to anything. However, this is the same
funding level as last year. The request was $425 million, and our
commanders in the theater are telling us that that is even not high
enough. So what we're doing with this amendment is actually cutting a
level funding item from last year, cutting it in half.
Now, what does the CERP money do, the Commander's Emergency Response
Program money? Let's say an IED explodes, or maybe there is a bomb that
blows up a storefront in the middle of the street. A commander can go
in there and hire local labor to clear out the entrance to that small
business or whatever it is and get it done quickly without having to
put U.S. Army personnel in danger to do it and can do it quickly and
effectively and therefore leave our soldiers in the field, leave our
soldiers where they can be most effective with their time and their
training,
[[Page 10612]]
and it does promote some goodwill on the streets with the people.
It has been said, well, all you're doing is renting a friend, and
we're not going to be the first army that's fighting a war that rents
friends, if you will. It really doesn't just rent a friend. It does
create some long-term goodwill and does have an economic benefit of it.
But the idea is to give the commander on the street some flexibility so
that they can get the jobs done as the jobs arise and get them done
quickly and turn them around.
CERP money actually has been an effective tool, and it's enormously
popular with our commanders who are on the ground. I believe one of the
problems we have in Afghanistan, one of the problems we've always had,
is that too many decisions are being made down the street at the
Pentagon and not in Baghdad, not in Kabul, not in Kandahar, where the
commanders are closest to the war front.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KINGSTON. 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 gentleman from Vermont will
be postponed.
{time} 1650
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Flores
Mr. FLORES. 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:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment, which would
address another misguided Federal regulation. Section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act prohibits Federal agencies from entering
into contracts for the procurement of alternative fuels unless their
lifecycle greenhouse gases emissions are less than or equal to
emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from
conventional petroleum sources. Simply stated, my amendment would stop
the government from enforcing this ban on the Department of Defense.
The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense
Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquid jet
fuels. This was based on the opinion of environmentalists that coal-
based jet fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional
petroleum. I recently offered my similar amendment to both the MILCON
VA and Ag appropriations bills, and they passed the House by voice vote
each time.
My friend Mr. Conaway of Texas also had similar language added to the
Defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this
burdensome regulation. We must ensure that our military becomes more
energy independent and that it can effectively and efficiently rely on
domestic and more stable sources of fuel.
Our Nation's military should not be burdened with wasting its time
studying fuel emissions when there is a simple fix, not restricting
their fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, and
regulations like section 526. In light of increasing competition with
other countries for energy and fuel resources, and continued volatility
and instability in the Middle East, it is more important than ever for
our country to become more energy independent and to further develop
and produce our domestic energy resources. Placing limits on Federal
agencies', particularly the Defense Department, fuel choices is an
unacceptable precedent to set in regard to America's energy policy and
independence.
On July 9, 2008, the Pentagon, in a letter to Senator James Inhofe
stated: ``Such a decision would cause significant harm to the readiness
of the Armed Forces because these fuels may be widely used and
particularly important in certain geographic areas.''
In summary, not only have extreme environmental views and policies
created and burdened American families and businesses, but they also
cause ``significant harm in readiness to the Armed Forces.''
Mr. Chairman, section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle
Eastern oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 would help us promote
American energy, improve the American economy, and create American
jobs.
To everyone watching these proceedings today, I would say this:
following my remarks, you will hear speakers from the other side of the
aisle make several claims regarding the merits of section 526. When you
hear these claims, please remember the following facts about section
526: it increases our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It hurts our
military readiness and our national security. It prevents the use of
safe, clean, and efficient North American oil and gas. It increases the
cost of American food and energy. It hurts American jobs and the
American economy.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The Department of Defense alone is the largest single
energy consumer in the world. Its leadership in this arena is critical
to any credible approach to dealing with energy independence issues.
Section 526 provides an opportunity for the Federal Government to play
a substantial role in spurring the innovation needed to produce
alternative fuels which will not further exacerbate global climate
change.
This provision has spurred development of advanced biofuels. These
fuels are being successfully tested and proven today on U.S. Navy jets
at supersonic speeds. It's a testament to American ingenuity.
Unfortunately, section 526 is under assault by those who disagree with
advanced biofuels production. They'd like us to continue our dependence
on the fuels of the past. That's the wrong path to take. It's
unsustainable and won't lead to the energy security we need.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague in asking to exempt
the Department of Defense from section 526; 526 was added to the energy
bill in a wrongheaded move to placate some notion that it would have
some impact on global warming. It's wrong to require the Department of
Defense in these times, where every single dollar is scarce and every
single dollar should have a home, to require them to spend extra money
beyond what they would normally spend for fuel for their planes.
This amendment would also allow the continued development of coal-to-
liquid jet fuel, which would make this country much less dependent on
foreign oil in terms of powering our jets and other engines. So 526,
maybe it belongs in the Department of Energy bill, maybe it belongs
somewhere else, but it does not belong in the Department of Defense
spending bill because those dollars are scarce. They are going to get
scarcer. And to require the Department of Defense to spend more money
than they would have otherwise have spent on energy under this
wrongheaded notion, in my view, is just simply bad policy.
So I rise in support of my colleague's amendment, and I urge the
adoption of his amendment when it comes to a vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
[[Page 10613]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I support the gentleman's amendment, but I do want to
understand one thing in terms of what it does to the military's options
of purchasing domestic or even North American fuel. And the reason why
I say that is, as I understand, the Department of Defense has three
strategies in terms of energy, or using less energy. Number one is to
increase the fight, decrease the fuel. Number three is increase the
capacity. And then number two--and I am going in this order for a
reason--is to increase the fuel options, the choices, to diversify the
fuel sources. And it appears to me that 526 has inadvertently
eliminated some of the options.
I would like to yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Flores) to explain
that a little bit further, particularly with respect to domestic energy
sources.
Mr. FLORES. Thank you for the chance to provide further weight to
this amendment.
It's important to know that much of the oil that we import from the
oil sands in Canada winds up being blended in several refined fuels
throughout the United States. So if you took a literal reading of
section 526, theoretically the military would not be able to use any of
those fuels since the oil sands as a source is considered to be banned
by section 526.
The oil from Canada from the oil sands is stable North American oil
and gas. And it is in large part produced by Americans and creating
American jobs. Section 526 would cut off this safe, friendly, stable
source of fuel to this country. And my amendment does nothing to
restrict the military from looking at all alternative sources of fuel.
It allows them to go with biofuels, whatever alternative energy sources
they need. It just takes away burdensome restrictions that are based on
environmental views that aren't proven.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what I am concerned
about, with 84 million barrels of fuel produced every day, and America
only having control of about 3 percent of that, yet consuming 25
percent, wherever we can use a friendly source of fuel is something
that we need to keep open as an option.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1700
Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for tax collection purposes by the Afghan Ministry of
Finance.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia reserves a point of
order.
The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the American taxpayer is
spending $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. Among the expenditures are
payment for projects that are rebuilding infrastructure in
Afghanistan--roads, bridges, schools, in some cases hospitals.
The Washington Post recently reported that the Afghan Government is
taxing American aid. We send the money there to build a road. We have
to hire contractors in order to do that, and the Afghan Government is
trying to tax that money for their own coffers.
So it's not enough that our taxpayers are spending billions of
dollars on projects to rebuild their infrastructure. The Afghan
Government is literally trying to reach into the pocket and double dip
and tax our taxpayers for our taxpayers' generosity in giving them
money. Now, how does that make any sense at all?
Among the things that the Afghan officials are doing, after this was
reported, is stepping up their efforts to grab that cash. They are
doing things like threatening to detain contractors. If they don't pay
up, take money that's assigned to build that road and put that money in
the Afghan coffers, they, the Afghan officials, are threatening, Mr.
Chairman, to detain our contractors. They are denying licenses to our
contractors, again, in an effort to do what I could only call a
shakedown.
Third, they are revoking visas for unpaid tax bills. We are spending
a substantial amount of our money rebuilding their infrastructure. We
should not be taxed, nor should we allow our taxpayers, essentially, to
be stuck up by the Afghan officials.
This amendment, offered by my colleague from Washington, Ms. Herrera
Beutler, would end that practice.
So we believe this is overdue. There should be no tolerance for this
double-dipping by the Afghan Government, and our amendment is an effort
to crack down on that process.
I thank my colleague from Washington for joining me in the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI because it requires a new determination.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination about the use of funds by a foreign government entity.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2, rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. We are working on making this amendment
something that can be passed as a part of this bill, but I just want to
speak in support of it and share part of the reason I am very honored
to be working with the gentleman from Vermont on this.
Basically, we are in Afghanistan right now helping to rebuild, or in
many cases build from scratch, infrastructure. And when we leave that
country--and I do hope it will be soon--we will leave that
infrastructure behind. Power grids, water systems, trained law
enforcement are the building blocks of a functioning society.
We will spend or have spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
dollars on improvements meant to better the lives of the people in
Afghanistan.
The reason I supported this amendment is we don't need to also be
paying taxes to the Afghan Government for the privilege of rebuilding
that country, and that's why I cosponsored the amendment.
The Department of Defense funding should be focused on providing
soldiers training in the field and on the front lines with the tools
they need to protect themselves and defend our country. This amendment
would uphold or, as it was offered, as we attempted, would uphold
existing law and clarify existing agreements between the U.S. and
Afghanistan, prohibiting Afghanistan from taxing U.S. subcontractors
doing work in Afghanistan. So this ban on levying taxes would also
apply to all subcontractors that may not have direct contracts with
Afghanistan.
In other words, if a company is working on a project funded by the
U.S. Department of Defense, whether that company is a prime contractor
or a subcontractor, that company should not be subject to taxes from
the Afghan Government.
It seems pretty simple. These are the contractors doing the work of
rebuilding in Afghanistan, helping rebuild the infrastructure and
hopefully allowing them to one day thrive independently.
[[Page 10614]]
So common sense and financial prudence says the U.S. should not be
subject to taxation for the rebuilding efforts it is paying for. That
was what we were getting at with this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I think that the point you have raised is a very valid
point and something that is very good discussion matter.
Unfortunately, we believe that it is authorizing on an appropriation,
as the Chair has confirmed, but that's probably the concern far more
than the philosophical concern.
So I think that if you and the gentleman can work on some other
language, make another run at it, I cannot speak for the real chairman
of the committee, but I think that there are going to be a number of
people who would have sympathies with you because I think you have
raised a very valid point.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Very good. We will continue to work on this
issue, and I thank you for hearing my point.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cole
Mr. COLE. 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:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement any rule, regulation, or executive order
regarding the disclosure of political contributions that
takes effect on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, in April a draft executive order was
circulated that would require all companies bidding on Federal
contracts to disclose all Federal campaign contributions.
If enacted, this executive order would effectively politicize the
Federal procurement process, in my opinion. Companies wouldn't merely
be judged by the merits of their past performance, by the capability to
do the job, but would also be obviously considered on the basis of who
they gave money to or against.
This would clearly chill the constitutionally protected right to
donate to political parties, candidates and causes of one's choice;
and, I think, frankly, that's exactly what the executive order,
proposed executive order, is intended to do.
My amendment would simply prohibit funds from this act being used to
implement such an executive order.
It doesn't change existing Federal campaign contribution law in any
way. It doesn't prevent the disclosure of campaign contributions. It
simply says we won't spend money from this bill to require campaign
contribution information to be submitted along with bids for Federal
contracts.
This House has agreed to this concept on three previous occasions:
once in the bill, once in an amendment to the Defense Authorization
Act, and once in an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act.
Finally, it's worth noting that Congress has rejected an effort to do
exactly what this proposed executive order intends to do when it failed
to pass the DISCLOSE Act in 2010.
Mr. Chairman, pay-to-play has no place in the Federal procurement
contract, and we should try to keep politics out of the selection of
vendors and businesses and contractors to go about doing Federal works.
So I would urge the adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Our system has been improved by having public disclosure
of political contributions. The more the public knows about where the
money is coming from, the better off the citizenry is.
The amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft
executive order, which would provide for increased disclosure of the
political contributions of government contractors, especially
contributions given to third-party entities.
Opposition exists for this effort because some believe this
additional information could be used nefariously to create some kind of
enemies list, like during the Nixon administration.
{time} 1710
They argue that companies should not disclose more information
because people in power could misuse that information to retaliate
against them. Using the opposition's logic, all campaign disclosures
would be bad. Government contractors already disclose contributions and
expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them.
Contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors
are also required to be disclosed.
These provisions are fine as they are written. The information is
required to be provided already in law. And the executive order that
the amendment would circumvent certainly enhances the quality of that
information.
Disclosure is good because disclosure of campaign contributions to
candidates is good. Disclosure of companies making these disclosures is
good. And I just worry that we have a situation here where companies or
major entities could make enormous contributions secretly, and that's
what we are trying to avoid. And the President's executive order is an
attempt to do that. We already know that the Boeings, the Lockheeds,
the General Dynamics and the Northrop Grummans all make campaign
contributions, and they are all disclosed. What's wrong with
disclosure?
I urge a ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I accept the amendment because I believe that the
things that Mr. Dicks is talking about in this amendment actually do
move us in that direction.
I would like to yield to Mr. Cole and ask him to clarify that because
I want it confirmed.
Mr. COLE. I would simply say to my good friend from Washington, who I
respect frankly as much I do anybody in this Congress, the intent here
is to make sure we never link political contributions with the awarding
of government contracts. If we want to require additional disclosure,
the Congress has it within its ability to do that, and indeed we
considered something like this in 2010 and decided it was
inappropriate. And that was a time when my friends on the other side of
the aisle were in control of both Houses as well the Presidency.
So I understand the concerns, but I think this is an inappropriate
way to address them. Number one, the executive order, frankly, is
legislating through the back door. If we want to change the campaign
contribution laws in the United States, that needs to be done here, not
by executive fiat.
And, secondly, to link it with the contracting process is inevitably
going to raise questions, create fears and doubt and I think without
question chill political speech. So let's just simply keep contracting
and the awarding of the contract by the Government of the United States
separate from partisan political considerations and contributions. I
think we would be better off.
I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I just listened with great curiosity to the
comments that were made about the so-called intent of the legislation.
I don't see my colleagues on the other side bringing forward
legislation that you have the power to pass given the number of votes
that you have for full disclosure.
[[Page 10615]]
So if you're opposed to a draft executive order, if you're opposed to
my coming to the floor and blocking every time I offer an amendment for
disclosure in transparency, change it. You were for it before you went
against it, the Republicans were. That's what the record is. So I rise
in opposition to Representative Cole's amendment which blocks
disclosure of contractor political spending.
Now, this is not to create any kind of list. You can come up with all
kinds of things about why you're against something and then try to
label it. This is about disclosure. This is about sunshine. This is
about disinfectant, and you're against it. I think that's a bad place
to be. In fact, I think it's the wrong side of history.
The draft of the President's order would require disclosure
requirements for contractors who do business with the Federal
Government. Now, any business that does business with the Federal
Government is paid with taxpayer dollars. Why shouldn't there be
transparency, accountability, and disclosure relative to those dollars?
This amendment, your amendment, would prohibit disclosure, which I
think is the exact wrong thing to do.
We should oppose any amendment--we should oppose any amendment,
Republican or Democrat--that's designed to keep the public less
informed about what happens to their tax dollars. We know who supports
this amendment. It's the American League of Lobbyists, the lobbyists
for the lobbyists. Surprise, surprise.
They're trumpeting their opposition to the President's draft order.
We should be fighting for the taxpayers, not for the uber-,
superlobbyists. What are we here for? We are here for the public
interest, for the people. And yet there is an amendment on the floor
that would destroy any attempt at disclosure.
Again, I remember when the Republicans supported disclosure. When we
wanted contribution limits, Republicans said, no, we need disclosure
instead. Now that we are asking for disclosure, you're opposed to it.
As I said, you were for it, now you're against it.
The American people were very clear on this late last year when there
was a CBS/New York Times poll, and that poll found that 92 percent of
Americans support requiring outside groups to disclose how much money
they have raised, where it came from and how it was used.
Now we are going directly to taxpayer dollars, those that do business
with the Federal Government. It's very simple to disclose. We should be
listening to the American people, and I would ask my colleagues to vote
against this amendment.
This is a bad amendment. It's not good for the country. It's not good
for our system. I don't believe it's why the people sent us here. And
of all things to be stomping on and trying to snuff out, disclosure
should not be one of them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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 gentleman from Oklahoma
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act is hereby reduced by $8,500,000,000, not to be
derived from amounts of appropriations made available--
(1) by title I (``Military Personnel'');
(2) under the heading ``Defense Health Program'' in title
VI (``Other Department of Defense Programs''); or
(3) by title IX (``Overseas Contingency Operations'').
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is a dangerous
amendment. It's kind of a test of whether or not Members of this body
believe what they say. Fortunately, I think for all concerned, the oath
we take at the beginning of the session does not carry over to specific
statements. So the fact that I believe this will probably,
unfortunately, show a great gap between what people say and what they
vote will have no consequences other than the public knowing it.
We are at a time of austerity. We are at a time when the important
programs, valid programs, are being cut back. And we were told by some,
everything is on the table, there are no sacred cows, all those
metaphors that are supposed to suggest that we will deal with
everything. And then we get this appropriation from the Appropriations
Committee for the military budget. At a time when we are cutting police
officers on the streets of our cities, we are cutting back
firefighters, we're cutting back maintenance of highways, of the
construction of bridges to replace old bridges, when we are cutting in
almost every capacity, the military budget gets a $17 billion increase
for this fiscal year to the next.
A $17 billion increase for the military budget simply does not fit
with this argument that we are putting everything on the table. Yes,
they say they're putting everything on the table, but there is a little
bit of a problem with the preposition here--not the proposition, the
preposition.
{time} 1720
The military budget is not on the table. The military is at the
table, and it is eating everybody else's lunch. We are cutting area
after area. For example, we have been told by some on the Republican
side that we cannot afford to go to the aid of those of our fellow
citizens who have been the victims of natural disasters who have
suffered enormous physical and, therefore, also psychological damage
from tornadoes and floods unless we find the cuts elsewhere. But if we
were not increasing the military budget by $17 billion over this year,
then there would be no need to do that and you would not have to worry
about that aid.
Now, my colleagues, this is co-authored by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). We are
being very moderate here. We are not saying don't give the Pentagon any
more money. This amendment reduces by 50 percent the increase for the
Pentagon. We are accepting $8.5 billion more.
By the way, this, of course, does not affect the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It just occurred to me, maybe this was said earlier, the
budget for Afghanistan, which we refuse to cut, reluctantly,
regrettably, was voted out by the committee before the President
announced a 10,000 troop reduction. So we are overfunding Afghanistan
unless you think the President was kidding when he said we are going to
bring down 10,000 troops. We funded 10,000 troops for next year that
won't be there in Afghanistan. And that is the problem.
We are saying to the Pentagon, You find it. Don't cut military
personnel. Don't cut health, but perhaps some of the bases we maintain
overseas, some of the subsidies we give to NATO. Lip service is paid
here to an alliance in which they participate.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I have to say it is true of the Obama
administration and the members of the Appropriations Committee and the
Armed Services Committee, they are the enablers of one of the great
welfare dependencies in the history of the world: the ability of
wealthy European nations, 61 years after the foundation of NATO, to get
subsidized by America so their military budgets can be a small
percentage of ours as percentage of the GDP so they can provide more
services, better rail, better health care, and earlier retirement for
their own people.
[[Page 10616]]
This says to the Pentagon not that we are going to cut you. This
gives them a greater than 1 percent increase at a time when everybody
else is being cut. And it leaves it up to the Pentagon. Let's look at
the bases that we have all over the world. Let's look at efficient
procedures. Yes, there is inefficiency.
You cannot mandate efficiency from the outside when you
simultaneously give the entity in question the ability to spend without
limit. You will never get efficiency, Mr. Chairman, at the Pentagon if
we don't begin to subject them to the same kind of fiscal discipline
that everybody else gets. And it is undeniable that the Pentagon is a
great exception here.
We are going to be telling American cities to continue to lay off
cops, to continue to ignore important reconstruction projects that help
with transportation. We are going to continue to cut back on
firefighters. We are going to continue to quibble over financial
disaster relief, but we will give the Pentagon, unless this amendment
passes, an additional $17 billion that we cannot afford.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer a somewhat different
perspective than my friend from Massachusetts does on the trend line of
defense spending.
Looking at the long term, defense spending has actually, over time,
come down pretty dramatically as a percent of our gross national
product. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we spent about 9
percent of the GDP on defense. In 1980 in the great Reagan defense
buildup, it was about 6 percent. It fell as low as 3.5 percent on the
eve of 9/11. It is barely 5 percent, or in that range, today. So by
historical standards, particularly since 1940, we do not spend a large
percentage of the national wealth on defense.
By the way, the same thing is true of the Federal budget. In 1960,
about 50 percent of the Federal budget was defense spending. It was
about 33 percent in 1980. It is about 18 or 19 percent today. Certainly
a lot of money, and that is certainly not the only way in which to
judge military spending, but if looked at in terms of the size of the
Federal budget or the wealth of the country, defense has been,
comparatively speaking, a bargain compared to other parts of the
budget.
I would also like to point out that, frankly, this Defense
Subcommittee and the administration have worked to find additional
economies. Secretary Gates made $78 billion in reductions over the next
5 years, and this budget itself is below what the President of the
United States asked us to appropriate by $9 billion. In addition, the
Secretary has laid out a path for an additional $400 billion worth of
savings.
I think most Americans would be shocked to find out we are engaged in
two or three wars, depending on how you want to count, with an Army
that is almost 40 percent smaller than it was in 1982.
So I yield to no one in terms of trying to find savings in defense,
but I think the record ought to be clear: As a percentage of our
national wealth, as a percentage of the Federal budget, what we spend
on defense has come down. And, frankly, we ought to remember that we
are at war; we are in a dangerous situation. This is not the first
place to cut, although cut we have. In my opinion, I think it is the
last place that we ought to cut.
And the consequences of what my friend proposes, I think, would be
terrific. We would be reducing and canceling training for returning
troops, canceling Navy training exercises, reducing Air Force flight
training, delaying or canceling maintenance of aircraft, ships, and
vehicles, and delaying important safety and quality-of-life repairs.
This is not the time for us to embark on additional cuts on top of
the restraints in spending that we have already done as a House. I
would urge the rejection of my friend's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite numbers of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
You know, all of Washington inside the Beltway is abuzz about how
much we can save by cutting Federal spending. As the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, to us, this amendment is a test. Will
we put every Federal agency's budget on the table in our quest to
control spending and reduce debt, or are there privileged categories?
Will we continue down the path of trying to balance the budget on the
backs of the poor, the disabled, schoolchildren, and seniors?
The Pentagon spending bill before us, some $650 billion, nearly two-
thirds of a trillion dollars, is about equal to all military spending
of all the rest of the world--all of our allies, all of our potential
adversaries, and all of those countries that Americans rarely think
about all put together.
The amendment that Mr. Frank and I and some of our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle are offering today is truly a modest proposal. It
would simply cut the rate of increase in Pentagon spending. Instead of
allowing a $17 billion increase over this year's level, it would cut
that increase in half just to see if we are willing to do that.
Now, my colleague, Mr. Cole, puts this, I think, in the wrong
context. I mean, we should talk about, sure, in 1960 it was a larger
part of the budget. That is before we had Medicare, before we had a lot
of programs. But when you ask yourself is our military structured to
deal with the problems this country faces and to expect from other
countries in the world their share of what must be done, the answer
surely is this is an unsustainable size.
This amendment was born out of a series of discussions among Mr.
Frank and Mr. Paul and Mr. Jones and some other Members and I have had
over several months. Recently, we sent a joint letter that outlined our
concerns about the state of our spending on national security. We point
out not only the excessive, unquestioned overall size of military
spending, but also that this is a result of the military that is indeed
a remnant of the Cold War, to go back to Mr. Cole's comments. And it
bears far more than our share of keeping the peace and is still
structured to overwhelm the Soviet Union more than to deal with today's
actual threats to our security.
To take one example that the cosponsors of this amendment may or may
not agree with me on but we might ask: Why do we need a replacement for
the B-2 bomber?
{time} 1730
It was not the B-2 bomber or any bomber that killed Osama bin Laden.
It was U.S. Special Operations. Buying new nuclear bombers would simply
be a form, I think, of defense sector corporate welfare to protect
against a threat that went away decades ago. I could cite multiple
additional disconnects between our defense spending priorities and the
actual threats we face.
One that comes to mind is Libya. As we note in our letter, it has
been widely reported in the press that England and France have been
pressing the United States to resume its earlier role in Libya because
they've been unable to assume it themselves. The explanation is that
only America has the capacity to respond.
Our point precisely.
We have allowed other nations in the world to grow into an
overdependence on America's military and America's tax dollars and the
expenditure of American money and lives far beyond what's appropriate
for our share of world peacekeeping. All of us who support this
amendment want to protect our country. That's precisely why we've
offered our proposal and this amendment: To put ourselves on track for
a better structured military.
Spending money on cold war-era weapons to wage undeclared wars of
choice is clear evidence of misguided, needlessly expensive priorities.
If the House cannot even pass an amendment
[[Page 10617]]
that simply cuts the rate of increase in Pentagon spending, it will
never pass amendments that actually make the kinds of cuts that are
truly necessary to restructure our defense in order to meet the real
threats we face and to achieve the budget savings that we must secure
for our financial future.
I urge my colleagues to support this modest first step to rein in our
out-of-control defense budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. I rise in support of the Frank-Holt amendment.
This is a modest amendment. Quite frankly, I wish the cut were
greater than the cut being proposed here, because I think everybody in
this Chamber knows that there is a great deal of waste and abuse that
exists within our military spending. We have no-bid defense contracts.
We go right down that road of all the contracts that we've divvied out
and how wasteful they've been, and we're still building and preserving
weapons systems that are remnants of the cold war that even our Joint
Chiefs of Staff don't want. So there is savings to be had within the
military.
The other point I want to make is that, when we talk about national
security and national strength, we ought to be talking about making
sure that the people in this country can earn a decent living. National
security should mean jobs. It should mean the strength of our
infrastructure, the quality of our education system, which we are
neglecting. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to balance
the budget by cutting those very programs that, I think, provide our
economic strength. When you go home to your districts, the first thing
that people want to talk about is jobs. It is economic security.
Why aren't we doing more to create jobs? Why aren't we talking more
about jobs here in the Capitol?
So I make those two points because I think this amendment is a modest
amendment that moves us in the right direction and that moves this
discussion in a better direction.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the author of
the amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First of all, what we are saying is they
get an increase. So, if you vote against this amendment, apparently you
believe that they are 101\1/2\ percent efficient at the current level,
because you're giving them, we would say, a 101\1/2\ percent increase.
You must believe it's a 103 percent increase, those who vote against
this. People pay lip service where there are some inefficiencies, but
you will not get at them unless there is some limit to the spending.
I particularly want to address the very odd notion that we should
decide what we need to spend on the military today by using as a
standard what the situation was 51 years ago. That's the problem.
Fifty-one years ago, Germany was divided. The Communists controlled
Czechoslovakia and Poland and Hungary and East Germany. Our Western
allies were poor, and they were still recovering from 1945. The Soviet
Union was very strong. That's precisely the problem. This budget out of
the Appropriations Committee and from the administration, which is also
incorrect on this, acts as if it were still 1960. The fact is that it
is no longer appropriate for the rest of the world to expect us to put
out so much of the burden. That's what the issue is.
The gentleman from Oklahoma said, oh, well, we'll have to cut this
here and that there.
Why? Why don't we cut some of the money we spend in Europe, in Japan
and in other wealthy and secure nations?
This amendment tells the Pentagon, You're only going to get half of
the $17 billion increase on top of the $500 billion-plus you already
get. You decide where to stop spending.
Well, are they able to stop spending overseas?
Foreign aid is very unpopular, I think unduly unpopular. I like to
help poor children and to fight disease, but the biggest foreign aid
program in the history of the world is the American military budget and
its foreign aid for the un-needy, its foreign aid for the wealthy. You
want to talk about percentages of the GDP that are in the budget. What
about Germany? What about England? What about France? What about Italy?
What about Denmark? What about the Netherlands? All are our great
allies, and none spend as much as half a percentage as we do.
So what we now have here, apparently, the House is going to decide.
When Members have said that the Pentagon should be subjected to fiscal
discipline and that other needs will be taken into account and that the
deficit is the greatest threat to national security--people have quoted
Mike Mullen as saying that and Robert Gates as saying that--do the
Members understand what it means? It means that you don't even cut the
Pentagon, that you don't even level fund them, but you don't give them
$17 billion additional. You give them $8.5 billion at a time when you
are requiring cuts in very important programs.
I will reemphasize that this is a House which says we can't afford to
go to the aid of our fellow citizens who have been devastated by
disasters in the southeastern part of the country and elsewhere unless
we make offsetting cuts. Well, to the extent that you give the Pentagon
an additional $17 billion, you exacerbate that dilemma, and you make it
harder to find the funds necessary to go to the aid of the people in
this area.
Yes, we want to keep the American people safe. I want to keep them
safe from unsound bridges, from fires that can't be effectively
combated, from food that isn't adequately tested, and from diseases.
People are unsafe because we are cutting back on health research.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The notion that the only danger to the American people is a Soviet
Union which collapsed 20 years ago or whatever it is we are protecting
people from in Germany and other bases such as that ignores the need
for better public safety here, better public health here, research on
disease, protection against disaster. It's one thing to go to the aid
of people after a disaster, but let's do a better job of building those
structures that can help diminish it.
This is a central question: Are the Members of the House going to
say, ``No, we didn't really mean it? No, the Pentagon is not subject to
fiscal discipline''?
My friend from Oklahoma said, oh, no, there were cuts; there's $78
billion in cuts coming over the next 5 years. This is a $17 billion
increase. How can that be a cut? It may be a cut from a $30 billion
increase, and that $30 billion increase is a cut from a $200 billion
increase, but it ain't a cut. It's a $17 billion increase, and we say
let it only be an $8.5 billion increase.
So the question is not are we going to treat the Pentagon more
generously with less discipline than any other entity. We've conceded
that. We're only asking that you cut in half the extent to which you
are going to tell American cities to lay off cops, that you're going to
say that we don't have enough to provide disaster relief without making
cuts elsewhere, that you're going to cut health research, that you're
going to cut food inspection, that you're going to cut fire service,
that you're going to cut the reconstruction of bridges in America.
Tens and tens of billions will be spent in Western Europe and on our
allies that needed our help 61 years ago and 51 years ago but who don't
need it today--in Japan and in other parts of the world where we're
subsidizing their military budgets so they can spend more elsewhere.
By the way, let me close with this: We talk about competition and
things
[[Page 10618]]
that count--our ability to spend money on community colleges, to
provide aid so that people can become scientists and engineers, our
ability to develop technology. All of those things are hampered by the
drain on resources we get from spending military dollars in precisely
those countries with which we are competing. England and Germany and
France and the Netherlands and Denmark and Japan can all spend more on
their education and on their technology--on those areas where we are
competitive in a friendly way because we allow them to keep their
military budgets to a much lower percentage of GDP than ours, and that
is the relevant measure.
{time} 1740
So we again have a test: Are Members so caught up in the history--and
again, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for helping make the point;
1960 is his reference point. Well, stay with the concerns of 1960 and
use that as a reference point and things are not going to look very
good in 2011.
I thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'm having a hard time believing
what I'm hearing in this Chamber when it comes to national defense. You
don't get a bookkeeper or an accountant to make some sleight-of-hand
number to come up with a defense number. That's not how you do it. The
way you do it is decide what is the threat; what is threatening
America, what is threatening our allies overseas, what is threatening
our troops or our businesses around the world? Decide what that threat
is, and then decide how we're going to meet that threat. That's how you
come up with a defense number.
Just imagine we are going back to the good old days of just slashing
defense, gutting the victory fund, and the hangars were full of hangar
queens--hangar queens being airplanes that can't fly because they don't
have engines or they don't have parts. And in order to make one
airplane fly, they had to cannibalize two or three others to get enough
parts to make one airplane fly. Well, if you need three or four
airplanes in the air but only one flies, somebody is in trouble. We
don't want to go back to the days of a hangar queen, the ``hollow
force'' so-called.
And what about the troops out in combat facing a vicious enemy, and
they get to the point where they haven't really experienced what they
are about to experience because we didn't get that far in our training
because the training was curtailed? When you start cutting back the
money, you start cutting back the training, you start cutting back the
flying hours, you start cutting back the ability of that soldier to
reach out and say, hey, I know exactly how to do this because I was
trained properly. Don't cut the training, don't do it. Don't cut our
readiness by cutting training. Don't cut our readiness by having
hangars full of hangar queens that can't fly or by having garages full
of vehicles that can't run because of a lack of spare parts.
This is just not good defense. You don't make your defense decisions
based on some magical scheme or some solution that an accountant might
come up with. You had better be very careful about what the threat is.
We don't want any more Pearl Harbors; we don't want any more U.S. World
Trades on 9/11; we don't want any more attacks on the Pentagon. We were
not well enough prepared there with our intelligence. We need to make
sure that we invest enough in intelligence to make sure that we stop
those things before they happen.
Defense is not something to play games with. Defense is not something
to stand up and say, hey, I'm a cost-cutter. All of us are cost-cutters
in our own way; some of us just have different priorities for what
costs ought to be cut.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. This subcommittee
did a very good job in reducing and saving over $9 billion on this bill
alone. This is a terrible amendment. I hope that we overwhelmingly
defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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 gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. II. None of the funds made available by this Act for
international military education and training, foreign
military financing, excess defense articles, assistance under
section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law (109-163; 119 Stat. 3456),
issuance for direct commercial sales of military equipment,
or peacekeeping operations for the countries of Chad, Yemen,
Somalia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Burma
may be used to support any military training or operations
that include child soldiers, as defined by the Child Soldiers
Prevention Act of 2008, and except if such assistance is
otherwise permitted under section 404 of the Child Soldiers
Prevention Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-457; 22 U.S.C. 2370c-
1).
Mr. FORTENBERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, in 2008, this body declared that the
United States would not provide military assistance to countries found
guilty of using child soldiers. With broad bipartisan support, we
declared that this is an affront to human dignity and an affront to
civilization itself, and we reaffirmed this policy earlier this year in
the continuing resolution.
It is the policy of our Nation that children--all children, no matter
where they are--belong on playgrounds and not battlegrounds, Mr.
Chairman. But that policy is at risk, and this body has an important
decision to make. Six governments were found guilty of using child
soldiers in 2010--Burma, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. As the law we passed provided, four were
granted national security interest waivers last year in the hopes, Mr.
Chairman, that they would take serious and aggressive strides toward
ending this serious human rights violation. Somalia was also permitted
to continue receiving peacekeeping assistance, effectively sanctioning
only Burma, a country to which we provided no military assistance
anyway.
Mr. Chairman, this administration has been heavily criticized for
this decision. And it is no surprise that in the newly released 2011
child soldiers report, the same six countries were listed as violators
once again. Mr. Chairman, we must ask, where is the progress? The 2011
report needs to stand as a challenge to President Obama, the
administration, and this Congress as well. We are operating
inconsistently, obligated by law and civilized order itself to combat
this most serious human rights violation--especially prevalent in the
world's ungoverned spaces--but we continue with military assistance,
with inattentiveness to stopping the pernicious use of child soldiers.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment reaffirms current U.S. policy, lest we
forget it. In the 2011 continuing resolution, we extended the Child
Soldiers Prevention Act to cover peacekeeping
[[Page 10619]]
operations, and my amendment is consistent with this. It also clarifies
a point of law not mentioned in the Child Soldiers Prevention Act.
Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2006 provides the Department of Defense the authority to train and
equip foreign military forces. But according to its own terms and the
State Department, section 1206 authorities may not be used to provide
any type of equipment, supplies, or training that is otherwise
prohibited by any other provision of law.
Mr. Chairman, children in these countries are being preyed upon,
innocent lives are being lost, children are being thrown into
psychological hell. Girl soldiers and some boys are being subjected to
grotesque sexual slavery and violence. They are property. Their lives
are not their own. They are battered, beaten, victimized, stripped of
dignity, hope, and a future, made to do unfathomable things by the
world's worst criminals.
Mr. Chairman, these criminals just aren't faceless rebels in the bush
either. While there are plenty of those, we are talking now about
governments that are guilty of this pernicious practice. And we need to
make it clear: Are we going to tolerate this or not? William
Wilberforce, the British statesman and unyielding abolitionist for whom
our anti-human trafficking law is named, once said this: ``You may
choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did
not know.''
{time} 1750
We must make it clear to these governments that we do now know and
that we cannot look the other way, Mr. Chairman. With that, I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to
express support for this good amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record
on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Rigell of Virginia.
Amendment No. 61 by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
An amendment by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Sherman of California.
An amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
An amendment by Mr. Gohmert of Texas.
An amendment by Mr. Welch of Vermont.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 97 by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rigell
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Rigell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 249, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 515]
AYES--176
Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Capito
Capuano
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Guinta
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--249
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
[[Page 10620]]
NOT VOTING--6
Culberson
Giffords
Hinojosa
Payne
Schrader
Towns
{time} 1818
Mrs. BONO MACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, and Messrs. CRAVAACK,
NEAL, AL GREEN of Texas, TIERNEY, CROWLEY, and BARLETTA changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. HANABUSA, Ms. MOORE, and Messrs. GARRETT of New Jersey, GONZALEZ,
SHERMAN, GRIJALVA, HARRIS, GRAVES of Missouri, CONYERS, MILLER of
Florida, SULLIVAN, and BILIRAKIS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 515, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 61 Offered by Ms. Foxx
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mack). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248,
noes 175, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 516]
AYES--248
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
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
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
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)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
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--175
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
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
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
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
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Cantor
Cardoza
Culberson
Gibbs
Giffords
Payne
Sullivan
Towns
{time} 1822
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mulvaney
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135,
noes 290, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 517]
AYES--135
Amash
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Campbell
Capuano
Cardoza
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Coble
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
DeFazio
DeGette
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garrett
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Perlmutter
Peters
Pitts
Polis
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rohrabacher
Rokita
[[Page 10621]]
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Slaughter
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Welch
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
NOES--290
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Conyers
Culberson
Giffords
Issa
Payne
Towns
{time} 1827
Ms. SUTTON changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sherman
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Sherman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 316,
noes 111, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 518]
AYES--316
Adams
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kingston
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--111
Ackerman
Aderholt
Altmire
Baca
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boren
Canseco
Cantor
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Chandler
Clyburn
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Engel
Eshoo
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gohmert
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Higgins
Hochul
Hoyer
Israel
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Lamborn
Lance
Levin
Long
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
[[Page 10622]]
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Olver
Owens
Perlmutter
Peterson
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Schiff
Schock
Scott, David
Shuler
Sires
Stivers
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Van Hollen
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Yoder
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Payne
Towns
{time} 1832
Mr. SMITH of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89,
noes 338, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 519]
AYES--89
Adams
Amash
Baldwin
Barletta
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Black
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Campbell
Cardoza
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Filner
Fincher
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Harris
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Honda
Hultgren
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Keating
Kucinich
Landry
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
McClintock
Michaud
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Nugent
Pallone
Paul
Pearce
Petri
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Renacci
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Schilling
Schrader
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Southerland
Stark
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Walsh (IL)
West
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--338
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Payne
Towns
{time} 1836
Mr. COHEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162,
noes 265, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 520]
AYES--162
Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Capito
Chaffetz
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Noem
Nugent
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
[[Page 10623]]
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woodall
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOES--265
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Payne
Towns
{time} 1840
Mr. BLUMENAUER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Welch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 257, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 521]
AYES--169
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--257
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
[[Page 10624]]
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--5
Culberson
Giffords
Jackson Lee (TX)
Payne
Towns
{time} 1843
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cole
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256,
noes 170, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 522]
AYES--256
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
DeFazio
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)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
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
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
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
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
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
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
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
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
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
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
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Culberson
Giffords
Jackson Lee (TX)
Payne
Towns
{time} 1847
Mr. TURNER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 244, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 523]
AYES--181
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
[[Page 10625]]
Pascrell
Paul
Pelosi
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
NOES--244
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Culberson
Giffords
Jackson Lee (TX)
Payne
Tiberi
Towns
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1851
Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 523, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. 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.
Mack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, 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. 2219)
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1309, FLOOD
INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 2011
Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 112-138) on the resolution (H. Res. 340) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1309) to extend the authorization
of the national flood insurance program, to achieve reforms to improve
the financial integrity and stability of the program, and to increase
the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risk,
and for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on the motion to suspend the rules previously postponed.
____________________
REAFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OF ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN
CONFLICT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 268)
reaffirming the United States commitment to a negotiated settlement of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were
ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407,
nays 6, answered ``present'' 13, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 524]
YEAS--407
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
[[Page 10626]]
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--6
Amash
Blumenauer
Jones
Kucinich
Paul
Rahall
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--13
Carson (IN)
Edwards
Ellison
Johnson, E. B.
Lee (CA)
McCollum
McDermott
Moore
Moran
Pingree (ME)
Stark
Waters
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--5
Culberson
Giffords
Jackson Lee (TX)
Payne
Towns
{time} 1910
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed her vote from ``yea'' to
``present.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2417
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2417.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Webster). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 320 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. 2219.
{time} 1910
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. 2219) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Mack (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
the bill had been read through page 161, line 12.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues to
ensure that our defense community has the resources necessary to carry
out an important security mandate that this body passed this year.
Mr. Chairman, the Lord's Resistance Army has terrorized central
Africa for 25 years. But last year, Congress and the administration
took unprecedented steps to end the group's campaign of violence. This
body passed broadly supported bipartisan legislation called the Lord's
Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act requiring
the administration to prepare and present to Congress a comprehensive
strategy to bring LRA commanders to justice.
Mr. Chairman, with the administration's strategy released in
November, we should move to implement an international strategy to help
end the atrocities committed by the LRA, protect innocent civilians,
and stabilize a region of Africa that is critical to the United States'
national security interests.
Through over 20 years of civil war, this brutal insurgency has
created a humanitarian crisis that has displaced over 1\1/2\ million
people and resulted in the abduction of over 20,000 children in one of
the world's most difficult ungoverned spaces.
With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), who is continuing to take a lead role in this
international effort, which I appreciate.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his support
of this international imperative.
The LRA has terrorized civilians and abducted tens of thousands of
children, many of whom have been forced into child soldiering or sex
slavery. Its influence spans the border area of south Sudan, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic. It is
the deadliest rebel group in Congo and has displaced hundreds of
thousands of people across central Africa, including in south Sudan,
where U.S. investments in peace and stability are critical as the
region establishes independence this Saturday.
Mr. Chairman, we could have a decisive impact on seeing one of
Africa's most longstanding human rights crises finally brought to an
end by implementing the administration's plan.
I yield back to the gentleman from Nebraska in the hopes that we
implement this strategy.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his
leadership again.
My colleagues and I believe that resources invested in ending this
conflict now will not only save innocent lives but will also help
reduce the need for very expensive humanitarian aid and promote
stability in one of Africa's most volatile regions.
With that said, I would like to yield to our chairman, the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I thank the gentlemen, both, for their attention to this important
issue. And I want to continue to work with them as we move this bill
forward in the hopes that we can bring a swift end and successful end
to this tragedy.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce section 376 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page 10627]]
Mr. DeFAZIO. My colleagues, in 1990 Congress passed a law that
required that all Federal agencies, including the Department of
Defense, must have auditable financial statements every year. Since
that time, the Department of Defense has spent $10 trillion--$10,000
billion--and yet no audit has been conducted. In fact, there are
numerous problems with accounting at DOD, and their financial
management has been rated as ``high risk'' by the Government
Accountability Office.
Unfortunately, the Pentagon, being incapable of being audited, sought
an exemption from audits.
So in 2005, Congress passed a ban on completing an audit. It was
contained in section 376 of the 2006 National Defense Authorization
Act.
In 2009, Congress got tough and they said, ``Look, we've exempted you
from audits. But let's have a goal--not a mandate--a goal of you doing
an audit by 2017. Yet last September in a hearing Pentagon officials
stated that meeting a deadline of 2017 for having their first ever
audit of their books, and they will spend $4 trillion between now and
2017 without an audit, they said they would need more money, more money
to be auditable. That's chutzpah. That's incredible.
So what we're attempting to do here tonight is to say that we're
going to suspend the exemption. The DOD, it's time for them to get
their books in order. There is nothing more important for our men and
women in uniform than to know that every dollar, every precious tax
dollar is being spent properly to give them the tools they need to
defend our Nation. And the taxpayers of this country, concerned about
our massive deficit and the concerns that are being expressed here in
these deficit and debt talks downtown, the taxpayers need to know that
we're not wasting money in the single largest annual account of the
Federal budget which is not audited, the expenditures of the Pentagon.
In fiscal year 2010, half of DOD's contract awards were not competed.
That's half. In 140 billion of them, there was no competition at all,
and in 48 billion, there was one, one competitor. So we have a lot of
work to do here.
In 2000, the Pentagon Inspector General found that of $7.6 trillion
in accounting errors of entries, $2.3 trillion ``were not supported by
adequate audit trails or sufficient evidence to determine their
validity.'' We don't know where that $2.3 trillion went. Now, come on.
It's time to stop treating them with kid gloves. The Pentagon's a
tough institution, the toughest Department of Defense in the world. And
it's time for them to own up here and audit their books and trace every
dollar. It's a new era. So I urge my colleagues to support this by
defunding this special exemption. Then the Pentagon will be subject to
audit over the next year, which could provide tremendous benefits to
our men and women in uniform and certainly tremendous savings for the
American taxpayers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'm just not sure how this
amendment accomplishes what the gentleman says since it prohibits
enforcement of a section of a fiscal year 2006 bill, which only applied
to that fiscal year. So I'm not opposed to the amendment; I just don't
believe it does anything.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARRETT. I rise today in support of this amendment and one which
I have also cosponsored with the gentleman.
This amendment, quite honestly, is common sense, in that it simply
looks to add accountability in how the Pentagon spends our taxpayers'
dollars. Now, the GAO released an independent audit that they performed
in March that concluded that the cost of the Pentagon's largest
programs has risen by $135 billion--that's over 9 percent--to $1.68
trillion by 2008. And as was pointed out, over half of that, or $70
billion of that, involves overruns. And what they say in their report
appeared ``to be indicative of production problems and inefficiencies
or flawed initial cost estimates.''
Since then, we have not had a complete audit by the Pentagon, and
since then, overruns have only multiplied.
Just this past week, earlier in the week, I had the opportunity to
serve in the Budget Committee, where we had the CBO come in. And we
asked them point blank for some of the information that we would like
to have with regard to these audits, that we would like the information
from them so they could pinpoint some of the, as we always say on the
floor, the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes on. But more specifically,
where the inefficiencies are. And the answer we got from them was
somewhat telling. They said they cannot supply this Congress with the
information that we would like because they do not get the information
themselves from the DOD. And that is the problem.
{time} 1920
That is the problem. The Department of Defense is consistently
overbudget in acquisition and equipment modernization. There are 92
major defense acquisition programs. Seventy-five percent of them are
overbudget. Twenty percent of them are overbudget by more than 50
percent.
Mr. Chairman, this is something that needs to be addressed. This
amendment will once again hold the Pentagon accountable, assuring that
the taxpayer dollars are spent prudently, as intended. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would like, at this time, to ask the chairman
to participate in a colloquy with me.
I rise today to express my concern about our strategic ports. First,
I want to thank the chairman for discussing this important issue with
me. I think the chairman would agree that understanding and addressing
vital infrastructure needs at our strategic seaports is of major
importance.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would tell him that I do agree that assessing and correcting
infrastructure problems at the Nation's strategic seaports, which are
an integral part of our national defense readiness, is of vital
importance.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Since 1958, the strategic seaport program has
facilitated the movement of military forces securely through U.S.
ports. Each strategic seaport has individual capabilities that provide
the Department of Defense with the port facilities and services that
are critical in maintaining the operational flexibility and redundancy
needed to meet a wide range of national security missions and time
lines. However, the existing infrastructure at many of the strategic
ports may no longer be adequate to meet the needs of our military. I
think the time has come to address these needs in both our
authorization and appropriations process. That is why I worked with
Chairman McKeon to include language in the defense authorization bill
that will require a study of the infrastructure needs of these
strategic ports. Once that study has been conducted, I believe it is of
vital importance that this committee provide the necessary funding to
address the needs of these ports.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I also believe these ports to be
critical to our defense, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman
from Alaska to consider the appropriate measures and funding to address
[[Page 10628]]
the infrastructure needs of our strategic seaports.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to thank the chairman for discussing this
issue with me. I would just like to say to the chairman, I appreciate
the fact that you recognize the importance of ports to move our
products. I know that the ranking member does, also. I again thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BECERRA. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and
ranking member on recruitment and outreach at the military service
academies.
Mr. Chairman, some areas in the U.S. have been harder for the
military academies to reach for recruitment purposes than others. To
ease this problem, the Congress should work to ensure that the military
academies have the ability to reach out to men and women from
underrepresented rural and urban areas.
Past outreach efforts have been effective at the military academies.
For example, in the U.S. Naval Academy's increased outreach efforts, we
have seen results that show that some 19,145 applicants have come out
for the class of 2015, an increase of 25 percent over the past 2 years.
The Navy has been able to conduct recruitment blitzes in parts of the
country that were traditionally underrepresented. In my home State of
California, the Navy increased their applicants by 25 percent, from
some 2,400 for the class of 2013 to over 3,000 for the class of 2015.
I believe it is important for the academies to have the resources to
continue building upon this success. This critical investment would
help America find the best and the brightest for our military and for
America's future.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I agree with the gentleman that it is important that the military
academies bring in the best young people from across the country, and
the committee will work with him toward this objective.
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the chairman.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. DICKS. I agree with the chairman and stand ready to work with the
gentleman--and I commend him for the work that he's been doing over the
years--to reach out to all regions of the country to bring the best and
brightest into the military academies.
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the ranking member and the chairman, and I look
forward to working with them.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 1.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' is hereby
reduced by $250,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
This amendment would reduce the operations and maintenance defense-
wide account by $250 million, the same amount appropriated by section
8122 of the bill. Section 8122 appropriates another $250 million in
FY12 for the Secretary of Defense to use for the Office of Economic
Adjustment, or to transfer to the Secretary of Education to make grants
to public schools located on military bases for construction,
renovation and repairs.
I will just summarize what's happening here. We have some schools
that are on military bases. Now, some of the schools on military bases
are run by the Department of Defense. That's not what we're speaking
about here. The schools that we're talking about here, LEAs, Local
Education Agencies, run them. In the FY11 budget, we appropriated $250
million of defense money--this is in the Defense bill--to go to schools
that are the responsibility of Local Education Agencies.
Now, some of these schools are in disrepair. They're in bad shape.
Nobody's questioning that. Education budgets are tight everywhere
around the country. Ask your own States. Ask your local school
districts. But we cannot continue to divert money from the Department
of Defense simply because that's where money is and few people question
it. I'm sure the gentleman will stand up here and say, hey, these
schools are in bad shape; they're on military bases; we've got to fix
them, and the Local Education Agencies have said these schools are in
disrepair. But why are we taking money that should be going to the
military, to the troops, to other purposes, and diverting it to local
education or local schools that are the responsibility of Local
Education Agencies?
I have here one of the contracts for one of these schools that is
being discussed here. It says: The permittee or his designee shall, at
his own cost and expense, protect, preserve, maintain, repair and keep
in good order and condition these schools.
This is a Local Education Agency, not the Department of Defense. That
shouldn't be the responsibility of the Department of Defense, and we're
bleeding off $250 million.
I'm sure the gentleman will stand up and say this is needed, this
isn't going to be a continual thing, we've just got to bring these
schools up to repair. They'll say that the Department of Defense has
said that these schools are in disrepair. They are. Nobody is
questioning that. The question is: Where should this money come from?
And if we have this kind of money to throw around for defense, then we
ought to be cutting more defense funding.
This funding, if there's a problem, it should go through the Local
Education Agencies, or convince the Federal Department of Education
through Impact Aid to send money to these schools, but not the
Department of Defense. That has been the practice, unfortunately,
around here for quite a while now.
We say, all right, what account can we take money from, for earmarks
or whatever else, that few people will question? It's defense spending.
We take that off for education or research or whatever else, and pretty
soon we're diverting a lot of money that should go to the troops to
other purposes.
{time} 1930
Like I said, nobody's questioning that these schools are in bad
repair. Newsweek ran an article on June 27 that said 39 percent of the
schools run by the public systems on Army installations fell in the
failing or poor category. I don't question that. Nobody does. What's at
question here is another $250 million.
As I said, we appropriated in the FY11 budget $250 million. So
apparently this is going to become a standard practice now? And then
you start to get the prospect of Members of Congress starting to submit
their local bases, saying, hey, the schools there are bad, and we get
into the old earmarking game by letter, or phone marking, or whatever
else, because it will be the spoils system all over again as to who
gets the defense money to actually fix these schools. So this would
simply say this money, $250 million that has been requested for this
purpose, shall not be spent.
The gentleman may stand up and say, hey, this is generally taken from
the Department of Defense, or from the operations and maintenance, and
so that's not specific enough. Believe me, the Secretary of Defense, if
they have the choice to fund the troops or the schools, will fund the
troops because the schools are under the responsibility of the local
education agency. The Department of Defense may submit a list and say
these schools are in disrepair, but it's not the responsibility of the
Department of Defense to fund these schools.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
[[Page 10629]]
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The gentleman was quite good at making the cases against
this amendment, but I will have to reiterate some of the things. First
of all, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The bill
provides an additional $250 million to improve or replace inadequate
schools located on Department of Defense bases that are operated by
Local Education Authorities and the Department of Education. Most of
these are run by the local authorities.
The Army has identified 80 Local Education Authority-operated schools
within the continental United States that are inadequate because of
poor conditions or a lack of capacity to accommodate the number of
students enrolled. Initial funding in the fiscal year 2011 bill will
address approximately 13 of these schools.
Nearly 42,000 school-aged dependents of U.S. service personnel are
enrolled in schools on DOD bases that are owned and operated by either
LEAs or the U.S. Department of Education. The recommendation is based
on former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's remarks to military spouses
at a May 8, 2010, town hall meeting at Fort Riley, Kansas. The
Secretary then called me as chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee last year and said, Norm, we've got to do something about
these schools. We have these young men and women serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them worried
about their children because some of these schools, if there was a
hurricane, if there was an earthquake, if there was a lahar from Mount
Rainier, these schools could go down.
I have walked out there and seen these schools at Joint Base Lewis-
McChord. And one of the conditions, if you are going to get money here,
is that you must take over the school. The local school districts are
going to have to take them over from this point forward. So we will get
out of the responsibility, but we have to bring these schools up to
code and standards and rebuild most of them. This list was developed by
the Army, and then the Navy and Air Force and Marine Corps also were
involved.
The former Secretary indicated that his plan to improve schools
requires congressional approval. Caring for the dependents of U.S.
service personnel is a vital contributor to military quality of life
and represents a prudent investment in our Nation's future. I urge my
colleagues to reject the amendment.
Let me also say in the military construction bill there was $463
million for schools that are owned by the Department of Defense. Many
of these schools are overseas, in other countries; and yet we are
putting $463 million into those schools. At the same time, the
gentleman from Arizona wants to deny the young people of our country
schools that they could go into. There is one in Arizona. The gentleman
is running for the other body. I think he would be concerned about the
school in Arizona that may not get funded if this amendment passes. And
I hope the people of Arizona remember it, because the people of
Washington State will certainly remember it. This is a bad amendment.
We should defeat it.
Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I will not yield.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment and associate my
remarks with those of the ranking member. We are talking about the
dependents of the U.S. military. And when you visit military bases,
some of these schools are deplorable. When we make a commitment to a
young person in the military, and they are married and they have
children, they ought to be able to go to schools on their military base
that are of high standards.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman if he wishes.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I should mention the gentleman from Washington mentioned that the
Secretary of Defense said we have got to do something about these
schools. I should note that this was not in the Defense request. If he
thought something ought to be done, you would think that they would
have put it in their request. They didn't. It wasn't in the
authorization bill. There is a Department of Education program, a
competitive program for this already. If we think that it should have
more money, then it should.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. They don't have any money. The Department of Education
can't fund this because the new majority is taking a lot of the money
out of the Department of Education that they would use for this
purpose, and they don't have the money. That's why the Secretary called
us and said--and this is Fort Riley, Kansas, one of your side, a school
in the district of a Republican Member--and he said we've got to do
something.
We didn't say we will do this on a partisan basis. We said, hey,
these men and women in these Stryker brigades are over in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them be worried
about their children in these schools that could go down if we had an
earthquake. And we have had all these natural disasters all over this
country. And I just say to the gentleman this is the most ridiculous
amendment I have heard of yet. And he has had some lulus. And I just
hope we can defeat this amendment so the people of this country will
know we care about our kids serving in the military and their families.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, American children have
already been the victims of the Republicans' inaction and spending
cuts, and now the Republicans are specifically targeting the children
of military families. The Flake Amendment to H.R. 2219 cuts $250
million of critical funding for public schools on military
installations.
These schools and families are already in dire need of support.
Impact aid is provided to these schools as compensation for the federal
activities that render them unable to collect property or other taxes
to fund these schools. This is one of the oldest education programs
administered in the United States, and these schools and families
depend on these funds.
The men and women of our armed services make great sacrifices to keep
our country safe. They deserve better from this Congress. They do not
deserve to have their children's education sacrificed as well. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Flake amendment to cut impact aid.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 2.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise provided by title IX for
``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' is hereby
reduced by $3,577,192,676.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. This amendment is straightforward. It will simply reduce
the amount appropriated to the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer
Fund by roughly $3.5 billion. We often hear in this body the
Constitution grants the Congress the power of the purse, that the
President's budget is not sacrosanct, and that Members should be able
to guide Federal spending. I agree with that.
[[Page 10630]]
So I was quite surprised that the committee included in this bill an
appropriation of $5 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operation
Transfer Fund, but provided virtually no guidance on how it should be
spent beyond requiring that any obligations be, quote, pursuant to the
global war on terrorism. That's roughly 4 percent of the overall cost
of the war spending portion of this bill.
I understand the funding could provide the Department of Defense with
a little more flexibility as it moves ahead with operations in
Afghanistan, while simultaneously withdrawing troops from Afghanistan
and Iraq. I am sympathetic to the need to properly fund the war in a
way that requires us to budget for it.
{time} 1940
But this $5 billion with very few strings attached could also be used
for just about anything, including, as a bargaining chip, for
negotiations with the Senate, according to the CQ Today article, which
ran on June 14.
I would submit that it's an expensive bargaining chip, and it's a
very risky gamble, in my view. The President recently announced his
intent to withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which I think
he will make the case for in the months ahead. And the Department of
Defense has some flexibility as we move ahead in the months ahead.
So I think it's fair to reduce the amount appropriated in this fund
to roughly $1.5 billion. That amounts to 1 percent of the war-related
costs of the bill instead of 4 percent. Oversees Contingency Operations
Transfer Funds have been requested in the past by the Department of
Defense. I understand that. I think we all understand that, to give the
Department of Defense some flexibility.
What I am saying here is, $5 billion is a little too much flexibility
here. Let's regain our prerogative here to direct this money, to have
the power of the purse and simply not allow that amount, $5 billion.
That would simply reduce it to $1.5 billion.
According to CQ Today, the Army requested about $2 billion for
transportation expenses in Afghanistan. The House panel said that
funding need was overstated because the Army was assuming all supplies
are flown into that country, when only about 20 percent arrive by air.
I commend the committee for carefully drilling down on the requests
submitted by the services and identifying places where funding is
unjustified and unneeded. However, instead of pulling back all the
money in what could become a slush fund, we should do better. We should
take steps to simply make sure that money that doesn't have to be spent
is not spent.
That's what this amendment does. I urge its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman from
Arizona's amendment, which would cut $3.6 billion from the Overseas
Contingencies Operations budget.
The committee believes that the Army's fiscal year 2012 operation and
maintenance requests for Overseas Contingencies Operations may be
overstated due to unrealistic planning assumptions. However, due to the
great deal of uncertainty of the justification for the Army's O&M
budget request, the committee added an appropriations account, the
Overseas Contingencies Operations Transfer Fund Account, and shifted $5
billion of funding from the Army into this account.
This account gives the Secretary of Defense flexibility to reprogram
these funds for unforeseen requirements which emerged during 2012. For
example, if redeployment from Afghanistan were to be accelerated--and
some would suggest it should be--there will be a very significant
increase in personnel and equipment transportation costs in fiscal year
2012.
Examples of requirements, which emerged during the year of budget
execution in prior years, include funding for the MRAP vehicles, the
mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, additional body armor that
was needed, and other force protection things, joint, what we call
joint urgent operational needs. And, of course, there are always spikes
in fuel costs.
So for these and many other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the
amendment and urge others to do so as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for--
(1) deploying members of the Armed Forces on to the ground
of Libya for the purposes of engaging in military operations
unless the purpose of such deployment is limited solely to
rescuing members of the United States Armed Forces;
(2) awarding a contract to a private security contractor to
conduct any activity on the ground of Libya; or
(3) otherwise establishing or maintaining any presence of
members of the Armed Forces or private security contractors
on the ground of Libya unless the purpose of such deployment
is limited solely to rescuing members of the United States
Armed Forces.
Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise with the assistance of my good
friends, Tom McClintock of California, Lynn Woolsey of California, and
Barbara Lee of California.
It is my Libyan amendment, again, which would prevent funds
appropriated in this act from being used to deploy any type of ground
troop presence for the purpose of pursuing military operations on
Libyan territory.
This amendment would simply codify the policy endorsed by President
Obama and the international community and thereby ensure that our
involvement in Libya remains limited in scope.
An identical amendment passed this House on May 26 by a vote of 416-5
as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
It's also the intent of this amendment, as it was in my earlier
amendment, that funds would be allowed to be used to rescue members of
the Armed Forces participating in the NATO no-fly zone operation.
The American people, obviously many of them, have grown weary of the
open-ended military conflicts that place our troops in harm's way and
add billions to our national debt. We simply cannot afford another
Afghanistan or Iraq.
And so the time has come for Congress to once again exercise its
constitutional authority to place boundaries on the use of our military
forces overseas and clearly state that this conflict in Libya will not
escalate into an expensive occupation that would strain our resources
and harm our national security interests.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We would like to commend you for your amendment,
and we would be willing to accept it.
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page 10631]]
Ms. WOOLSEY. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my
good friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) which I am very proud to be a
cosponsor.
The war in Libya, which was not authored by this body or our Senate
colleagues, has lingered for more than 100 days.
Mr. Chairman, despite the legal contortions coming from the other end
of Pennsylvania Avenue, the dropping of bombs, the killing of
civilians, and the use of drones in Libya most definitely constitutes
hostilities. And it's our responsibility in the Congress to make sure
that these hostilities do not escalate into a full-blown ground war
with boots on the ground and the United States becoming an occupying
force in Libya.
The President has assured us that this won't happen, and I believe
that a ground war is not his intention. But it wouldn't be the first
time, Mr. Chairman, in the history of the United States' warfare that
there was a shift in military, with the military campaign beginning as
one thing and ending up as quite another. So it's critical that we
assert ourselves using the congressional authority to appropriate funds
to say ``no'' to launching a third ground war.
Our authority rests on how we use the people's money. Today's
amendment denies the use of our tax dollars to send troops into Libya.
The war in Libya is a war of choice, except it's one that Americans
didn't choose. It's not one that their elected representatives here in
the people's House and Senate chose either.
We must ensure it does not go any further. We must listen to our
people--the people who sent us here, the people we work for--who are
insisting that we set limits. They know that we can't afford another
Libya becoming another Iraq or Afghanistan.
Are these the values that we celebrated over this patriotic holiday
weekend? Permanent warfare that leads to mayhem, despair and
instability without advancing our national interests? It's time we
start embracing the principles of smart security--humanitarian aid and
civilian support--instead of perpetual warfare.
Haven't we had enough? Haven't our troops proven their valor? Haven't
military families proven their selflessness and sacrifice? Haven't the
taxpayers parted with enough of their money?
Vote ``yes'' on the Conyers-McClintock-Woolsey-Lee amendment. Say no
to ground troops in Libya.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I would like to ask Subcommittee Chairman Young if he
would enter into a colloquy regarding the Department of Defense's
future plans for data storage.
{time} 1950
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy on
behalf of Chairman Young with you, sir.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. As the chairman is aware and as you are
aware, the Department of Defense has many cybersecurity goals and
challenges. With the daily reports on cyberattacks and intrusions, I
feel that Congress needs to express its concerns before there is a
cyberevent that will impact and damage national security.
The Department of Defense is the world's largest target for
cyberattacks. There are many aspects of cyberdefense infrastructure,
but I would like to focus on one critical piece, the physical location
of classified data. I'm very concerned that the Department of Defense
will not weigh the physical storage of classified data sufficiently in
their efforts to save money through the consolidation and modernization
of the information technology infrastructure. In addition, I worry that
unnecessarily storing classified data abroad could increase the risk
that this information could be stolen, damaging national security and
potentially harming our troops.
I would ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with me to
ensure that the Department of Defense's future plans for data storage
address these concerns and maintain the highest standards for
protection for classified data. Keeping critical defense data under
positive control and physically securing that data is just common sense
for national security. Building and operating data centers here will
create American jobs as well as make it easier to control access and
make it harder for foreign operatives to steal things such as nuclear
secrets, weapons systems designs, and battle plans.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Chairman Young and the committee thank the
gentleman from Illinois for bringing this matter to our attention, and
we share his concern for the protection of all classified data. We
believe the threat from cyberattacks is real and is growing. We commend
the gentleman for his leadership in this area, and we will be happy to
work with you and the ranking member to ensure that our troops and
Nation maintain control of all classified data.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. DICKS. I think the gentleman from Illinois brings up a very
important issue, and I too look forward to working with the gentleman
to ensure that classified data is protected from misuse and theft.
Cybersecurity may be the most important defense issue that we face in
the coming years. The Department of Defense itself is hit 250,000 times
per hour, which is unbelievable, but it's true. And so we need to work
on this, and I'm glad the gentleman has taken an interest in this
important subject.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks
for their commitment to the troops and national security, and I know
Mr. Dicks is especially concerned about cybersecurity.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 3.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by title IV of
this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available
for ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', by
reducing the amount made available for ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', by reducing the
amount made available for ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Air Force'', by reducing the amount made
available for ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide'', and by reducing the amount made available for
``Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense'', by $93,811,660,
$177,989,500, $263,131,960, $193,248,650, and $1,912,920,
respectively.
Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. The amendment would reduce each of the Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation accounts by 1 percent, or roughly
$730 million below the currently appropriated $73 billion provided in
this measure.
Amendments of this sort have been offered to other Defense-related
measures recently, though they have attempted to cut amounts far
greater than what I am proposing. During one of these debates, the
chairman of the Defense Subcommittee made the point that ``if you are
going to reduce the defense budget, there ought to be a good reason.''
I agree. And I submit that both the severity of the fiscal situation we
face and the consequences of inaction are compelling reasons to reduce
the defense budget along with everything else.
The Appropriations Committee started a positive trend when, during
the consideration of appropriations for fiscal year 2011, it reduced
the RDT&E accounts below the levels that have been funded in recent
years.
[[Page 10632]]
I applaud the committee for taking a serious look at these and other
accounts and for acting accordingly, but I think we need to do better.
We're going to have to get used to cutting defense budgets here if
we're going to get our fiscal situation in order.
The defense budget accounts for roughly half of the discretionary
spending that is considered during the regular appropriations process
during the year. According to the Domenici-Rivlin Commission
``Restoring America's Future,'' RDT&E budgets have increased from $49.2
billion in fiscal year 2001 to $80.2 billion in fiscal year 2010.
So you are seeing an amount of about 80 percent higher now than they
were in just 2001. That is a 63 percent increase. I'm getting my math
wrong here. That report also suggested reducing the RDT&E budget would
``impose greater discipline in research investments.''
In addition, Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center argues in an essay in
Foreign Affairs magazine that the RDT&E budget should be reduced,
saying that ``it would be safe to cut it, too, by 19 percent between
fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2018. Such a reduction would yield $87
billion in savings while keeping the United States' level of military
R&D far above any other country.''
I'm not attempting to or suggesting that we make cuts that deep in
these accounts with this amendment. I recognize that they have already
taken a sizeable hit in fiscal year 11. I also know that my colleagues
will come to the floor and tout the values of these accounts. They'll
talk about and highlight important successes we've achieved with
weapons and other systems that wouldn't have been possible without
these accounts. I recognize that.
But if we're all going to have to get used to voting for cuts in
defense, cutting 1 percent of the $73 billion made available to RDT&E
is far from Draconian and will not preclude any such future successes.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The allocation for the Defense bill has already been
reduced by $9 billion. Funding for the research and development title
of the bill has been reduced from the 2011 level by nearly $2 billion.
Further reductions risk harming critical technology development needed
to keep current weapons relevant and needed to develop next generation
weapons and technologies required to maintain the U.S. edge in military
technologies.
The reduction would adversely affect many systems now in development,
including the Joint Strike Fighter, where we certainly do not want to
fall behind, advanced submarine development, the long-range strike
program, missile defense program, further development of precision
weapons systems and many others.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman mentioned that this defense budget is cut $7
billion below?
Mr. DICKS. Nine billion below the President's request.
Mr. FLAKE. That's below the President's request, not below the
budget----
Mr. DICKS. Last year we were $17 billion below last year, $9 billion
this year. So we're making some serious cuts in this budget.
Mr. FLAKE. I just appreciate that this is not the most ridiculous
amendment. I'm glad that threshold was reached.
Mr. DICKS. No. This one won't make the top 10.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. We're working the list up, so I will share it with the
gentleman down in the gym.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.
I invite the ranking member to enter into a colloquy with me on an
important health issue for our military.
Taking more lives each year than breast, prostate, colon and
pancreatic cancers combined, today's lung cancer death toll is beyond
unacceptable. It is the leading cause of cancer death among men and
women across every racial and ethnic group and has a very low 5-year
survival rate of only 15 percent. And this situation can be attributed
to both resource limitations in programs dedicated to lung cancer
research and the absence of a coordinated and comprehensive plan to
reduce lung cancer mortality in this Nation by focusing on the entire
lung cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and care continuum.
Today, 80 percent of new lung cancer cases affect people who neither
have smoked or those who have quit smoking, many of them decades ago.
{time} 2000
This is true of smokers and nonsmokers, and those populations such as
racial and ethnic minorities, women, and low-income Americans who are
disproportionately affected by lung cancer. But it is especially the
case for our brave men and women who defend this Nation and put
themselves in harm's way to protect our freedom.
Veterans, whose service has put them at high risk for lung cancer,
have lung cancer needs that have been and remain unmet. They also
suffer from a higher incidence of lung cancer and mortality than
nonveterans. Additionally, the rate of lung cancer is nearly twice as
high among those in the military compared to the larger U.S.
population.
As a physician, I know that success against lung cancer requires that
we approach lung cancer comprehensively, just as we do other major
illnesses. Prevention and wellness, coupled with early detection,
treatment options, and research must be adequately funded and
coordinated, just as we do for heart disease, breast cancer, HIV/AIDS,
and others. That is why I introduced H.R. 1394, the Lung Cancer
Mortality Reduction Act of 2011. We must coordinate activities that
combat lung cancer in vulnerable populations, including our active
military, and ensure that for them, as well as for others, that early
detection, treatment, and research is adequately supported with
benchmarks to gauge progress.
We owe it to our Nation's heroes to coordinate early screening,
treatment, and care, and reduce lung cancer mortality among members of
the Armed Forces and our veterans, whose exposure to carcinogens during
active duty service is a known contributor to their increased lung
cancer risk.
I would seek the help of the ranking member to pursue this work in
the Defense Health Program within the Department of Defense.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I will work with the gentlelady on DOD lung cancer
research. We have $10.2 million in the budget this year, and money for
other forms of cancer and treatment efforts, in light of the serious
problems facing military members. This is a very serious problem, and I
am glad that you have called it to our attention, and I look forward to
working with you on this important issue.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page 10633]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to research, develop, manufacture, or procure a newly
designed flight suit or integrated aircrew ensemble.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, there is no bigger
supporter, I don't think, in this body of the Air Force than me. I am
an Air National Guard pilot. I have been an Air National Guard pilot
for awhile now, and continue to be even during my service in Congress.
But part of what we have to do in this body is we have to find areas of
essential versus nonessential spending.
One of those areas I believe that is nonessential is $100 million
that will be spent, if this amendment is not adopted, to develop a new
flight suit, in essence. I think at a time when we are looking at
supporting defense as best we can and finding out areas where we can
prioritize and make that essential, I think it is important to stop the
design of this flight suit and allow that money to be spent in other
areas.
We have met with the folks that are developing this, that are looking
at the idea of this new flight suit, and I am still convinced that the
right thing to do at this time is to halt the development and
manufacture of this.
So I would just stand and urge adoption of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, the committee would like to thank
the gentleman from Illinois for his service in the Air National Guard,
and obviously his service in Congress. The gentleman from Illinois has
made a compelling argument, and we are prepared to accept his
amendment. However, we want to be clear that we will continue to study
the issue as we support the continued advancement of the safety of all
of our pilots. We just want to make that understood. It needs more
study. We are in support of your amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The amendment would prohibit DOD from developing or
manufacturing a newly designed flight suit for members of the Armed
Forces. In November of 2010, the Air Force awarded a $99.4 million
contract over 7 years to research, develop, and manufacture the flight
suit. The November award ended a nearly 3-year competitive bidding
process.
The Air Force requires that the new flight suit must protect airmen
from flames, all kinds of weather, chemical attacks or radiation, and
high gravity that can cause air members to black out. So I urge
rejection of the amendment.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Chair, there is no bigger supporter
in this body of the Air Force than me. For nearly ten years, I have
been privileged to serve my country in the Air Force and Air National
Guard as a pilot. During that time I often thought, ``If I am willing
to fight for my country on the outside, I must be willing to defend and
preserve our country for future generations on the inside.'' Today I
rise in support of my amendment to the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, H.R. 2219. My amendment would save the U.S.
taxpayers nearly $100 million by not allowing the Air Force to
redevelop the current flight suit.
Since coming to this House, my colleagues and I have been working
diligently to determine essential versus non-essential government
spending projects. One area I wanted to examine more closely was a $100
million project to develop a new flight suit for the Air Force, called
the ``Integrated Aircrew Ensemble.'' This flight suit is not being
developed in response to specific needs of the Air Force's next-
generation fighter, the F-35 Lightning II. Rather, it is designed to
integrate the already existing protections which are included in our
current flight suit.
In February, at the Air Force's 2012 budget hearing, Chief of Staff
General Norton Schwartz was asked--at my request--whether the Air Force
was developing a new flight suit. General Schwartz stated, ``We are not
in the business of redesigning our flight suit under the current
circumstances.'' Since his testimony, General Schwartz said this quote
is ``accurate but incomplete,'' and does not represent his position on
the flight suit contract.
Our office met with management from TIAX LLC, the company awarded the
contract. After reviewing the information from TIAX and speaking with
many of my fellow pilots who fly different aircrafts, I remain
confident that the current flight suit provides more than adequate
protection.
Over the past 10 years, the Air National Guard has not had a single
G-LOC (induced loss of consciousness due to excessive G-force) Class A
mishap, while the Air Force has had 5 G-LOC Class A mishaps. Of those 5
Air Force Class A mishaps, 3 occurred in an F-16 aircraft, while the
other two occurred in a T-6 and T-37, respectively. The Air Force was
unable to provide details surrounding the T-6 and T-37 Class A mishaps;
however, they were able to provide the details surrounding each of the
F-16 Class A mishaps. In each of those cases, the pilot flying the F-16
was performing Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) under the supervision of
an instructor pilot. It is important to note that all of these
accidents took place in a training environment and by young pilots
still honing their skills. In none of the executive summary reports
surrounding those accidents was the flight suit noted as a contributing
factor toward causing G-LOC.
For these reasons, it is my strong belief that updating and
integrating the flight suit will not be the panacea that proponents of
the program claim in terms of protecting against these types of G-LOC
Class A mishaps. Protecting against G-LOC has much more to do with the
innate physical abilities of our pilots and the training they receive
than any flight suit they will wear.
These findings led me to offer an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) to postpone the flight suit development and
save taxpayers nearly $100 million. This amendment was adopted into the
NDAA, which passed the House by a vote of 322-96.
Many of my colleagues in the House support this amendment, including
Congressman Sam Johnson (R-Texas), a twenty-nine-year Air Force
veteran, former POW in Vietnam, former Director of the Fighter Weapons
School and pilot with the Thunderbirds. He said, ``With men and women
in harm's way in three different wars, the Air Force shouldn't even
think about using scarce dollars for new flight suits.''
My other colleague, Congressman Pete Olson (R-Texas) said, ``As a
former Navy Aviator, I know firsthand that our current flight suits
provide all of the protection and comfort our aviators need. Our nation
is facing record debt and deficits and as such, we must apply careful
scrutiny over every new project we are looking to fund. If I thought
for one second that our pilots were in danger, I would be the first to
support a new flight suit, but the reality is that this is a $100M
solution looking for a problem.''
Senator Kirk (R-IL) also stated, ``While nothing takes precedence
over protecting and arming our troops in the field, we still have a
responsibility to protect taxpayers from excessive spending. Given our
current fiscal situation, we must make tough decisions to ensure that
tax dollars are spent efficiently--even at the Pentagon. Cutting a $100
million program the Air Force says it does not need is exactly the kind
of spending restraint the American people want to see from Congress.''
Make no mistake, I am committed to ensuring our military is the
strongest and best equipped in the world. However, we must make tough
decisions with regard to military needs and military wants. I was sent
to Washington to make difficult decisions, even those that require the
military to prioritize its spending.
Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 10634]]
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. It is the policy of the United States to withdraw
all United States Armed Forces and military contractors from
Iraq by December 31, 2011, and no provision of any agreement
between the United States and Iraq that amends the timeline
for such withdrawal in a manner that obligates the United
States to a security commitment to respond to internal or
external threats against Iraq after such date shall be in
force with respect to the United States unless the agreement
is in the form of a treaty requiring the advice and consent
of the Senate (or is intended to take that form in the case
of an agreement under negotiation) or is specifically
authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Ms. LEE (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
consider the amendment as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Ms. LEE (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
consider the amendment as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I am pleased that my colleagues,
Representatives Nadler and Woolsey, are joining me in offering an
amendment that make it the policy of the United States to withdraw all
members of the United States Armed Forces and military contractors from
Iraq by the end of this year.
More importantly, this amendment also clarifies that this timeline
cannot be changed unless it is in the form of a treaty requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate or unless authorized by an act of
Congress.
We must ensure that 45,000 United States troops who remain in Iraq,
and our military contractors, leave Iraq at the end of this year, as is
stated in our Nation's Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq.
This is of concern because this week the President and some of his
advisers are considering just how many troops they can leave behind.
Senators and others are publicizing their opinions. Senator McCain of
Arizona has suggested 10,000 to 13,000 troops remain to serve for
support in intelligence arenas, as air support, and as a peacekeeping
force. Others may eventually call for even more to remain. At the same
time, the Government of Iraq is feeling pressured on multiple sides to
either ask us to stay or to ensure our departure. As one of the
original founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, along with Congresswoman
Maxine Waters and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, our position has been
clear all along--we opposed the war and the occupation from the start,
and we have worked day in and day out to end it.
We believe that ending the occupation of Iraq means withdrawing all
troops--and we mean all troops--and all military contractors out of
Iraq. It would be unacceptable to have troops remaining in Iraq after
December 31, 2011, unless of course there was a treaty or an act of
Congress. Leaving troops would hurt U.S. national security interests by
adding credence to insurgents' narrative about the U.S. being a
permanent occupying force. America's interests in Iraq and the region
will be best served by eliminating our military presence and making
greater use of our Nation's assets, including diplomacy,
reconciliation, commerce, development assistance, and humanitarian aid.
And we have already said in policy that there shall be no permanent
military bases in Iraq.
Iraqis must be responsible for the security of Iraq, which they have
demonstrated more and more as we have been pulling out of their
country. The American people have no interest in extending our presence
in Iraq, and they are looking to Congress to ensure that we bring our
troops home and focus the savings on the challenges facing our Nation
today.
Furthermore, we need to ensure that if any security commitment is
required, that such commitment be established by a treaty or an act of
Congress.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2010
Point of Order
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
The Chair will rule.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California proposes to
express a legislative sentiment of the House.
As such, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is
not in order.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the spending reduction
amount), insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds made available by this Act may be used for any account
of the Department of Defense (other than accounts excluded by
subsection (b)) in excess of the amount made available for
such account for fiscal year 2011, unless the financial
statements of the Department for fiscal year 2011 are
validated as ready for audit within 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Accounts Excluded.--The following accounts are excluded
from the prohibition in subsection (a):
(1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National
Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
(2) The Defense Health Program account.
(c) Validation Defined.--In this section, the term
``validation'', with respect to the auditability of financial
statements, means a determination, following an examination,
that the financial statements comply with generally accepted
accounting principles and applicable laws and regulations and
reflect reliable internal controls.
(d) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) with
respect to a component or program of the Department if the
President certifies that applying the subsection to that
component or program would harm national security or members
of the Armed Forces who are in combat.
Ms. LEE (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I join my esteemed colleague Ms. Jan Schakowsky
from Illinois in offering an amendment that hits at the heart of the
issue of fiscal responsibility.
This amendment would freeze Department of Defense programs at fiscal
year 2011 levels unless the financial statements of the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 2011 are ready to be audited in 6 months from
the date of enactment. However, this amendment would exempt military
personnel, Reserve and National Guard personnel accounts as well as the
Defense Health Program account from this potential funding freeze. It
also contains a waiver for any potential harm to national security or
combat forces.
In these financial times, which are very difficult as we all know,
more and more people are learning of the importance of keeping to a
budget and of being able to track where every single
[[Page 10635]]
penny goes of their paychecks, if they have paychecks. For too many
Americans right now, survival boils down to appropriately spending and
saving every dollar and every cent that they have and budgeting what
little money they have left.
Sadly, the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Government
Accountability Office have documented that the Defense Department
cannot tell the American taxpayers how their money is being spent. That
really is quite shocking. We cannot wait any longer for the books to be
audited. This requirement first came down in 1990, and over the years,
this requirement that they keep the books that can be checked over has
been pushed back to 2017. Already the Department of Defense has stated
that they need an extension.
How many times do we turn our backs on agencies in their spending
money without being able to account for it? How many more stories of
expensive ashtrays and overpriced hammers do we need to have before we
begin to deal with this in an effective way?
The bloated Pentagon budget, filled with waste, fraud and abuse, must
be able to be audited. The American people expect to know where our
defense dollars are going. They pay for this Defense Department, and
they expect Congress to be the watchdog of these agencies. In fact, I
believe that it is critical that the Department of Defense not only be
ready for an audit but be able to actually pass an audit.
Today, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, be fiscally
responsible and hold the Pentagon accountable to get its financial
books in order. We require that of the business sector, of the private
sector. We require that of our own family budgets. Why in the world
don't we require that of the Pentagon where so many of our hard-earned
tax dollars are being spent? We should freeze their spending, freeze
their budget, until we know what they're doing with their money. An
audit is a very reasonable request, and I hope that the other side
understands that this really is in the spirit of fiscal responsibility
and in helping to ensure that the Pentagon's books are in order.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of
order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language conferring
authority.
The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Huelskamp
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement the curriculum of the Chaplain Corps
Tier 1 DADT repeal training dated April 11, 2011.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I rise this evening to ensure that
America's military bases are not used to advance a narrow social
agenda.
Earlier this year, the Navy chief of chaplains announced that
military chaplains who desire to perform same-sex marriages would be
allowed to do so following the repeal of the policy known as Don't Ask,
Don't Tell. The directive said that chaplains could perform same-sex
ceremonies in such States where such marriages and unions are legal.
Apparently, the Navy has recently backed away from such instruction,
but tepidly and weakly, and in a way that leaves the door open to the
reinstatement of this policy.
This amendment I offer will prohibit the enforcement of the directive
of allowing chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on Navy bases
regardless of whatever a State's law is on gay marriage.
In thinking about what has made our military successful, two things
come to my mind: conformity and uniformity. Men and women who join our
military are to conform to the military's standards, not the other way
around. Regardless of where a ship is docked or where a plane is
parked, our servicemembers know what to anticipate and how to behave.
Rules and expectations are the same everywhere, but with a policy that
is flexible and changes based on the State, the military doesn't
embrace its one-size-fits-all mentality that has made it so
accomplished, disciplined and orderly. As the Navy and other military
branches prepare for the repeal of this 1993 law, hours upon hours of
sensitivity training have been presented to men and women in uniform.
Such instruction has included warning that the failure to embrace
alternative lifestyles could result in penalties for servicemembers.
What will happen to chaplains who decline to officiate over same-sex
ceremonies? The directive states that chaplains ``may'' perform same-
sex civil marriage ceremonies. I fear that chaplains who refuse to
perform these ceremonies may find themselves under attack and their
careers threatened.
Madam Chair, we must ensure the religious liberty of all military
members, particularly that of chaplains. In my family, I've had a
military chaplain who has served for more than approximately 4 decades,
so this is particularly important to me, personally.
Regardless of how someone feels about the repeal of the policy known
as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I think we can all agree that instructing
military chaplains that they can perform same-sex marriages goes above
and beyond the instruction to repeal that particular law. In fact, this
directive is not only an overreach of the repeal but is also a direct
assault on the Defense of Marriage Act. It should be noted these two
laws passed with bipartisan support and were signed into law by
Democrat President Bill Clinton. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell was
supposed to be about allowing people in the military to serve openly,
not about promoting same-sex marriage in contravention of the Defense
of Marriage Act.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment in order
to promote and ensure conformity and uniformity in the military
culture, not the other way around; to promote the religious liberty of
military chaplains; and to promote consistency with Federal laws on
marriage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2020
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to any amendment that seeks to delay
the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Some in the majority continue to
try to legislate this issue even though the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support in December.
As of last month, more than 1 million U.S. servicemembers--roughly
half of our Armed Forces--have been trained on the new law allowing
gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Our military
leaders, lead by Admiral Mullen, have stated that they have seen no
adverse impact on the force and that training is going very well. The
current expectation is that all members of the active and reserve
military force will be trained by mid-August.
Last month, Secretary Gates indicated in an interview with the
Associated Press that he sees no roadblocks
[[Page 10636]]
to ending the ban on openly gay military service. Current Secretary
Panetta said that he would work closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to assess whether the elements for certification in the law are met
before approving the repeal.
Our servicemembers deserve the right to serve their country no matter
their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Currently, gay and lesbian
servicemembers are forced to live under the constant threat of being
forced out of the military because of the misguided Don't Ask, Don't
Tell. I urge my colleagues to reject any amendment that seeks to delay
implementation.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment strikes a very dangerous
precedent for Congress to somehow micromanage the training processes of
military chaplains.
We have military chaplains from diverse faith backgrounds. We have
many faiths--in fact, the majority of faiths that, for instance, don't
sanctify gay marriage. We have other faiths. The one that I happen to
belong to--I am a member of a reformed Jewish faith--and there are many
other Christian faiths, including the Episcopalian faith, which do
sanction same-sex unions. Likewise, it's an important part of chaplain
training that they're allowed to counsel against, for instance,
homosexual acts or extramarital heterosexual acts. That's a part of
chaplaincy training as well. For Congress to interfere with the
military processes of chaplaincy training is absurd and unprecedented.
With regard to this particular training program, I would like to ask
my friend from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), if I could just yield a moment
to him, if he has read this particular training manual that he is
seeking to defund here.
I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Yes, if the gentleman would restate his question.
Mr. POLIS. Has the gentleman from Kansas read the training manual
that he is seeking to defund in this case?
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, that is an excellent question.
We tried to obtain a copy of that from the Department of Defense
today and they refused to provide a copy. What I do have is an online
three-page summary of the manual.
Mr. POLIS. So, reclaiming my time, I think that the straight answer
is no. In fact, our ranking member and others have been unable to get
that from the Navy Liaison's Office.
Again, I think it's an offense to the military to second-guess their
training for chaplains. No doubt those documents could eventually come
our way--and should, for oversight activities--but for us to somehow
defund the training of chaplains to implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell
makes no sense.
Again, chaplains will be worried. For instance, Catholic chaplains
will be worried to advise their followers that homosexuality is a sin
if that is not included in the training. Those for whom homosexuality
is not a sin will also likewise be worried about advising the troops.
There will be a void, a huge void--to not train the spiritual advisors
to members of our military about the implementation of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell? I mean, why not try to not train any of the troops? I mean,
again, whether you supported it or not, I think most of us believe that
it was better that there was a training process than, let's say, a
court has ordered--which has now happened absent a training process and
instantaneous change.
With regard to the chaplaincy, to second-guess an internal military
training document--again, which they have indicated that they will
revise accordingly--is to show a huge lack of judgment of the men and
women who run the military, an enormous lack of confidence in the
institution of the chaplaincy, an offense to the chaplaincy of the
military to somehow deign that Congress is expressing that they should
not be trained regarding a major military policy, that they should
somehow take the risk on their own, that they should worry about
advising members of their faith with regard to, within their faith
tradition, whether homosexuality is a sin or not, regarding members of
their faith as to whether they can be married or not.
This is a diverse country religiously, and likewise the institution
of our military reflects that diversity. And to somehow, again, second-
guess a military training document that hasn't even been read by the
prime sponsor of this amendment shows a tremendous lack of faith and is
a very dangerous precedence for Congress in terms of interfering with
the training procedures of the military.
We could, of course, as a body or as individual Members, go through
every single training manual and find things we like, find things we
don't like. But again, to micromanage the military to that extent,
particularly in light of a policy change which has ramifications for
the chaplaincy.
The chaplaincy is, by and large, where the rubber meets the road with
regard to how individual members are being advised about their sexual
orientation, about what behaviors are moral and what behaviors are
immoral. And to somehow say that Congress will tell the chaplaincy not
to train anybody on implementing this policy change leaves our soldiers
in a spiritual lurch. It leaves our Christian soldiers in a spiritual
lurch. It leaves our Jewish soldiers in a spiritual lurch, our Muslim
soldiers in a spiritual lurch, all of those who take advantage of the
good offices of the chaplaincy in the military, just as, of course, we
have a chaplain in this fine institution, the United States Congress.
So, again, this is a change that perhaps many members of the
chaplaincy were not in favor of--some were; it depends on their faith
position, their own political opinions--but they need to be trained in
accordance with military protocols, and this amendment would gut that.
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2219.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay a contractor under a contract with the
Department of Defense for costs of any amount paid by the
contractor or subcontractor to an employee performing work
under the contract for compensation if the compensation of
the employee for a fiscal year exceeds the rate payable for
level I of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title
5, United States Code, regardless of the contract funding
source.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, the highest individual government salary
funded by the American taxpayer is that of the President of the United
States at a total of $400,000, or so I thought. The President is
certainly the highest paid public servant, but it turns out that the
leader of the free world isn't actually the highest paid executive on
the taxpayers' payroll.
In fact, the highest Federal Government salaries by far can be earned
by private sector executives who are paid up to $700,000 per year
directly in taxpayer dollars. I do not mean executives who earn their
multibillion-dollar incomes by selling often overpriced and
[[Page 10637]]
underperforming equipment to our men and women in uniform, though the
customer is the Federal Government. Those salaries are paid through
transactions in the private sector. No, I am talking about the Federal
Government salaries paid directly by the Pentagon and other agencies to
private contractor executives, direct salaries paid for 100 percent by
taxpayer dollars.
You won't find these exorbitant pay rates on government income lists.
They certainly aren't subject to the current Federal employee pay and
hiring freeze.
{time} 2030
In fact, that $700,000 maximum salary increases every year to reach
even greater heights even as we contemplate cutting other areas of our
budget to new lows, including that of our military service branches.
These salaries are being paid by a department that has not been able
to pass a standard audit in its entire history. It cannot even tell us
how many contractors are on its payroll.
Madam Chair, the salary of a typical Army private starts at a meager
$20,000 per year. General Petraeus, a four-star general with 37 years
of active service, the commander of the international coalition in
Afghanistan and the next director of the CIA, earns a salary of
approximately $180,000. The Secretary of Defense earns about $200,000.
How then can we justify salaries of up to $700,000 for defense
contractor executives?
I understand that there may be contractors who supply services to our
Nation that our government cannot perform on its own. However, I am
also absolutely certain that there is no one single private contractor
whose value to our national security is twice that of the Commander in
Chief of the United States military.
At a time when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is telling us that
the Nation's debt is the number one threat facing America, we cannot
continue using taxpayer dollars to pay lavish and unjustifiable private
contractor salaries that are more than triple the pay of our military
leadership.
My amendment simply states that funds in this bill will not be used
to pay a Federal Government salary for any individual defense
contractor that exceeds the salary of the Secretary of Defense. That
salary is level 1 of the executive schedule, or about $200,000.
This is a very modest reform. It is not about limiting contracts or
contract spending more broadly. It does not deal with outsourcing or
insourcing. It does not, in fact, cap contractor pay, which may include
private sector projects, profit sharing, or other earnings. It merely
deals with the salary paid to contractors directly by the taxpayer,
limiting the cost of that compensation in an effort to reduce the
deficit and stop paying exorbitant Federal salaries to private sector
employees.
I think this amendment forms a perfect complement to section 8050 of
the underlying bill, which deals with limiting contractor bonuses. I
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and other
modest simple reforms that can help us tackle the deficit.
With that, I thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I make a point of order against the amendment
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation
in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
The amendment requires a new determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of
order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination of the amount of compensation of certain employees.
The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our distinguished chairman.
I think we agree that it is vitally important to save money in the
Joint Strike Fighter Program where it is possible to do so without
negatively impacting performance or schedule. The Joint Program Office
and the services which will use the Joint Strike Fighter are to be
commended for any efforts to identify potential reductions in program
costs. As an example, the Air Force is currently in the process of
validating an earlier internal study of ejection seat options for its
variant of the aircraft.
Would the chairman agree that if studies like this one make a sound
business case that savings will result, then the Air Force's judgment
about how its aircraft can be made more cost effectively equipped
should be informed by that conclusion?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I agree with him that we should consider all options for cost
savings. Should the Air Force present the committee with a study that
indicates potential cost savings in the ejection seat without
compromising the F-35's performance or schedule, we will certainly look
hard at that.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him
on this and other matters in our oversight of the Joint Strike Fighter
Program.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis
Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to maintain an end strength level of members of the
Armed Forces of the United States assigned to permanent duty
in Europe in excess of 30,000 members, and the amounts
otherwise provided by this Act for ``Military Personnel,
Army'', ``Military Personnel, Navy'', ``Military Personnel,
Marine Corps'', and ``Military Personnel, Air Force'' in
title I of division A are hereby reduced by $433,966,500,
$41,380,000, $6,700,000, and $330,915,000, respectively.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Given the ongoing budget negotiations, we need to explore
all options for reducing wasteful spending, and I think we have an easy
one in front of us in this amendment.
Before we ask the American people to accept painful cuts or accept
tax increases, we have an opportunity here to get defense spending
under control in a way that does not jeopardize or harm our national
security. If we're serious about deficit reduction, we need to do
something about the defense budget, and we can do it in a responsible
way that doesn't hurt our national security. My amendment would do
that.
By reducing some of the 80,000 troops in Europe where they're no
longer needed, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars. So what my
amendment would do very simply is reduce the total number of troops
stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000, which is more than enough to
continue to support our ongoing operations in Libya and Iraq and our
responsibilities to NATO for those Members who support them. For those
who don't, this is not a proxy for those battles. We don't want to cut
the troop levels so low we can't support those operations.
It will allow the DOD to save money by closing those bases that are
no longer needed. By pulling 50,000 troops out of Western Europe and
closing bases, we can save money, reduce our redundant military force,
and CBO has scored the savings of this amendment as over $800 million.
On top of the savings produced by reducing our troop level, my
amendment
[[Page 10638]]
would allow us to station troops in the U.S., instead of Europe, where
it's 10 to 20 percent less expensive. It would allow the Pentagon to
close bases across Europe that, frankly, are relics of World War II and
the Cold War.
The U.S. taxpayer didn't sign up to indefinitely defend our wealthy
Western European allies from a nonexistent threat. These bases cost
U.S. taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. On top of that,
they're often unpopular with the local people of the countries they are
located in.
Our European allies are some of the richest countries in the world,
so why are we subsidizing their defense spending? Our European allies
have enjoyed a free ride on the American dime for too long. Today, our
European allies spend an average of about 2 percent of GDP on defense,
while America spends 4 to 5 percent. That means the average American
spends $2,500 on defense; the average European, $500 on defense.
Now, if Europe feels they are under a military threat, first of all,
I would like to hear whom it's from. It's not clear who's about to
attack France or Germany. But if Europe does feel they're under a
threat, they can afford to spend more on defense, and we can be
confident that we can spend less on their defense. We cannot afford to
subsidize the defense of France and Germany from an unknown and
unidentified threat.
This amendment does not signal a weakening in our commitment to NATO.
With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly across
the globe into theaters of operation. We retain sufficient presence in
Europe with 30,000 troops for our joint training responsibilities under
NATO. There is simply no need to have nearly 100,000 troops.
It's time to rethink our defense spending. We're not under threat by
the Nazis. We're not under threat by the Soviets. Terrorism is a real
threat. It's an amorphous threat that's not bound by nations or states,
and, in fact, it does not have its main nexus in Western Europe.
Maintaining bases in Europe is simply not a sane or rational response
to this threat, nor is it fiscally responsible.
{time} 2040
Even Donald Rumsfeld thinks it's time for a change of policy. In his
recent book, he wrote: ``Of the quarter million troops deployed abroad
in 2001, more than 100,000 were in Europe, the vast majority stationed
in Germany to fend off an invitation by a Soviet Union that no longer
existed.''
These cuts proposed in my amendment are part of the recommendations
of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a bipartisan project. The
Sustainable Defense Task Force brought together defense experts from
across the ideological spectrum and proposed commonsense
recommendations for saving taxpayers' money without jeopardizing our
national defense, and that's exactly what this is, common sense.
At a time when we must seriously consider cuts to wasteful government
spending, we should not continue to subsidize the defense of wealthy
European nations against a nonexistent Nazi threat, a nonexistent
Soviet threat. Let's get serious here. We can start by reducing our
military presence in Europe, which will save the American people
hundreds of millions of dollars while protecting our national security
interests.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman from Colorado offered a similar
amendment to the 2012 national defense authorization bill earlier this
year, and it failed by a vote of 96-323. He offered a similar amendment
during consideration of H.R. 1 earlier this year, which failed by a
vote of 74-351. The setting of our military end strengths is not
something that should be done lightly. In fact, this is the sole
jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. They are responsible
for setting military personnel end strengths, and the levels that would
be set by this amendment are significantly below those in the House-
passed 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.
For that and many other reasons, I am opposed to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to purchase non-combat vehicles for use outside of
the United States if such vehicles are not substantially
manufactured in the United States (as defined in the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Since 2003, the Defense Department reports that it has spent
approximately $1.3 billion to buy non-combat vehicles from foreign
vehicle manufacturers.
Now you may ask, why is that? We have a law on the books that's
called the Buy American Act, and it generally requires that when we are
buying items for use by the U.S. military and they are available here
in the United States that they should be bought from U.S. companies. It
makes a lot of sense. If we're going to be spending billions of dollars
in taxpayer money, we should make sure that it goes to fund U.S.
manufacturers and U.S. jobs.
But here's the problem. There are a number of loopholes, a growing
number of exceptions to the Buy America law. The biggest is this one.
One of the exceptions says that if you are buying a particular good for
use outside of the United States, you don't have to comply with the Buy
America clause at all. Well, that becomes a pretty enormous, truck-
sized loophole when we are fighting two wars abroad, because much of
what we are purchasing goes immediately to foreign companies.
So you have a situation where non-combat vehicles, light trucks,
ambulances, buses, motorcycles, vehicles that are made by a multitude
of American manufacturers, are now being bought overseas and our
taxpayer dollars are going to foreign European and Asian vehicle
manufacturers and into the pockets of foreign workers.
This is a much bigger problem than just this one category of
spending. In fact, the DOD has spent about $36 billion in purchases
from foreign companies for use outside of the United States. In fact,
just this last year, there were about 38,000 waivers to the Buy America
Act for a variety of exceptions, and over the last 4 years about
161,000 waivers to the Buy America Act. This is a very large problem,
as we see growing numbers of exceptions to the act. This one, though,
is the biggest.
And while I think we've got to pass comprehensive legislation to try
to take on these growing waivers from the Buy America Act, this
amendment, which I offer with my good friend Representative Peters of
Michigan, will simply restrict the purchase of these everyday non-
combat vehicles to vehicles that are made by American workers. People
in my State of Connecticut and around the country are out of work, and
a $1.3 billion infusion, money that we're going to spend anyway, will
help create jobs.
[[Page 10639]]
To be successful in the 21st century we can't continue to cede our
manufacturing capacity to overseas workers. The Department of Defense
is the world's largest purchaser of many types of products and we must
do all that we can to make sure that we're putting this money, our
taxpayers' money to work here at home while not doing any damage to the
mission abroad. These non-combat vehicles could easily be manufactured
by American plants, and it's high time that we put people back to work
here in this country. I urge adoption of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment requires a new determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek to speak on the point of
order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Chair, just to quickly point out
that is a pretty bread-and-butter, vanilla restriction on funding, as I
understand one of the objections is that this would change the duties
of contracting officers who now don't apply the Buy America law. In
fact, normal course of training requirements for contracting
specialists already educate those specialists in how to apply the Buy
America law whether or not they currently do it today.
I do believe for that reason that the amendment is germane.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to speak on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut proposes to change existing
law, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section
52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or
make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by
law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a
point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The proponent of a limitation assumes the burden of establishing that
any duties imposed by the provision either are merely ministerial or
are already required by law.
The Chair finds that limitation proposed in the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut does not simply impose a negative
restriction on the funds in the bill. Instead, it requires the
officials concerned to make a determination regarding whether a certain
item to be acquired for use outside the United States is substantially
manufactured in the United States, a matter with which they are not
charged under existing law.
On these premises, the Chair concludes that the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut proposes to change existing law.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
{time} 2050
Amendment Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract that allows the contractor
to use amounts paid to the contractor under such contract to
pay a tax to the Afghan Ministry of Finance.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Chair, we are in Afghanistan right now,
helping to rebuild, or in many cases build from scratch,
infrastructure. And when we leave that country, and I do hope we will
be leaving soon, we will leave that infrastructure behind, power grids,
water systems, trained law enforcement, the building blocks of a
functioning society. We will spend billions of dollars on improvements
meant to better the lives of the Afghan people. We don't need to also
pay taxes to the Afghan Government for the privilege of building or
rebuilding their country. And that's why I am happy to bring this
amendment to the floor tonight for consideration.
The Department of Defense should be focused on providing soldiers in
training, in the field, and on the front lines with the tools they need
to protect themselves and defend our country. This amendment would
uphold existing law and clarify existing agreements between the U.S.
and Afghanistan prohibiting Afghanistan from taxing U.S. contractors
doing this rebuilding work in Afghanistan.
Now, this ban on levying taxes would also apply to all subcontractors
that may not have direct contracts with Afghanistan. In other words, if
a company is working on a project funded by the U.S. Department of
Defense, whether that company is a prime contractor or a subcontractor,
that company should not be subject to taxes from the Afghani
Government.
These are the contractors doing rebuilding work in Afghanistan,
helping rebuild the Afghanis' infrastructure, and hopefully allowing
them to one day thrive independently. Common sense and financial
prudence says that the U.S. should not be subject to taxation for the
rebuilding efforts it is paying for.
Hardworking Americans send their tax dollars to Washington so that
soldiers on the front lines have the tools they need to protect
themselves and our country, not fill the coffers of a foreign
government. So I urge its adoption.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to say, Madam Chairman, that the
gentlewoman has worked long and hard to write this amendment in such a
way to be acceptable to the Parliamentarian, and I am very happy to
accept her amendment and ask for its support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I am going to read this amendment: ``None of the funds
made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract that
allows the contractor to use amounts paid to the contractor under such
contract to pay a tax to the Afghan Ministry of Finance.''
I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Washington State for
being able to work so tirelessly to get this amendment perfected. It's
very clear what her intent is, and we are prepared on our side to
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 Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The Secretary of Defense shall post on the public
website of the Department of Defense the cost to each
American taxpayer of each of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and Libya.
[[Page 10640]]
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Chair, let me begin by thanking the
ranking member, Mr. Dicks, and his staff for all of their hard work on
this legislation. As always, they offer great assistance and guidance
for all Members and staff, regardless of our differences on policy.
Thank you all for all that you do.
Madam Chair, my amendment is very simple: It requires that the
Department of Defense put on its Web site the costs of war to each
American taxpayer. It is time for Americans to have a receipt for these
10 years of war. What has it cost us? How much cold, hard cash has been
spent?
I have stood here time and time again and listened to debates about
how we don't have any money. There is no money for the elderly, no
money for the sick, no money for the poor, no money for women, no money
for children, no money for people who lost their jobs by no fault of
their own. It just costs too much. No money for you, or you, or you.
But when it comes to war, war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya,
there seems to be a bottomless pit of resources. And it is not fair; it
is not right. We nickel and dime the people who need it most. But when
it comes to war, there is a big fat blank check. We need to be honest
with ourselves. We need to be honest with each other.
Across the country, there are Americans, hardworking, taxpaying
citizens who oppose war. They oppose their hard-earned dollars being
sent overseas to support 10 long years of war. But let me be clear,
Madam Chair, they do not oppose paying their taxes. They are not
anarchists or anti-government activists. But as conscientious objectors
to war, these Americans want their taxes invested here at home.
They want to help provide food for the hungry, safe roads, and strong
schools. They want Medicare and Social Security to exist for their
parents, their children, and their grandchildren. They want their tax
dollars to care for soldiers and their families when they return home.
They want to see an end and a cure to cancer. They want a cure for
AIDS. They want to see small businesses thrive and innovation become
the engine of our economy. They want high-speed rail that rivals Europe
and Asia. They want transit systems that are safe and get people where
they need to go. They want government to work for them.
Even if you do not oppose war, don't you want to know what it costs
you and your family? It's time, Madam Chair, it's time for the
Department of Defense to be honest with the American people. This is
not some wild, crazy, farfetched idea. It is simple, commonsense
transparency and good government. This amendment takes a tiny, small
step in the right direction.
Madam Chair, it is my hope and prayer that all of my colleagues will
support this straightforward amendment.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
{time} 2100
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to speak on the point of
order?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I wish to speak.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I made my point, and I don't have another point
to make.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of
order.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting
direction.
The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment is not in order.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Frelinghuysen) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, 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. 2219)
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Culberson (at the request of Mr. Cantor) for July 6 and the
balance of the week on account of family obligations.
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today
after 6 p.m. and July 8.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 2 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, July 8, 2011, at 9
a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
2302. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Difenoconazole; Pesticide Tolerances
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0296; FRL-8876-4] received June 10, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
2303. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Pesticide Tolerances; Technical
Amendments [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1081; FRL-8875-4] received June
10, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
2304. A letter from the Under Secretary, Department of
Defense, transmitting a report identifying, for each of the
Armed Forces (other than the Coast Guard) and each Defense
Agency, the percentage of funds that were expended during the
preceding fiscal year for performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair workloads by the public and private
sectors, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2466(d)(1); to the Committee
on Armed Services.
2305. A letter from the Under Secretary, Department of
Defense, transmitting a letter regarding the certification of
a restructured Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
Program; to the Committee on Armed Services.
2306. A letter from the Under Secretary, Department of
Defense, transmitting a letter regarding the certification of
a restrutured RQ-4A/B Unmanned Aircraft System Global Hawk
Program; to the Committee on Armed Services.
2307. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulations Supplement; Synchronized Predeployment and
Operational Tracker (SPOT)(DFARS Case 2011-D030) (RIN: 0750-
AH26) received June 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
2308. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the annual
report of the National Advisory Council on International
Monetary and Financial Policies for fiscal year 2010; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
2309. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Housing
Finance Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule --
Conservatorship and Receivership (RIN: 2590-AA23) received
June 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
2310. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Land Disposal Restrictions: Revision
of the Treatment Standards for
[[Page 10641]]
Carbamate Wastes [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0332; FRL-9318-4] (RIN:
2050-AG65) received June 10, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2311. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of California; Interstate
Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment and Interference with Maintenance Requirements
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0046; FRL-9318-1] received June 10, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
2312. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of California; Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan and Interstate Transport Plan;
Interference with Visibility Requirement [EPA-R09-OAR-2011-
0131; FRL-9317-9] received June 10, 2011, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2313. A letter from the Legal Advisor/Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of the
Commission's Rules Regarding Maritime Automatic
Identification Systems [WT Docket No.: 04-344] received June
13, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
2314. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule --
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program
[CG Docket No.: 10-51] June 13, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2315. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Export Control Reform Initiative:
Strategic Trade Authorization License Exeception [Docket No.:
100923470-1230-03] (RIN: 0694-AF03) received June 13, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
2316. A letter from the Associate Director for PP&I,
Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Alphabetical Listing of Blocked Persons,
Blocked Vessels, Specially Designated Nationals, Specially
Designated Terrorists, Specially Designated Global
Terrorists, Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and Specially
Designated Narcotics Traffickers; Alphabetical Listing of
Vessels That Are The Property of Blocked Persons or Specially
Designated Nationals; Alphabetical Listing of Persons
Determined to be the Government of Iran, as Defined in the
Iranian Transaction Regulations; received June 24, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
2317. A letter from the Associate Director for PP&I,
Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Foreign Assets Control Regulations; Transaction
Control Regulations (Regulations Prohibiting Transactions
Involving the Shipment of Certain Merchandise Between Foreign
Countries; received June 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
2318. A letter from the Director, Office of Management and
Budget, transmitting the Department's report on United States
contributions to the United Nations and United Nations
affiliated agencies and related bodies for fiscal year 2010;
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
2319. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-79,
``Housing Production Trust Fund Dedicated Tax Appropriations
Authorization Temporary Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
2320. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-80,
``Housing Production Trust Fund Pollin Memorial Community
Dedicated Tax Appropriations Authorization Temporary Act of
2011''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2321. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-82,
``Brewery Manufacturer's Tasting Permit Temporary Amendment
Act of 2011''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
2322. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-81,
``Unemployment Compensation Extended Benefits Continuation
Temporary Amendment Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
2323. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-90,
``Closing of Water Street, S.W., S.O. 10-15906, Act of
2011''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2324. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-89,
``Department of Forensic Sciences Establishment Act of
2011''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2325. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 19-91,
``Closing of Public Street adjacent to Square 4376 Act of
2011''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2326. A letter from the Chairman and President, Export-
Import Bank, transmitting the semiannual report of the
Inspector General for the period ending March 31, 2011; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2327. A letter from the Inspector General, Federal Trade
Commission, transmitting notification that the Commission
will soon begin the audit of financial statements for the
fiscal year 2011; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
2328. A letter from the Chairman, National Labor Relations
Board, transmitting the Board's semiannual report from the
office of the Inspector General for the period October 1,
2010 through March 31, 2011; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
2329. A letter from the Commissioner, Social Security
Administration, transmitting the semiannual report on the
activities of the Office of Inspector General for the period
October 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
2330. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA [Docket No.:
USCG-2011-0197] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received June 15, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2331. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; Chelsea St. Bridge Demolition, Chelsea River,
Chelsea, Massachusetts [Docket No.: USCG-2011-0420] (RIN:
1625-AA00) received June 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2332. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Limited Service Domestic Voyage Load Lines for River
Barges on Lake Michigan [Docket No.: USCG-1998-4623] (RIN:
1625-AA17) received June 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2333. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; 28th Annual Humboldt Bay Festival, Fireworks
Display, Eureka, CA [Docket No.: USCG-2011-0167] (RIN: 1625-
AA00) received June 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2334. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Severn River,
Spa Creek and Annapolis Harbor, Annapolis [USCG-2011-0046]
(1645-AA08) received June 15, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2335. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; M.I.T.'s 150th Birthday Celebration
Fireworks, Charles River, Boston, Massachusetts [Docket No.:
USCG-2011-0375] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received June 15, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2336. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Navigation and Navigable Waters; Technical,
Organizational, and Conforming Amendments [Docket No.: USCG-
2011-0257] (RIN: 1625-AB69) received June 15, 2011, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
2337. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the
Captain of the Port Sault Saint Marie zone [Docket No.: USCG-
2011-0188] (RIN: 1625-AA00), pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
____________________
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:
Mrs. EMERSON: Committee on Appropriation. H.R. 2434. A bill
making appropriations for financial services and general
government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and
for other purposes (Rept. 112-136). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California: Committee on House
Administration. First Semiannual Report on the Activities of
the Committee on House Administration for the 112th Congress
(Rept. 112-137). Referred to
[[Page 10642]]
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. SESSIONS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 340.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1309) to extend the authorization of the national flood
insurance program, to achieve reforms to improve the
financial integrity and stability of the program, and to
increase the role of private markets in the management of
flood insurance risk, and for other purposes (Rept. 112-138).
Referred to the House Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. MILLER of Florida:
H.R. 2433. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
make certain improvements in the laws relating to the
employment and training of veterans, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the
Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself and Mr.
Paulsen):
H.R. 2435. A bill to allow individuals to choose to opt out
of the Medicare part A benefit and to allow individuals
opting out of such benefit to be eligible for health savings
accounts; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. MANZULLO (for himself, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Royce,
and Mr. Bachus):
H.R. 2436. A bill to prohibit any reduction in the rate of
dividends paid to the Secretary of the Treasury on the senior
preferred stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased by
the Secretary; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Ryan
of Ohio):
H.R. 2437. A bill to support evidence-based social and
emotional learning programming; to the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
By Mr. PAUL:
H.R. 2438. A bill to ensure that certain Federal employees
cannot hide behind immunity; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. STIVERS (for himself, Mr. Bachus, and Mr.
Garrett):
H.R. 2439. A bill to amend the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to authorize the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, as receiver of Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac, to revoke the charters of such enterprises or
any limited-life regulated entity established under such
receivership; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. HURT (for himself, Mr. Bachus, and Mr. Garrett):
H.R. 2440. A bill to protect the taxpayers of the United
States by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell or
dispose of the assets of such enterprises that are not
critical to their missions; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. Bachus, and Mr.
Garrett):
H.R. 2441. A bill to terminate the Housing Trust Fund and
the requirement that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make annual
allocations for such Fund; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. CRAVAACK:
H.R. 2442. A bill to eliminate Federal mandates for traffic
sign retroreflectivity, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. MILLER of Florida:
H.R. 2443. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to increase the limitation on expensing certain
depreciable assets for certain businesses that hire veterans;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BOREN (for himself, Mr. Cole, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Honda, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Kildee, Ms. McCollum, Mr.
Markey, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Sablan, and Mr. Young
of Alaska):
H.R. 2444. A bill to amend the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-
governance by Indian tribes, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. KLINE (for himself, Mr. Hunter, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Goodlatte, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Thompson of
Pennsylvania, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Bucshon,
Mr. Barletta, Mrs. Noem, Mr. Heck, and Mr. Kelly):
H.R. 2445. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to provide States and local educational
agencies with maximum flexibility in using Federal funds
provided under such Act, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself and Mr. Clay):
H.R. 2446. A bill to clarify the treatment of homeowner
warranties under current law, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. BROWN of Florida (for herself, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Conaway, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
Rangel, Mr. Donnelly of Indiana, Ms. Clarke of New
York, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Ms. Jackson Lee of
Texas, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Towns, Mr.
Meeks, Mr. Richmond, Ms. Norton, Mr. Hinchey, Mr.
Rush, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Fattah):
H.R. 2447. A bill to grant the congressional gold medal to
the Montford Point Marines; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 2448. A bill to establish the St. Croix National
Heritage Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
By Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr.
Filner, and Mr. Pierluisi):
H.R. 2449. A bill to permit expungement of records of
certain nonviolent criminal offenses, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. DAVIS of Illinois:
H.R. 2450. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain high-intensity sweetener; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Inslee,
Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. Capuano):
H.R. 2451. A bill to restore certain provisions of the
Banking Act of 1933, commonly referred to as the ``Glass-
Steagall Act'', and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Tonko, and
Mrs. Lowey):
H.R. 2452. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to complete a special resource study of the Hudson
River Valley in the State of New York, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself, Mr. Larson of
Connecticut, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Akin, Mr.
Carnahan, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Courtney, Ms.
DeLauro, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mrs.
Hartzler, Mr. Himes, Mr. Long, and Mr. Murphy of
Connecticut):
H.R. 2453. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in commemoration of Mark Twain; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. PIERLUISI (for himself, Mr. Towns, Mr. Diaz-
Balart, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Young of
Alaska, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Serrano, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Hastings of Florida):
H.R. 2454. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to make residents of Puerto Rico with one child or two
children eligible for the refundable portion of the child tax
credit; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. RICHMOND:
H.R. 2455. A bill to prohibit any requirement of a
budgetary offset for emergency disaster assistance during
2011 and 2012; to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to
the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. RIGELL (for himself, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr.
Wittman, and Mr. Forbes):
H.R. 2456. A bill to establish the Fort Monroe National
Historical Park in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. WALSH of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Rooney, Mr.
Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Wilson of
South Carolina, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mr. West, Mr. Grimm, Mr. Rogers of
Alabama, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Canseco, Mr.
Gohmert, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr.
McClintock, Mr. Long, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr.
Lamborn, Mr. Harris, Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Benishek, Mr.
Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Kline, and Mr. Olson):
H.R. 2457. A bill to restrict funds for the Palestinian
Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself, Mr. Walsh of Illinois,
and Mr. Duncan of South Carolina):
H.J. Res. 71. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States limiting the number of
terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House
of Representatives and 2 in the Senate; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr.
Hinchey, Mr. Holt, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Gerlach, Mr.
Sablan, Mrs. Maloney, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Bishop of New
York, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. McIntyre, and
Mr. Pascrell):
H. Con. Res. 63. Concurrent resolution supporting the
formation of a bipartisan Presidential Commission to study
the establishment of a National Museum of the American
People; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
[[Page 10643]]
By Ms. FUDGE (for herself, Ms. Granger, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Schakowsky,
Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Polis, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Ms.
Clarke of New York, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Moore, Mr. Moran, Ms.
Norton, Ms. Sewell, and Mr. Rangel):
H. Res. 339. A resolution expressing support for
designation of September as National Childhood Obesity
Awareness Month; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. Tiberi):
H. Res. 341. A resolution expressing support for
designation of the month of September as ``National Brain
Aneurysm Awareness Month''; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Farr, Ms. Fudge,
Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Jackson
Lee of Texas, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Loebsack, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Payne, Mr.
Rangel, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Serrano, Ms.
Slaughter, Ms. Speier, Ms. Wilson of Florida, and Mr.
Young of Alaska):
H. Res. 342. A resolution expressing support for the
designation of July 30, 2011, as National Dance Day; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
74. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of
Representatives of the State of Louisiana, relative to House
Concurrent Resolution No. 68 urging the Congress to take such
actions as are necessary to require that satellite television
providers broadcast local television stations; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
75. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the
State of Louisiana, relative to House Concurrent Resolution
No. 81 urging the Congress to take steps to designate Caddo
Lake as a National Heritage Area; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
____________________
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. MILLER of Florida:
H.R. 2433.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States.
By Mrs. EMERSON:
H.R. 2434.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The principal constitutional authority for this legislation
is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of
the United States (the appropriation power), which states:
``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . .'' In
addition, clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the
Constitution (the spending power) provides: ``The Congress
shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States .
. . .'' Together, these specific constitutional provisions
establish the congressional power of the purse, granting
Congress the authority to appropriate funds, to determine
their purpose, amount, and period of availability, and to set
forth terms and conditions governing their use.
By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas:
H.R. 2435.
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 1, 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. MANZULLO:
H.R. 2436.
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 Mrs. BIGGERT:
H.R. 2437.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8
By Mr. PAUL:
H.R. 2438.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Art I, Sec 8
By Mr. STIVERS:
H.R. 2439.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States
Constitution
By Mr. HURT:
H.R. 2440.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, section 8, clause 1, clause 3, and clause 18.
By Mr. ROYCE:
H.R. 2441.
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 power 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. CRAVAACK:
H.R. 2442.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Amendment X of the
Constitution of the United States.
By Mr. MILLER of Florida:
H.R. 2443.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States.
By Mr. BOREN:
H.R. 2444.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Section 8 of article I of the Constitution.
By Mr. KLINE:
H.R. 2445.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States.
By Mr. BIGGERT:
H.R. 2446.
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 and
Amendment XVI of the United States Constitution.
By Ms. BROWN of Florida:
H.R. 2447.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12-14, and Clause 18 of the
United States Constitution.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 2448.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the
Constitution of the United States grants Congress the
authority to enact this bill.
By Mr. COHEN:
H.R. 2449.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clauses 1 and 3 of Article I, Section 8 of the United
States Constitution.
By Mr. DAVIS of Illinois:
H.R. 2450.
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 Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
By Mr. HINCHEY:
H.R. 2451.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8: To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes;
By Mr. HINCHEY:
H.R. 2452.
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 the
power of Congress to provide for the general
[[Page 10644]]
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)''
By Mr. LUETKEMEYER:
H.R. 2453.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 6, Section 8, Article 1, which states ``The Congress
shall have the power . . . to coin Money, regulate the Value
thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights
and Measures.''
By Mr. PIERLUISI:
H.R. 2454.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is
the power of the Congress to lay and collect taxes and to
provide for the general welfare of the United States, as
enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United
States Constitution, and to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution such powers
as enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the
Constitution.
By Mr. RICHMOND:
H.R. 2455.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is introduced pursuant to the powers granted to
Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. 1 Sec. 8
Cl. 18).
Further, this statement of constitutional authority is made
for the sole purpose of compliance with clause 7 of Rule XII
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and shall have
no bearing on judicial review of the accompanying bill.
By Mr. RIGELL:
H.R. 2456.
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 the
power of Congress to provide 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. WALSH of Illinois:
H.R. 2457.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution.
By Mr. SCHWEIKERT:
H.J. Res. 71.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 5 of the Constitution states: The Congress,
whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several
states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,
which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by
conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other
mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the
year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner
affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of
the first article; and that no state, without its consent,
shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 10: Mr. Nugent.
H.R. 49: Mr. Coble.
H.R. 58: Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. Denham, and Mr. Mack.
H.R. 104: Mr. Tiberi.
H.R. 136: Mr. Towns, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Olver, and Mrs.
Maloney.
H.R. 140: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 152: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 196: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 198: Ms. Edwards.
H.R. 258: Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 272: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 310: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 311: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 312: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 324: Mr. Owens and Mr. Moran.
H.R. 329: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H.R. 363: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 374: Mr. Ribble and Mr. Rivera.
H.R. 420: Mr. Mack, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Rogers of
Michigan, Mr. Barton of Texas, and Mr. Nunnelee.
H.R. 451: Mr. Lankford, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Murphy of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 452: Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois and Ms. Granger.
H.R. 469: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 483: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 527: Mr. Poe of Texas and Mr. Frelinghuysen.
H.R. 530: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 574: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 576: Mr. Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 583: Mr. Holt, Mrs. Christensen and Mr. Carson of
Indiana.
H.R. 593: Mr. Latta, Mr. Canseco, and Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 615: Mr. Nunnelee and Mr. Mack.
H.R. 645: Mr. Nunnelee and Mr. Mack.
H.R. 674: Mr. Turner, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Mr.
Farenthold, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Rokita,
Mr. Mack, Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Duncan of South
Carolina, Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Shuster.
H.R. 687: Mr. Critz.
H.R. 691: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 692: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 693: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 718: Mr. Rangel, Mr. Polis, Ms. Chu, Mr. Andrews, and
Mr. Payne.
H.R. 719: Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Payne,
Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Runyan, Mr. Rehberg, and Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 721: Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Schock, Mr. Gerlach, and Mr.
Marino.
H.R. 724: Mr. Loebsack and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 733: Mr. Markey, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 735: Mr. Nugent, Mr. Kline, and Mr. Crenshaw.
H.R. 745: Mr. Pitts and Mr. Frelinghuysen.
H.R. 746: Mr. Frelinghuysen.
H.R. 757: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 800: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 812: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H.R. 862: Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Olver, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Ackerman.
H.R. 890: Ms. Bass of California.
H.R. 932: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 973: Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 991: Mrs. Noem.
H.R. 998: Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 1001: Mrs. Biggert and Mr. Altmire.
H.R. 1015: Mr. Filner, Ms. Norton, Ms. Jackson Lee of
Texas, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Moore, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Austria,
and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 1054: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 1063: Mr. Chabot and Mr. Roskam.
H.R. 1066: Mr. Payne and Mr. Kissell.
H.R. 1082: Mr. Ross of Arkansas.
H.R. 1089: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 1091: Mr. Johnson of Ohio and Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1103: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 1106: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1126: Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California.
H.R. 1134: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1161: Mr. Guinta, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, and Mrs.
Lummis.
H.R. 1188: Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 1190: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 1193: Mr. Costa.
H.R. 1196: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1200: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 1219: Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 1259: Mr. Fincher.
H.R. 1288: Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Towns,
and Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
H.R. 1289: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 1297: Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 1300: Ms. Chu.
H.R. 1325: Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. Ryan of
Ohio.
H.R. 1370: Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Thornberry, Mr.
Flores, and Mr. Platts.
H.R. 1404: Mr. Boswell, Mr. Farr, Mr. Clay, Mr. Ackerman,
and Mr. Deutch.
H.R. 1416: Mr. Platts and Mr. Cravaack.
H.R. 1426: Mr. Cummings, Mr. Platts, and Mr. Heinrich.
H.R. 1457: Mr. Towns.
H.R. 1459: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1463: Mr. Pitts.
H.R. 1464: Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 1465: Mr. Serrano and Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
H.R. 1475: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 1479: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1483: Ms. Speier.
H.R. 1485: Mr. Gosar and Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California.
H.R. 1488: Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 1505: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1529: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 1543: Mr. Larson of Connecticut and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 1558: Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Hanna, and Mr.
Stearns.
H.R. 1588: Mr. Fleischmann.
H.R. 1614: Mr. Davis of Kentucky.
H.R. 1621: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 1633: Mr. Hall.
H.R. 1648: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Schiff, Mr.
Doyle, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 1663: Ms. Fudge.
H.R. 1698: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1723: Mr. Chabot.
H.R. 1724: Mr. Inslee, Mr. Nadler, Mr. McDermott, and Mr.
Payne.
H.R. 1734: Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
H.R. 1735: Mr. Murphy of Connecticut and Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1741: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1744: Ms. Herrera Beutler.
H.R. 1747: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 1756: Ms. Clarke of New York.
[[Page 10645]]
H.R. 1763: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1764: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1821: Mr. Himes and Mr. Yarmuth.
H.R. 1829: Mr. Cassidy.
H.R. 1855: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 1856: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 1865: Mr. Michaud, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Long, Mr.
Fleischmann, Mr. Harris, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Jones, Mr. Costello,
and Mr. Denham.
H.R. 1903: Mr. Polis and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 1932: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 1968: Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 1980: Mr. Calvert, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and Mr. Issa.
H.R. 2000: Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 2002: Mr. Latta.
H.R. 2010: Mr. McKeon and Mr. Boustany.
H.R. 2018: Mr. Bachus and Mr. Walsh of Illinois.
H.R. 2028: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 2030: Mr. Kucinich and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 2032: Mr. McKinley, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Carnahan, Mr.
Alexander, and Mr. Akin.
H.R. 2036: Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois.
H.R. 2040: Mr. Bishop of Utah and Mr. Chaffetz.
H.R. 2042: Mr. Paulsen.
H.R. 2054: Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 2068: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Matheson, and Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 2077: Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 2079: Ms. Buerkle.
H.R. 2085: Mr. Yarmuth.
H.R. 2092: Mr. Royce, Mr. Price of Georgia, and Mr.
Fortenberry.
H.R. 2099: Mr. Rivera.
H.R. 2103: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2123: Mr. Peters.
H.R. 2139: Ms. Herrera Beutler, Ms. Jenkins, Ms. Speier,
Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Owens, Mr. Ross of Arkansas, and
Mr. Austria.
H.R. 2164: Mr. Roe of Tennessee and Mr. Brooks.
H.R. 2172: Mr. Landry, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Duncan of South
Carolina, Mr. Labrador, and Mr. Flores.
H.R. 2182: Mr. Harper.
H.R. 2190: Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 2194: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, and
Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 2195: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 2198: Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 2210: Ms. McCollum and Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 2214: Ms. Hayworth, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Johnson of Ohio,
and Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 2215: Mr. Deutch, Mr. Cardoza, and Mr. Murphy of
Connecticut.
H.R. 2233: Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Jackson of Illinois,
and Mr. Mack.
H.R. 2245: Mr. Connolly of Virginia and Mr. Latham.
H.R. 2250: Mr. Boswell, Mr. Latta, Mrs. Ellmers, Mr. Rogers
of Alabama, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Petri, Mr.
Fleming, and Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 2257: Mrs. Black and Mr. Roe of Tennessee.
H.R. 2272: Ms. Norton and Mr. Payne.
H.R. 2284: Mr. Farenthold.
H.R. 2298: Mr. Pastor of Arizona.
H.R. 2299: Mr. Schock.
H.R. 2304: Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. Nunnelee.
H.R. 2307: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 2311: Mr. Dent.
H.R. 2321: Mr. Luetkemeyer.
H.R. 2325: Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 2334: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 2341: Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Frank
of Massachusetts, Mr. Farr, Mr. Loebsack, and Mr. Jackson of
Illinois.
H.R. 2357: Mr. Paulsen.
H.R. 2358: Mr. Filner, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Berkley, and Mr.
Stark.
H.R. 2369: Mr. Garrett, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr.
Fattah, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mrs. Lummis, Mr.
Fortenberry, Mr. Alexander, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Gowdy, Mr.
Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Thompson of
Pennsylvania, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Posey, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Grijalva, Mrs.
McCarthy of New York, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Barletta,
Mr. McNerney, Mr. Donnelly of Indiana, Mr. Carney, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Becerra, Mr.
Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Wu, Mr. Sires, Mr.
Meeks, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Lujan, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Cuellar,
Mr. Polis, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Matheson, Mr.
Rahall, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina,
Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr. Peters, Mr. Ryan
of Ohio, Mr. Holden, Mr. Critz, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Carson of
Indiana, Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Richardson, Ms. Moore,
Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Fudge, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr.
Richmond, Mr. Clay, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Rush, Mr.
Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Holt, Ms. Kaptur,
Mr. Owens, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Markey, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Kissell,
Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Engel, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Connolly of
Virginia, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Heck, Mr. Guthrie,
Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Goodlatte, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Franks of Arizona, and Mr.
Lipinski.
H.R. 2372: Mr. Lankford.
H.R. 2377: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 2387: Ms. Bordallo and Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 2389: Mr. Costa.
H.R. 2401: Mr. Huelskamp and Mr. Renacci.
H.R. 2410: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 2415: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 2417: Mr. Farenthold, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Rokita, Mrs.
Myrick, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Herger, and Mr. Latta.
H.J. Res. 56: Mr. Lankford and Mrs. Lummis.
H. Con. Res. 29: Mr. Brooks.
H. Res. 105: Mr. Israel.
H. Res. 130: Mr. Stark.
H. Res. 134: Mrs. Maloney, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Polis.
H. Res. 201: Mr. Peters.
H. Res. 254: Mr. Nunnelee.
H. Res. 256: Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. Kildee.
H. Res. 268: Mr. Lucas, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Clay, and
Mr. Fortenberry.
H. Res. 270: Mr. Nugent.
H. Res. 298: Mr. King of New York, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, and Mr. Costa.
H. Res. 304: Mr. Olver, Mr. Tierney, Ms. McCollum, Mr.
LaTourette, and Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
H. Res. 315: Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California.
____________________
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, made in order as Amendment No. 1 for the
rule to H.R. 1309, to be offered by Representative Biggert,
or a designee, to H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act
of 2011, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause
9 of rule XXI.
____________________
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 2417: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
15. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the City of Miami,
Florida, relative to Resolution 10-0221 urging the Congress
to increase the percentage of Community Development Block
Grant Funding allowed for public services from fifteen
percent (15%) to twenty-five percent (25%); which was
referred to the Committee on Financial Services.
____________________
AMENDMENTS
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Ms. McCollum
Amendment No. 101: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act is hereby reduced by $124,800,000.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Gosar
Amendment No. 102: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this act may
be used to administer and enforce the wate-rate requirements
of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States
Code, commonly known as the ``Davis Bacon Act.''
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Gosar
Amendment No. 103: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), add the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this act may
be obligated or expended for assistance to any entity that
has adopted a founding charter, constitution, or policy
calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Runyan
Amendment No. 104: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
procure air transportation from a commercial air carrier for
a member of the Armed Forces who is traveling under orders to
deploy to or return from an overseas contingency operation
under terms that allow the carrier to charge the member fees
for checked baggage other than for bags weighing more than 80
pounds or bags in excess of four per individual.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Mulvaney
Amendment No. 105: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
[[Page 10646]]
Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act is hereby reduced by $17,192,000,000, not to be
derived from amounts of appropriations made available by
title IX.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Gohmert
Amendment No. 106: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), add the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated, expended, or used in any manner to support
operations, including NATO or United Nations operations, in
or involving Libya.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Ms. Norton
Amendment No. 107: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for ``Operation and Maintenance--Environmental Restoration,
Formerly Used Defense Sites'' is hereby reduced and increased
by $1,000,000.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Kissell
Amendment No. 108: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, or provide a
loan or loan guarantee to, any United States commercial air
carrier if that contract, memorandum of understanding,
cooperative agreement, loan, or loan guarantee allows the air
carrier to charge baggage fees to any member of the Armed
Forces who is traveling on official military orders and is
being deployed overseas or is returning from an overseas
deployment.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Amash
Amendment No. 109: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the use of military force against Libya.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois
Amendment No. 110: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to research, develop, manufacture, or procure a newly
designed flight suit or integrated aircrew ensemble.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Ms. Lee of California
Amendment No. 111: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), add the following new section:
Sec. __. It is the policy of the United States to withdraw
all United States Armed Forces and military contractors from
Iraq by December 31, 2011, and no provision of any agreement
between the United States and Iraq that amends the timeline
for such withdrawal in a manner that obligates the United
States to a security commitment to respond to internal or
external threats against Iraq after such date shall be in
force with respect to the United States unless the agreement
is in the form of a treaty requiring the advice and consent
of the Senate (or is intended to take that form in the case
of an agreement under negotiation) or is specifically
authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Ms. Lee of California
Amendment No. 112: At the end of the bill (before the
spending reduction amount), insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds made available by this Act may be used for any account
of the Department of Defense (other than accounts excluded by
subsection (b)) in excess of the amount made available for
such account for fiscal year 2011, unless the financial
statements of the Department for fiscal year 2011 are
validated as ready for audit within 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Accounts Excluded.--The following accounts are excluded
from the prohibition in subsection (a):
(1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National
Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
(2) The Defense Health Program account.
(c) Validation Defined.--In this section, the term
``validation'', with respect to the auditability of financial
statements, means a determination, following an examination,
that the financial statements comply with generally accepted
accounting principles and applicable laws and regulations and
reflect reliable internal controls.
(d) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) with
respect to a component or program of the Department if the
President certifies that applying the subsection to that
component or program would harm national security or members
of the Armed Forces who are in combat.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Engel
Amendment No. 113: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Defense to lease or purchase new
light duty vehicles, for any executive fleet, or for an
agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with
Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet Performance, dated May
24, 2011.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Gohmert
Amendment No. 114: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), add the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated, expended, or used in any manner to support
military operations, including NATO or United Nations
operations, in Libya or in Libya's airspace.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Gosar
Amendment No. 115: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended for assistance to the following
entities:
(1) Iran.
(2) Hamas.
(3) Hizbullah.
(4) The Muslin Brotherhood.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Welch
Amendment No. 116: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), add the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for tax collection purposes by the Afghan Ministry of
Finance.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Welch
Amendment No. 117: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. Not more than $200,000,000 of the funds provided
by title IX under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'' may be available for the Commander's Emergency
Response Program, and the amount otherwise provided under
such heading is hereby reduced by $200,000,000.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Tonko
Amendment No. 118: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay a contractor under a contract with the
Department of Defense for costs of any amount paid by the
contractor or subcontractor to an employee performing work
under the contract for compensation if the compensation of
the employee for a fiscal year exceeds the rate payable for
level I of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title
5, United States Code, regardless of the contract funding
source.
H.R. 2219
Offered By: Mr. Lewis of Georgia
Amendment No. 119: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. The Secretary of Defense shall post on the public
website of the Department of Defense the cost to each
American taxpayer of each of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and Libya.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. Lamborn
Amendment No. 5: Page 23, line 4, strike ``expended:'' and
all that follows through ``6864(a)).'', and insert
``expended.''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 6: Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(reduced by $1,304,636,000)''.
Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $289,420,000)''.
Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $476,993,000)''.
Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $820,488,000)''.
Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $160,000,000)''.
Page 31, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $500,000)''.
Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 52, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $68,400,000)''.
Page 53, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $11,700,000)''.
Page 53, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,700,000)''.
Page 54, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,350,000)''.
Page 54, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $250,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,250,437,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 7: Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(reduced by $1,304,636,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,304,363,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 8: Page 25, line 18, strike ``2012,'' and all
that follows through ``of the Treasury:'', and insert
``2012:''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 9: Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(reduced by $289,420,000)''.
[[Page 10647]]
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $289,420,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 10: Page 24, line 18, after the dollar
amount, insert ``(reduced by $476,993,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $476,993,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 11: Page 28, line 13, after the dollar
amount, insert ``(reduced by $820,488,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $820,488,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 12: Page 28, line 23 after the dollar amount,
insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 13: Page 29, line 7, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(reduced by $160,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $160,000,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 14: Page 31, line 21, after the dollar
amount, insert ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 15: Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 16: Page 52, line 15, after the dollar
amount, insert ``(reduced by $68,400,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $68,400,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 17: Page 53, line 7, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(reduced by $11,700,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $11,700,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 18: Page 53, line 13, after the dollar
amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,700,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,700,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 19: Page 54, line 4, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(reduced by $1,350,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,350,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. McClintock
Amendment No. 20: Page 54, line 12, after the dollar
amount, insert ``(reduced by $250,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $250,000)''.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. Luetkemeyer
Amendment No. 21: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the study of the Missouri River Projects
authorized in section 108 of the Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (division C of
Public Law 111-8).
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. Luetkemeyer
Amendment No. 22: At the end of the bill, before the short
title, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to continue the study conducted by the Army Corps of
Engineers pursuant to section 5018(a)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 or to implement activities
proposed by such study.
H.R. 2354
Offered By: Mr. Fleming
Amendment No. 23: Page 29, line 7, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(reduced by $160,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $160,000,000)''.
[[Page 10648]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
HONORABLE FRANK R. WOLF EGYPT TRIP REPORT
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of my Egypt trip report.
Purpose
On June 26-28 I visited Egypt to meet with U.S. and host
government officials and key civil society actors,
specifically to address human rights and religious freedom
concerns, especially during this critical time of transition.
Meetings
I met with U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey and received a
modified country team brief from embassy staff. I spoke with
U.S./Western print correspondents and saw Tahrir Square--site
of recent pro-democracy protests.
I met with nearly a dozen Christian, Muslim, Baha'i, and
youth activists, including a leading evangelical minister,
Coptic youth leader and prominent Baha'i blogger.
I also discussed the country's transition with political
activists, including 2005 presidential candidate and former
political prisoner Ayman Nour, who is again seeking the
presidency.
I discussed interfaith dialogue with Sheikh Al-Azhar Ahmed
Al-Tayyeb, the leading scholar in Sunni Islam, and met with
Muslim Brotherhood official Essam El-Errian to caution the
group to respect religious freedom.
I worshiped in a Coptic Orthodox Church and visited St.
Mary's Church in Imbaba (a Cairo suburb) which had been
destroyed by radical Islamists on May 7. I also met with a
woman who runs an orphanage and social services organization
for the Christian ``zabaleen'' (trash collectors) in Cairo.
I met with Deputy Foreign Minister Wafaa Bassim and other
representatives of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and raised concerns about human rights and the prospects of a
transition to a true democracy.
In my meetings with Egyptian government officials, I
mentioned that this year I had introduced bipartisan
legislation, H.R. 440, (which now has 75 cosponsors) that
would create a Special Envoy position at the State Department
to focus specifically on the challenges faced by religious
minorities in key countries in the Middle East, including
Egypt. The legislation was introduced in January, prior to
the political unrest in Egypt, but has arguably never been
more needed. Ancient religious minority communities, among
them Coptic Christians, are important moderating influences
and are critical to the future of a democratic and
pluralistic Egypt.
I met with representatives of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) including the National Democratic
Institute (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI).
Human Rights and Religious Freedom
Coptic Orthodox and other Christians told me that they
feared sectarian violence in the current political vacuum,
and were concerned about continued discrimination in
government hiring and building churches. They said that they
welcomed the Government of Egypt's announced intention to
draft a Unified Places of Worship Law, but cautioned that the
few details that had emerged thus far indicate that the draft
needs much work before it genuinely puts mosques and churches
on equal footing.
In my meetings with Baha'i leaders we discussed the
community's continued difficulties in securing government
documents like birth and marriage certificates. I intend to
pursue this matter further with the Egyptian Government,
pressing them to rescind the 1960 decree that closed Baha'i
assemblies and seized their assets.
In my meetings with Christian and secular Muslim democracy
activists, I was informed that Islamist elements in Egypt
seek an Iran-like theocratic state. Some interlocutors
worried that the Egyptian Army favors Muslim Brothers and
Salafists. Many agreed that if Islamists were to win in the
upcoming elections they would allow ``one man, one vote, one
time,'' thereby making their electoral victory irreversible.
While meeting with senior representatives of the Muslim
Brotherhood (MB) I sought to press them on their intentions.
I raised concerned about the application of shariah law,
especially as it relates to the rights of minorities, and
made it clear that my concerns were shared by many in
Washington. Freedom-loving people the world over should be
very concerned if the MB comes to power in Egypt. We must not
close our eyes to their stated plans.
Democratic Transition
Some Egyptian activists and most religious freedom
advocates were pessimistic about the transition to date and
prospects for a free, tolerant, and democratic government
after elections.
Several of these activists stressed that the best way to
counter Islamists in the short run is to first draft a
constitution and delay elections until democratic parties
have formed and become operational. One activist went so far
as to say that he was 80 percent sure Egypt would become an
Islamist state akin to Iran unless the current transition
process and timeline is altered.
Activists also said that secular, pro-democracy parties
need to take additional steps to get organized and build
support across the sectarian divide. One human rights
activist underscored the long-term importance of secular
education and more interaction between Christian and Muslim
youth.
Recommendations
In light of the meetings I had and the insights I gained, I
came away with a number of broad-based policy
recommendations:
The U.S. Government should encourage the Egyptian
Government to temporarily delay parliamentary elections,
currently scheduled for September. Under the Mubarak regime
free speech and freedom of assembly were curtailed, sectarian
divisions were stoked and the press was restricted--some of
these issues remain under the current transitional government
and are not conducive to a healthy electoral process. In
fact, at present, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and remnants of
the former ruling party are best positioned for victory, in
part because they are better organized and funded. We must
recognize that elections are but a component of a true
democracy and guard against the impulse to move too swiftly
in a direction that would likely guarantee an MB victory.
When the elections are held, independent international
election monitors must be present and must be granted
unfettered access to polling stations, etc. In my meetings
with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs I stressed that
the credibility of any future election, whenever it takes
place, would hinge on the involvement and presence of
international observers. The importance of independent
monitors and observers was underscored during my meetings
with NDI and IRI. Their insight and election expertise is
invaluable.
The United States must seriously consider conditioning U.S.
foreign assistance, specifically military assistance, to
Egypt. Since the Camp David Peace Accords, Egypt has received
over $60 billion in U.S. foreign assistance--the second
largest overall recipient of such funding. Given the Mubarak
regime's human rights and religious freedom abuses, I have
long believed this assistance should be conditioned on
improvements in these areas. I understand that Egypt is a
proud country with a rich history. However, at this time of
historic transition in Egypt and tight budgetary times at
home, U.S. taxpayer dollars ought not be given to a
government that will persecute its own people. Aid to Egypt
should be conditioned upon the government respecting and
upholding universally recognized human rights norms. This is
especially important as Egypt moves toward crafting a new
constitution. It is imperative that this constitution is
fully secular and include, among other things, religious
freedom protections. Ultimately, foreign assistance,
especially of this magnitude, is a key leverage point and
should be used accordingly, particularly with the Supreme
Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces (SCAF).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the U.S. embassy personnel, outgoing
Ambassador Margaret Scobey, Peter Shea, my control officer,
and Liz Colton for their assistance in making this trip
possible and for their dedicated service to their country.
I would also like to acknowledge the good work of the press
in Egypt, some of whom I had the opportunity to meet. At a
time of such monumental and rapid change they clearly had a
read on the national pulse and their reporting of events in
real time is critical.
I would also like to thank the many civil society
representatives I met, but for security reasons have opted
not to mention by name, who gave a candid and courageous
assessment of the challenges facing their country.
Conclusion
The Egyptian people have endured much over the years. The
State Department's annual human rights report released in
April found the following:
[[Page 10649]]
The government limited citizens' right to change their
government and extended a state of emergency that has been in
place almost continuously since 1967. Security forces used
unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners
and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and
detention center conditions were poor. Security forces
arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases
for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial
detention. The executive branch exercised control over and
pressured the judiciary. The government partially restricted
freedom of expression. The government's respect for freedoms
of assembly, association, and religion was poor, and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) continued to face
restrictions.
In the face of decades of human rights and religious
freedom abuses under the Mubarak regime, successive U.S.
administrations, including the Obama administration, failed
to advocate for those whose voices were being silenced. Many
pro-democracy activists and religious minorities that I spoke
with while in Egypt felt abandoned by the West.
At this historic time of transition, we must not make that
mistake again. While there is a palpable sense of
anticipation and even hope about what the future might hold
for the Egyptian people, the outcome is far from guaranteed.
There are reliable reports of human rights abuses and
political repression following Mubarak's resignation. For
example, a recently released Congressional Research Service
report indicated that:
The SCAF has warned news organizations that it is illegal
to criticize the military in the press. A military court
sentenced a blogger (Maikel Nabil) to three years in prison
for insulting the military. Others have criticized the SCAF
over press reports that female detainees in military custody
were subject to ``virginity tests'' by doctors.
Given the nature and extent of U.S. assistance to Egypt
over the years, the U.S. military has developed good
relations with the Egyptian military and we should leverage
those ties as Egypt looks to transition from military to
civilian rule. It will be critical for Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, to
engage with the SCAF.
Ultimately, I believe that the majority of Egyptians of all
faiths want democracy. The question is will it be taken away
from them after a single election?
Their yearning for true freedom and democracy must not be
underestimated. We have a responsibility to stand with them
and help them realize their aspirations.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHN GARRARD
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an outstanding
citizen of South Alabama who has dedicated his life to the service of
his community and his fellow man. I am proud to inform this House that
John Garrard of Atmore, Alabama, was recently honored with the Atmore
Chamber of Commerce's Lifetime Achievement Award.
A resident of Atmore for over 60 years, Mr. Garrard has a long and
distinguished record of public service. A World War II veteran of the
U.S. Navy, Mr. Garrard graduated from Millsaps College with a degree in
economics and business administration and a minor in secondary
education. He soon put his education to good use back in his community.
He began his career as a teacher at Escambia County High School.
Afterwards, he joined the First National Bank of Atmore, where he rose
to the position of president and where he continues to serve on the
board of directors.
Mr. Garrard has also served on the Atmore Public Library Board for 48
years, was a member of the Atmore Rotary Club for 30 years, and was a
part of Fountain Prison Ministry for 15 years. Mr. Garrard was also
named Atmore's Citizen of the Year in 1981.
Today, even in retirement, Mr. Garrard continues to serve his
community as a member of the Atmore City Council. The extent of Mr.
Garrard's commitments is considerable. It is because of the work of
people like John Garrard that small towns throughout south Alabama, and
around the country, are able to thrive and maintain a vibrant sense of
community.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Escambia County and South
Alabama, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. John Garrard
for his service, and applauding the example of civic engagement that he
has set. His presence is surely felt throughout his community which has
benefitted from his many contributions of time and talent. Through his
life of service and dedication, he has definitely earned this award,
and I am proud to join his many friends and family in saluting him for
this most deserving honor.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MIKE McINTYRE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 500 on July 6,
2011, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
____________________
CONGRATULATING PHIL JOHNSON, ATMORE'S CITIZEN OF THE YEAR
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a distinguished
citizen of South Alabama for his exemplary service to our region and
his community. I am pleased to note that Phil Johnson was recently
named Atmore, Alabama's 2010 Citizen of the Year.
If a leader is someone who is willing to give of himself in order to
benefit society, then Phil Johnson certainly fits the definition of a
leader. His stamp on Atmore and surrounding Escambia County is his
legacy of developing local arts programs and inspiring a passion for
the arts among our young people.
Ten years ago, Mr. Johnson played a leading role in founding the
Greater Escambia Council for the Arts (GECA) and has been instrumental
in raising awareness for the arts throughout his community.
Mr. Johnson has also performed in, directed, and produced an
exceptional number of performances, and helped secure a theater in
downtown Atmore.
Thanks to Mr. Johnson's vision and dedication, the residents of
Atmore and Escambia County have enormous opportunities in the arts.
From actors to playgoers to the young people who have become involved
in the arts for the first time, many have benefited from Mr. Johnson's
work and achievements.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the arts serve a vital role in our
communities, and they can have an especially large impact in small
towns like Atmore.
I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Mr. Johnson for his
remarkable service, and to join the people of Atmore in recognizing the
great difference he has made in that community.
____________________
HONORING GILBERT TREVINO
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the late Gilbert
Trevino, a soldier and researcher who dedicated nearly 30 years of his
life to the United States Marines both on the field and in the lab.
A Laredo native, Mr. Trevino moved to College Station in 1942 to
attend Texas A&M University. His scholarly pursuits were placed on hold
when the United States plunged into World War II. He joined the United
States Marine Corps in 1944 and witnessed the perils of war at the
Battle of Iwo Jima, a battle, on which he wrote in his 2006 memoir.
After serving our country, Mr. Trevino returned to school in 1947 to
complete a professional veterinary degree and later received a Master's
at Texas A&M University and Ph.D. from Michigan State University.
Mr. Trevino met Chris, who would eventually become his wife, while he
was working in Washington, DC. The couple was together just under a
year when he received word he was to be stationed in Japan. The pair
planned their wedding in just eight days and moved to Japan, where
their two children were born.
Mr. Trevino served in Michigan, Maryland, and Kentucky as an advisor
to the Surgeon General for the Department of Agriculture before
returning to College Station to teach at his alma mater. He spent his
career in classrooms and military research labs, where his scientific
investigations contributed to a vaccine for rabies. Mr. Trevino's
devotion to education provided a source of inspiration for the younger
generations of his family; his children, Elisa and Steven, as well as
his nieces and nephews, all took note of his accomplishments and many
pursued postsecondary education as a result.
Mr. & Mrs. Trevino moved back to Laredo after he retired from the
university in 1981 where he remained active in the Laredo veterans'
community. He raised funds and accompanied the city's Gold Star mothers
to
[[Page 10650]]
Washington, DC to visit the Vietnam Memorial after its completion in
1982. When the Laredo Animal Clinic veterinarian was unavailable, Mr.
Trevino happily performed examinations and conducted surgeries in his
absence. He was a man of integrity and determination, and did whatever
he could to help others.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored and privileged to have the opportunity to
recognize the late Gilbert Trevino. He is no longer with us, but his
contributions to his country, profession, and community will live on.
Thank you.
____________________
RECOGNIZING SERGEANT FIRST CLASS JOSE WEEKS, RECIPIENT OF THE 2010
GRUBER AWARD
______
HON. ADAM SMITH
of washington
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Sergeant 1st Class Jose Weeks of the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division
for earning the 2010 Gruber Award as the best field artilleryman in the
United States Army.
The Gruber Award was established in 2002 to recognize the outstanding
individuals who represent excellence among field artillerymen.
Sergeant Jose Weeks dedicates himself to strengthening his unit by
training them to be prepared for any situation. On July 14, 2010, when
his convoy came under attack, an improvised explosive device struck the
lead vehicle in his patrol. One of the soldiers in the patrol was
severely injured by shrapnel. By the time the medic arrived, the
soldiers inside the damaged vehicle had already begun emergency care
and had applied a tourniquet to the wounded soldier's leg--a practice
in which Weeks had repeatedly drilled his crew. Their rapid response
saved the soldier's life and demonstrated Weeks's effectiveness as a
trainer. Saving the life of another soldier through effective emergency
training merits Weeks receiving the Gruber award.
Weeks's Battalion Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Braley,
confirmed, ``Sergeant First Class Weeks is an adaptable, flexible
leader and a master artilleryman. . . . He can move from doing his core
competencies to firing battery platoon sergeant . . . to conducting
crew drills [to] IED patrol without skipping a beat.''
Jose Weeks is an exemplary soldier who is highly deserving of this
award. It is an honor to recognize him for his leadership and
commitment to serving in the United States Army.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives
please join me in congratulating Sergeant 1st Class Jose Weeks on
receiving the Gruber Award as the best field artilleryman in the United
States Army.
____________________
IN HONOR OF H.E. FATHER MIGUEL d'ESCOTO BROCKMANN'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF
ORDINATION TO THE PRIESTHOOD
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 50th
anniversary of H.E. Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann's ordination to
the priesthood. Father d'Escoto has dedicated his life and ministry to
peace, social justice, and solidarity.
Father d'Escoto was born in 1933 in Los Angeles, California, but
spent a majority of his childhood in Nicaragua. After returning to the
United States, he began studying at the Catholic seminary at Maryknoll
in 1953. In 1961, Father d'Escoto Brockmann was ordained a priest of
the Maryknoll Missionaries. Father d'Escoto earned his Master's of
Science from Columbia University's School of Journalism in 1962.
Father d'Escoto has focused his ministry on helping the poor and
disadvantaged populations of the world. In 1963, Father d'Escoto
founded the National Institute of Research and Population Action in
Chile. Through this organization, he sought to empower impoverished
populations living in slum neighborhoods through community action in
defense of labor rights. In 1970, while serving as Maryknoll's Social
Communications Department, Father d'Escoto founded Orbis Books, the
publishing arm of Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers. Orbis quickly became
a leader in religious publishing, offering works on spirituality,
theology, and current affairs, often from a Third World perspective. In
the aftermath of a 1972 earthquake that devastated the capital city of
Managua, Nicaragua, Father Brockmann mobilized assistance for the
victims and established the Nicaraguan Foundation for Integral
Community Development.
As a veteran statesman and political leader, Father d'Escoto served
as the Republic of Nicaragua's Minister for Foreign Affairs from July
1979 until April 1990. During his tenure, he played a key role in the
Contadora and Esquipulas peace processes to end internal armed
conflicts in Central America in the 1980s. He was later elected as
President of the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly,
and served in this role from September 2008 to September 2009. Father
d'Escoto is currently a member of the UN Human Rights Council Advisory
Committee.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the 50th
anniversary of H.E. Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann's ordination to
the priesthood and his significant contributions to the global
community.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
______
HON. JOHN W. OLVER
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 250th
anniversary of the founding of the town of Great Barrington,
Massachusetts, including the village of Housatonic. The town was
incorporated by the colonial Governor of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Sir Francis Bernard, on June 30, 1761. Nestled in the
Berkshire Hills, Great Barrington features natural resources such as
Monument Mountain, Lake Mansfield, and the scenic Housatonic River. It
is the town that saw the first open resistance to British rule in 1774,
Henry Knox's cannon caravan passing through to Fort Ticonderoga in
1776, and provided a distinguished roster of military personnel to
every major conflict in which America has participated.
Great Barrington has also been the home of poet and journalist
William Cullen Bryant, inventor William Stanley--who first lit the
streets of Great Barrington--and inventor Marcus Rogers. Elizabeth
Freeman, who successfully sued for her freedom from slavery in 1781,
Laura Ingersoll Secord, the Canadian heroine of the War of 1812, Anson
Jones, the last president of the Republic of Texas and James Weldon
Johnson, the co-writer of the Negro National Anthem all resided in
Great Barrington. W.E.B. Dubois, distinguished writer, editor,
sociologist and activist, graduated from Searles High School in Great
Barrington as valedictorian before embarking upon a lifetime of
achievement that included the founding of the Niagara Movement, the
precursor to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
Persons. The citizens of Great Barrington stand as an example of what
hard work and resolve can accomplish.
The town of Great Barrington is also the center of many historical,
commercial and cultural resources, including the Mason Library in Great
Barrington and Ramsdell Library in Housatonic, the Mahaiwe Performing
Arts Center, the Captain Truman Wheeler House, the Dwight-Henderson
House, and the famed Newsboy Statue. With its scenic natural resources,
Great Barrington has become the summer vacation destination of
thousands and continues to be a vibrant and charming community.
On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Great
Barrington, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their
dedication and perseverance throughout the town's history. I look
forward with enthusiastic support as we continue to work together for a
prosperous future.
[[Page 10651]]
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MIKE McINTYRE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 499 on July 6,
2011, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
____________________
ON THE OCCASION OF THE TWENTY-NINTH ANNUAL METRO DETROIT YOUTH DAY
______
HON. GARY C. PETERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to rise today to
recognize the organizers, supporters and participants of the twenty-
ninth annual Metro Detroit Youth Day.
While Metro Detroit Youth Day has many leaders, organizers,
participants and supporters which make it possible, one man, Mr. Ed
Deeb, stands at the foundation of this great youth empowering event.
When asked by the Mayor of Detroit to rise to the challenge of
overcoming divisions to create a stronger community, Ed answered,
rallying the business community to work with Detroit youth to overcome
the divide between business and youth. From this work, Youth Day was
born as an event which calmed tensions through dialogue between Detroit
business owners and the youth. Under Ed's leadership as chairman and
coordinator of Youth Day, it has continued to grow and evolve into an
event focused on nurturing the great potential of our youth in the City
of Detroit.
Part of Youth Days' evolution included expanding its impact on
participants, supporters and volunteers. As part of this expansion,
Youth Day began to focus on providing youth with guidance, mentoring,
substance abuse prevention and motivational activities designed to
allow them to channel their creativity and ideas into positive
outcomes. As part of this empowerment, Youth Day began awarding
participants with scholarships for youth that displayed outstanding
citizenship, leadership and service. With over seven hundred
scholarships awarded since 1991, Youth Day has undoubtedly provided
many Metro Detroit young adults with the opportunity to pursue higher
education and more fully realize their potential.
The success of Ed's vision speaks for itself, with Youth Day having
become a tradition for the Metro Detroit community. Since its inception
so many years ago, Youth Day has grown from twelve hundred participants
to over thirty-seven thousand annually, with more than seven hundred
thousand youth participants throughout its history. Of equal importance
are the more than fifteen hundred annual volunteers who come from over
six hundred community organizations and businesses who supervise sports
clinics, games, contests and many other activities that are a part of
this daylong event. For its impact, Youth Day has been awarded numerous
accolades including a Point of Light award from President George H.W.
Bush and the Michigan Governor's award for Physical Fitness.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the
twenty-ninth annual Metro Detroit Youth Day and recognizing the
organizers, supporters, volunteers and participants for working
together to build a stronger future for Michigan youth in Metro
Detroit.
____________________
IN HONOR OF ANNE FEENEY
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Anne Feeney on
the occasion of her 60th birthday. Anne is an exceptional person and a
longtime political activist and musician. She has been called a ``union
maid and hell raiser'' and has actively fought for social justice over
the past four decades.
Anne was born in Charleroi, Pennsylvania on July 1, 1951. From an
early age Anne's two great passions were politics and music. She was
greatly influenced by the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and
her grandfather, William P. Feeney, a mineworkers' organizer and
violinist.
Anne graduated from Fontbonne Academy in 1968. She spent the next
year saving money until she had enough to purchase a Martin D-28 guitar
in 1969. Anne played this guitar for over forty years at political
rallies and festivals around the world until she recently retired it
from use.
By 1972 Anne had co-founded the Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, which
still provides services to rape victims in the Pittsburgh area. She
graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1974 and the University
of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1978. She worked as a trial attorney for
twelve years and served as president of the Pittsburgh Musicians' Union
from 1997-1998. To date, Anne is the only woman elected to this
prestigious position. Her political activism continues to this day.
Currently, Anne is a member of the Industrial Workers of the World and
the American Federation of Musicians.
Since 1991, Anne has toured around the world playing her music and
participating in labor and political rallies. She has released several
albums and her music has been covered by the band Peter, Paul, and
Mary. Anne is a proud mother of two, a gifted musician, and a renowned
political activist.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in extending warm wishes
to Anne Feeney on her 60th birthday.
____________________
BIRTHDAY OF IRV PICKLER
______
HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to
honor the life of Irv Pickler, and wish him the best in his 90th year
of life. Irv has demonstrated an exceptional dedication to public
service in the community, and has made a lasting effect on all the
people he has touched.
After graduating from California State University, Los Angeles, with
a bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Irv joined the United
States Army and later transferred to the United States Air Force. In
England, he flew 35 missions into France and Germany as a bombardier-
navigator. After 4 years of service, he returned to Los Angeles to be
with his wife and young children.
Eventually settling in Southern California, Irv opened his own
printing company, ``Printing Dimensions,'' in Orange County. Today,
nearly 55 years later, Irv works to bring people together to accomplish
client objectives with his company, ``Pickler and Associates.'' Irv has
demonstrated a firm commitment to community involvement. As a member of
the Kiwanis Club of Greater Anaheim, he was twice named ``Kiwanian of
the Year.'' In 1993, he was elected as a Distinguished Lieutenant
Governor of the club. Irv has also served 25 years on the Cypress
College Foundation Board of Directors.
In the 1970s, Irv was appointed to the Cemetery Commission in
Anaheim, and to the Orange County Planning Commission, on which he
served one term as a chairman. In 1982, Irv was elected to the Anaheim
City Council, serving a total of 12 years, including 3 times as Mayor
pro-tem. He consolidated half a dozen Orange County transportation
agencies into the Orange County Transportation Authority, which
produced gains in efficiency, and increased accountability. When
California introduced its first cellular solar-powered callbox system,
Irv was behind it. He negotiated the agreement with the California
Department of Transportation and the California Private Transportation
Corporation to construct the nation's first fully-automated, congestion
priced toll road, State Route 91. Irv laid the groundwork for the
purchase of right-of-way and widening of Interstate 5, which resulted
in the largest public works project in Orange County in over a
generation. He also helped pass Measure M, the successful sales tax
program that invested in voter-approved transportation projects. It's
no question that he demonstrated exceptional leadership during his
tenure as Vice President of the Orange County Transportation Authority.
Irv currently serves as a member of the Orange County Water District
Board of Directors. He has previously served as Water Issues Committee
Chairman and on the Administration/Finance Committee, Investment
Committee, External Communications Task Team, and Santa Ana Water
Project Authority. During his tenure on the Water District Board of
Directors, Irv played a key role in the development of the
revolutionary Groundwater Replenishment System, a project that has been
recognized with numerous national and international awards.
Irv has served as chairman of the Orange County Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management Advisory Committee; president of Orange County
Division of the League of California Cities, and member the Anaheim
Union High School District Board of Trustees, Anaheim's Parks and
Recreation Commission, the
[[Page 10652]]
Anaheim Public Library Board, the Transportation Corridor Agencies,
Southern California Regional Rail Authority, and the Southern
California Air Quality Management District Inter-Agency Implementation
Company.
Other goverment agencies with which Irv has worked include the Los
Angeles/San Diego Rail Corridor Committee, Orange County Cities Airport
Authority, Southern California Association of Governments, Foothill/
Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, and Metrolink Joint Committee,
and he also supports Acacia Adult Day Care, Alzheimer's Foundation, the
Anaheim Family YMCA, the Anaheim Boys and Girls Clubs, and Anaheim Arts
Council.
It is clear that Irv Pickler has maintained a firm devotion to public
service throughout his life. As he embarks upon his 90th year, I would
like to recognize his achievements and thank him for his dedication.
____________________
HONORING MR. J.D. LINDSEY
______
HON. AUSTIN SCOTT
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in
honoring Mr. J.D. Lindsey of Tift County, GA. Mr. Lindsey is a U.S.
Marine and a decorated World War II Veteran. He received the Purple
Heart for wounds suffered while serving our Nation on active duty.
Since his discharge from the Marine Corps, he has worked tirelessly for
veterans' causes and issues. He was responsible for obtaining the DAV
van that is used to transport veterans to their medical appointments at
the VAMC facility in Dublin, GA each week. He uses his personal funds
to see that the van continues to run each week without interruption.
When necessary, he has also used his personal vehicle to ensure that
every veteran in need makes it to his or her appointments. He has
unselfishly given of his time and money to not only serve our Nation
while on active duty, but has remained committed to caring for his
fellow veterans and their families all over the Tift area. Any number
of citizens of Tifton have benefited greatly from his kindness and
benevolence.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me today in honoring Mr. J.D.
Lindsey for his unwavering commitment and service to our country and
our community.
____________________
HONORING REVEREND GEORGE LEE JOHNSON
______
HON. JEFF DENHAM
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Mr. Nunes
and Mr. Costa, to acknowledge and honor the life of a beloved leader in
the Fresno Community, Reverend George Lee Johnson, and to recognize his
tireless work as the Senior Pastor of Peoples Church. Ministering to
thousands, Reverend Johnson earned the respect of fellow clergy and
civic leaders alike.
The son of a Baptist minister, George Lee Johnson, or G.L. as he came
to be known, grew up in Houston. He moved to Fresno in 1961 to work as
the Associate General Director of the Latin American Orphanage. That
same year, Reverend Johnson and his wife, Jackie, joined the then small
Peoples Church. In 1963, Reverend Johnson became the Pastor of Peoples
Church at the age 37.
Reverend Johnson's commitment to his faith and the congregation of
Peoples Church resulted in significant growth of the organization. His
uplifting messages of hope and faith appealed to many worshipers. In
1978, Peoples Church moved to a sanctuary with capacity of more than
2,000 people, allowing over 5,000 people to attend numerous different
services on Sunday. With an ever-increasing following, Peoples Church
attracted a mix of civic leaders. Moreover, Reverend Johnson's hard
work and service were influential in the community of Fresno. He
organized the Pastor's Prayer Summit in Oakhurst, where over 45 clergy
members met to pray for guidance for civic leaders in combating
Fresno's crime rate and resolving socioeconomic problems. The success
of this event inspired Reverend Johnson to organize a weekly Citywide
Pastors Prayer Meeting which began in 1993 and still takes place today.
In 2001, the Reverend was instrumental in bringing the Central Valley
Billy Graham Crusade to Bulldog Stadium, an event which united more
than 200,000 people.
Reverend G.L. Johnson retired from Peoples Church in 2008 after 45
years of service as the Senior Pastor. However, his retirement from the
church did not mark the end of his ministry. Reverend Johnson continued
to support the church and lend his wisdom and knowledge to the many
Fresno residents who looked to him for guidance. He also traveled
throughout the world, teaching at various religious conferences. After
a brave battle with cancer, Reverend George Lee Johnson passed away
surrounded by his loving family at the age of 83.
Mr. Speaker, please join Mr. Nunes, Mr. Costa, and I in honoring
Reverend George Lee Johnson for his unwavering leadership, and
recognizing his accomplishments and contributions as Pastor of Peoples
Church. The life of Reverend George Lee Johnson serves as an example of
excellence to those in our community, and his legacy will not be soon
forgotten.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MIKE McINTYRE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 498 on July 6,
2011, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yes.''
____________________
INTRODUCING THE AMERICAN TRAVELER DIGNITY ACT OF 2011
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect
Americans from physical and emotional abuse by Federal Transportation
Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation's
airports. Year after year the TSA seems more belligerent toward
Americans simply seeking to travel within their own country--a most
basic of our fundamental rights--and sadly Americans are just expected
to shut up and take it. We should not have to shut up and take it.
Many Americans continue to fool themselves into accepting TSA abuses
by saying ``I don't mind giving up my freedoms for security.'' In fact,
they are giving up their liberties and not receiving security in
return. Time and time again we see the revolting pictures of Federal
screeners with their hands down the pants of children while parents
watch helplessly in agony. We see elderly or disabled Americans being
forced to endure all manner of indignity. At the same time, we
repeatedly hear of passengers who seem to check all the boxes marked
``suspicious activity'' slipping through unencumbered. Just recently we
read of a Nigerian immigrant breezing through TSA security checks to
board a flight from New York to LA--with a stolen, expired boarding
pass and an out-of-date student ID as his sole identification. We
should not be surprised to find government ineptitude and indifference
at the TSA, however.
What we ultimately need is real privatization of security, but not
phony privatization with the same TSA screeners in private security
firm uniforms still operating under the ``guidance'' of the Federal
Government. Real security will be achieved when the airlines are once
again in charge of protecting their property and their passengers.
To move us in that direction, I am today introducing the American
Traveler Dignity Act, which establishes that any Federal employee or
agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds is not
immune from any U.S. law regarding physical contact with another
person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm
through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It
means they are not above laws the rest of us must obey. As we continue
to see more and more outrageous stories of TSA abuses and failures, I
hope that my colleagues in the House will listen to their constituents
and join with me to support this legislation.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. STEVE KING
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 24, I was delayed in
leaving the Medal of Honor Recognition Ceremony for Staff Sergeant
Salvatore Guinta and was unable to
[[Page 10653]]
reach the floor to cast my vote before the vote was closed. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________
ANOTHER UNFOLDING TRAGEDY IN SUDAN
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit an article which recently ran in the
BBC regarding the unfolding tragedy in Sudan.
On the eve of the birth of a new nation in South Sudan, Khartoum is
once again perpetrating acts of violence against its own people--this
time in Southern Kordofan.
First-hand accounts emerging from the region are chilling . . . door
to door executions, reportedly based on ethnicity and political
affiliation; Antonov bombers leaving a trail of devastation in their
wake, mass displacement.
The world says, ``never again,'' and yet in the face of mounting
atrocities, where is the outrage?
[From BBC News, June 23, 2011]
Sudan's South Kordofan: ``Bombings, Blood and Terror''
More than 70,000 people are said to have fled violence in
Sudan's South Kordofan state, where the government says it is
disarming rebels. The region borders South Sudan, a largely
Christian and animist region, which is due to gain
independence from the mostly Arabic-speaking, Muslim north on
9 July.
There is concern about the humanitarian crisis and the
alleged atrocities being committed. The area has effectively
been cut off by the military and not much has been heard from
people in the area. One aid worker who has just left the
region told the BBC's Will Ross about his experiences:
It is terrifying. The civilians try to hide but generally
they run in panic and hence, sadly, there are many casualties
who die because of shrapnel. There are bombings and shellings
every day in different areas.
There is a plane called an Antonov which circles high in
the sky and keeps coming over. Then there is the whistle of
the bombs as they fall. You have a few seconds to run but you
do not know if it is going to fall on you or not. The sounds
of the explosions are huge and sometimes the craters they
leave are five or six metres across.
Burning hot pieces of jagged metal, the shrapnel, go flying
across the air and if you are not below the surface in a hole
or a dug-out you are at huge risk.
Blood and flies
Then there are the MiGs [planes] which come in very, very
fast and low. These fire rockets and they are terrifying
because they are on top of you before you know it. You have
no warning.
They are very loud and so the terror that this incites in
people, even if you survive these attacks, is enormous.
They can continue for hours on end. You can imagine how
awful that is for women and children and men, rural farmers
who have no military background whatsoever. And when they
sense that this is not an enemy from outside that is
attacking, this is their own government, they just do not
understand why this is happening.
There are so many poignant, heartbreaking stories.
A local farmer was lying on the floor of a hospital in
enormous pain, with a large piece of shrapnel that had gone
through his leg, with blood and flies over him. Again and
again he was asking the same desperate questions: ``Why is
our president doing this to us? Why is he bombing us?''
He kept saying: ``This is wrong''.
Then there was a young man who had fled a village that was
attacked and when the SAF [northern] troops withdrew, he
found to his horror that his wife and children had been
abducted by the army.
With anguish in his voice he said he would rather have been
killed than his wife and child taken.
``I don't know what they will do to them, I don't think I
will see them again,'' he said.
No less than 75,000 people have been displaced, and because
the bombing and shelling is continuing, that number is
probably going up every day.
This is not a war of north versus south--this is about a
people within north Sudan who want a peaceful existence in
the north just with social and economic opportunities and
access to justice.
The Nuba, a large percentage of whom are Muslims, feel
their future is with north Sudan.
The people of South Kordofan, both the Nuba and people from
the nomadic Arab tribes, feel marginalised by Khartoum. They
feel they are not granted basic human rights.
House-to-house executions
The area offers a remarkable alternative vision of how
Christian and Muslims and animists can live together. I have
witnessed after Eid, the Christians bringing breakfast for
their Muslim brothers and sisters, and at Christmas and
Easter all the people from the mosque coming to say
``congratulations''.
But people there feel the government in the last few weeks
has revealed it has no interest in allowing a political
solution that gives rights to an alternative voice in the
north, where there is religious tolerance and Christians and
Muslims living together.
There is so much anguish. People say they don't want war
but they say until the policies of Khartoum change, they see
no alternative.
They are asking for help from all northern Sudanese to come
back from this madness and have a look at how to build a
peaceful, tolerant society in the north.
We are getting very strong reports that house-to-house
executions are going on by internal security forces where
summary executions are taking place based on ethnicity,
political affiliation and even how black you are. These are
civilians, intellectuals, teachers, community leaders,
Muslims and Christians, and often they are killed by their
throats being slit.
This may be only the beginning and it could well continue
for many months and intensify. There is a complete lack of
access--we learnt that the only airstrip that was left had
been bombed and we have heard the government of Sudan will
shoot down UN flights operating in South Kordofan so
humanitarian flights are no longer an option.
We know that there is no access from the north by road so
we are looking at a population that is now effectively
besieged--without access to services or humanitarian aid and
who are under fire.
I fear the government has started these military operations
to try to ensure that opposition voice is completely squashed
before the 9 July, so that no thought of help of any sort
could come from the south, knowing that the emerging republic
of South Sudan would be very unwilling to get involved as it
would endanger their independence.
The great majority of Nuba people that I have spoken to are
very worried the Egyptian forces that make up a large
percentage of the UN peacekeepers are not seen as
sufficiently neutral. Their cultural and religious background
and their behaviour and attitude towards black Nuba people
are unhelpful.
____________________
HONORING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, 76 years ago, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act, which
continues to protect the rights of employees and employers, encourages
fair bargaining, and blocks harmful practices that hurt our Nation's
workers, businesses and the economy.
This important piece of legislation in our Nation's history has
allowed working Americans to enjoy their rights to assemble and
organize into labor unions. Unions have been instrumental in
strengthening the middle class. Leaders like AFL-CIO President Dennis
Hughes, DC 37 Executive Director Lillian Roberts, Teamsters Local 237
President Gregory Floyd. SEIU Local 1199 President George Gresham and
SEIU 32BJ President Mike Fishman, and AFT and UFT Presidents Randi
Weingarten and Michael Mulgrew have all marched in the spirit of A.
Philip Randolph and Thomas Van Arsdale to protect the civil rights of
all Americans in the workplace and I stand by my fellow soldiers in our
continued struggle to preserve the Labor Movement and all the victories
fought and won.
With the recent change of rules enacted by the National Labor
Relations Board, working Americans will be able to quickly unionize and
cut the time businesses have to mount anti-union campaigns. There is
still more to do for our workers. That is why I co-sponsored the
Employee Non-Discrimination Act which prohibits discrimination based on
sexual orientation and gender in the workforce. I will keep on
supporting other bills that ensure labor rights and will work hand in
hand with union leaders to create an equal partnership in revitalizing
our economy.''
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF TEMPLE EMANU-EL'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Temple Emanu-El
of Edison, New Jersey, as its members gather to celebrate its 50th
Anniversary. Under the leadership of Rabbi Emeritus Alfred Landsberg
and Rabbi Deborah Bravo, Temple Emanu-El is a respected educational and
religious institution
[[Page 10654]]
for many families whose members remain committed to various community
service activities. Their hard work and dedication are worthy of this
body's recognition.
Since its founding in 1961, Temple Emanu-El's membership remains open
to persons of any race, sex, ethnic background, physical capability,
sexual orientation, national origin or marital status. The synagogue is
a sanctuary for interfaith families, gay and lesbian groups as well as
numerous organizations and religious communities interested in pursuing
the Jewish faith. Its rich diversity ensures the organization's ability
to provide various religious programs for all ages. The synagogue is
proud to be the first religious school within the region to offer
special education programs to its members. Pre-school students have the
opportunity to celebrate Shabbat through song and craft programs. Teens
also get together at Temple Emanu-El to study Judaism with their
friends while community members remain engaged in the sacred work of
`tikkun olam', the repair of the world, through various social action
programs.
The worshipers of Temple Emanu-El are committed to participating in
various community programs and service endeavors. Food and monetary
funds are collected by the worshipers and delivered to the members of
the community. The members also partake in the weekend meals-on-wheels
delivery program as they continue to reach out to members of their
community in need.
The synagogue also maintains a commitment to provide various
educational opportunities. Temple Emanu-El provides programs for the
children to learn Hebrew and various Jewish traditions while adults are
given the opportunity to study with Scholars-in-Resident and
participate in Bar/Bat Mitzvah programs. Many congregants also join
together on a weekly basis to study Torah. In addition to the plethora
of activities offered at Temple Emanu-El, the synagogue remains a
serene house of worship for its members to congregate and reflect.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Temple Emanu-El on its 50th
Anniversary and thanking the members for their continued contribution
to the Jewish community.
____________________
AFGHANISTAN DRAWDOWN
______
HON. ZOE LOFGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, in October, our troops
will have been in Afghanistan for ten years. It is the longest war in
our country's history. I am concerned that the mission has become more
ambitious and our exit strategy has become increasingly vague.
This year is on pace to become the deadliest of this war. Over 1,600
Americans have been killed and 11,000 wounded in Operation Enduring
Freedom. A 2008 study by RAND Corp. estimates that over 26 percent of
troops may return from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with mental
health issues. In terms of financial costs, California taxpayers alone
have spent over $50 billion on the war in Afghanistan. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, ending the wars could save $1.4 trillion.
The President's announcement that he will begin removing surge troops
does not reflect a significant policy change in Afghanistan. Removing
the 30,000 surge troops from Afghanistan over the next year and a half
only means that by the end of next year, we will be exactly where we
were before the surge in December of 2009. Roughly 100,000 American
soldiers will remain in Afghanistan to fight a war that I have serious
reservations about.
I urge President Obama to reconsider his Afghanistan policy and
commit to a meaningful drawdown of our troops.
____________________
HONORING TERRY DRESSLER
______
HON. LOIS CAPPS
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Terry
Dressler, recently retired after 33 years of public service devoted to
protecting the air quality along the Central Coast of California.
Terry has had a distinguished career in his field, beginning his work
with air pollution control in Ventura in 1978. He then worked in San
Luis Obispo for almost eight years before coming to serve the Santa
Barbara community for more than twenty three years, most recently
serving for the last seven years as the Air Pollution Control Officer
for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
As a result of the work of Terry and his team, the County of Santa
Barbara has improved its air quality through attainment of federal
standards and has made major progress towards meeting state standards.
Terry has effectively instituted and enforced programs that reduce
stationary, marine shipping, and mobile source emissions while raising
community awareness of air quality issues. Additionally, he was
instrumental in the creation of the District Community Advisory Council
and has worked with its members on state and federal clean air
strategy. These initiatives have enhanced the agency's reputation for
excellence in local and statewide communities.
My staff and I have worked closely with Terry in his efforts to lead
the district towards its clean air mission and I have seen firsthand
the great progress and improved air quality standards instituted by
Terry and the APCD. His strong leadership and knowledge have directly,
and positively, influenced the health of the residents of the County of
Santa Barbara.
Terry is recognized as a dedicated public servant who has devoted his
career to protecting the health and safety of the citizens of the
County of Santa Barbara and the State of California. Terry's
accomplishments in the field of air quality and his charismatic
presence have left a lasting impact on his colleagues, staff, and
community members, and we can all breathe a little easier as a result
of his outstanding efforts. I am pleased to commend Terry for his
commitment to excellence in the field of air quality, and I wish him a
happy retirement surfing the Central Coast.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO LINDA S. MULLER
______
HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and salute Linda S.
Muller, who is marking her 20th Anniversary as President and Chief
Executive Officer of The Greater Hudson Valley Family Health Center.
Under Linda's diligent and tireless leadership, The Greater Hudson
Valley Family Health Center has grown from a small facility located in
the basement of St. Luke's Hospital serving 4,000 patients each year to
a greatly expanded and modern health center providing comprehensive
primary and preventive health care to more than 18,000 patients
annually in the City of Newburgh and the surrounding towns in eastern
Orange County. As a result of Linda's tremendous commitment and passion
for universal health care, many thousands of medically underserved
families and individuals in our region receive the highest quality of
care from the dedicated physicians and staff at The Greater Hudson
Valley Family Health Center.
In addition to overseeing the historic expansion of the health
center's physical facilities, including the recent construction of a
state-of-the-art new facility in the City of Newburgh, Linda has
devoted a great deal of energy to increasing the services offered to
our local community. The obstetrical health program developed by Linda
in 2005 has now assisted more than 3,000 women in delivering healthy
babies, many of whom now continue to receive health care at the health
center. Linda also has responded to the urgent medical needs of our
local community. This included creating programs to improve chronic
health care management for diabetics and those with cardiovascular
disease and initiating a model treatment program for people in our
community living with HIV. Similarly, when it appeared that urgently
needed treatment for people with substance abuse and chemical
dependency problems might be lost to the City of Newburgh, Linda
stepped in and created The Center for Recovery, which has now supported
more than 800 patients in making a transition into healthy lifestyles
free from drugs and alcohol.
Linda has led The Greater Hudson Valley Family Health Center through
her strong dedication to the premise that health care is a right and
not a privilege. She has imparted to every one of the more than 200
employees who work at the health center the importance of fulfilling
the center's mission to provide high-quality, affordable, and easily
accessible health care to everyone in our community, regardless of
their status or ability to pay for care. Linda and her husband Charles
will also celebrate another anniversary this summer, celebrating 40
years of marriage. They have three wonderful children, Jonathan,
Christopher, and Jessica and three beautiful grandchildren, each
brought into this world by one
[[Page 10655]]
of the health center's extraordinary obstetricians.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF GEORGIA CARAWAY
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a very special
constituent of the 26th District of Texas, Georgia Caraway. After 13
years of service as the Executive Director of the Denton County
Museums, Mrs. Caraway will retire later this month.
As Executive Director, Mrs. Caraway's professionalism and dedication
has greatly impacted her community; she has spent her career striving
to preserve Denton County's history through projects such as the
Courthouse-on-the-Square Museum and the establishment of Denton
County's Historical Park. Mrs. Caraway believes her greatest
accomplishment was the founding of the Denton County African American
Museum. Through her astute leadership and cooperative fundraising
efforts, she enabled the restoration of the county's museums and saved
taxpayers thousands of dollars. In addition to her work with the
museums, she has also helped complete a series of historical
photography books that commemorate Denton County, and she hopes these
achievements will encourage others to remember the county's origins and
history.
Mrs. Caraway has left a lasting legacy in Denton County through her
work. I thank Mrs. Caraway for her service and am proud to represent
her in Congress.
____________________
HONORING MS. JEANNE KUCEY
______
HON. MARIO DIAZ-BALART
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jeanne
Kucey on her recent election to the Board of Directors at the National
Association of Federal Credit Unions, NAFCU.
Ms. Kucey has served as President and CEO of JetStream Federal Credit
Union since 2009. Responsible for operations in both Miami Dade County
and Puerto Rico, her extensive experience in the financial services
arena, including her time with credit unions in Atlanta, Georgia and
San Diego, California, will be a tremendous asset to the NAFCU board.
Not only does Ms. Kucey bring a wealth of financial management
knowledge to the table, she exemplifies the community based nature of
credit unions through her work with the ``Marlene Ericca Empowering
Workshops'' which provides life skills and mentoring to local
disadvantaged women. Ms. Kucey is also an active member of the Chamber
of Commerce.
Ms. Kucey is a welcomed addition to the NAFCU board and will have the
opportunity to make an immediate impact in her new role as recent
regulatory reforms have created a particularly challenging time in the
credit union community.
It is because of the hard work and dedication of Jeanne and others
like her that the credit union community has been able to continue to
serve its members during the tough economic times our country continues
to experience.
I wish Ms. Kucey the best of luck in her new role as a member of the
NAFCU Board of Directors. I look forward to working with her in this
capacity and ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating
Jeanne on this achievement.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MIKE McINTYRE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 497 on July 6,
2011, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
____________________
CONGRATULATING CORPORAL BURT RICHARDS
______
HON. THEODORE E. DEUTCH
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Corporal Burt
Richards for being awarded the American Red Cross Community Courage
Award for his work in educating the youth of today about the service of
veterans.
Corporal Richards and the local chapter of the Jewish War Veterans
spearheaded the campaign to close Palm Beach County schools in
remembrance of Veteran's Day. While they were not successful in their
efforts to close schools, they were successful in creating a new
lecture series called ``The Veteran Speaks,'' which has ensured that
students in Palm Beach County are educated about our American war
veterans.
I would like to congratulate Corporal Richards and the American Red
Cross for the Palm Beach-Treasure Coast region for their great work on
behalf of veterans and for the award. It is an honor having Corporal
Richards as a constituent, and I look forward to a continued
partnership in educating south Florida's youth about our veterans.
____________________
HONORING EULESS CITY SECRETARY SUSAN CRIM FOR MORE THAN 21 YEARS AS A
DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANT
______
HON. KENNY MARCHANT
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to rise today
to recognize Mrs. Susan Crim, a dedicated public servant who is
retiring after serving more than 21 years as City Secretary for the
City of Euless, TX.
Mrs. Crim was born in Woodward, OK, and is a graduate of Northwestern
State University in Alva, OK, where she obtained an associates degree
in applied science. She is also a graduate of the Texas Municipal
Clerks Certification program, where she attained her Texas Registered
Municipal Clerks Certification in January 1991. In 1996 and 2001, she
served as a trustee for the Texas Municipal Clerks Certification
Program. Mrs. Crim is also a member of the North Texas Municipal Clerks
Association, where she served as president from 1996-1997.
Mrs. Crim has a distinguished work history within the public and
private sectors. In 1979, Susan was part owner and operator of Circle C
Drilling Company. Following her time at Circle C, she took a position
as executive assistant at Dresser Atlas. Mrs. Crim then served as
office manager at Pecan Grove Baptist Church and School from 1983-1987.
In June 1987, Mrs. Crim began her career as City Secretary with the
city of Rosenberg, TX, where she served from 1987-1990.
In 1990, Mrs. Crim was hired as City Secretary of Euless. As City
Secretary, Mrs. Crim recorded and maintained the minutes at city
council meetings, managed the official Euless City public records,
organized local elections and held the responsibility as keeper of the
``Seal of the City.'' As a fundamental part of the Euless city
government, Mrs. Crim has tirelessly served multiple mayors, council
members and various city departments in Euless.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mrs. Crim for her service to
the city of Euless. Her experience and expertise will be sorely missed.
I ask all my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating
Susan Crim on a tremendous career as well as wishing her the best in
her future endeavors.
____________________
CHICKASAW WARRIOR STATUE DEDICATION
______
HON. DAN BOREN
of oklahoma
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an important milestone
for a prestigious institution of higher learning in eastern Oklahoma.
Bacone College, the oldest college or university in Oklahoma, recently
dedicated the statue ``Chickasaw Warrior'' at its Founders' Day
ceremony. This statue is a gift from its artist, Enoch Kelly Haney, and
the Chickasaw Nation. Its dedication is a very special moment for this
institution. Standing proudly at the center of campus, this tall,
imposing statue depicts a battle-ready Native American man clenching
arrows gazing into the distance.
In the six months this statue has been on campus, it has become
symbolic of the common spirit found everywhere at Bacone. Founded in
1880 by Professor Almon C. Bacone in Muskogee, Oklahoma, Bacone College
has been educating students of all backgrounds for the past 131 years.
With more
[[Page 10656]]
than two dozen Native American tribes represented in Bacone College's
diverse student body, Bacone is known for preparing its students for
success and preserving their cultural heritage. This statue aptly
represents Bacone's long-standing relationship with the Native American
community.
This impressive statue was sculpted by Enoch Kelly Haney. A 1962
graduate of Bacone College, Haney has become an internationally
renowned artist and sculptor. His work spans four decades and his
statue, The Guardian, stands proudly atop the Oklahoma State Capitol.
In addition to his contributions to the field of art, Haney served in
the Oklahoma legislature and in 2005 was elected Principal Chief of the
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. I would like to honor him for his time and
effort in creating this generous gift to Bacone College and for his
continuing service to the citizens of the state of Oklahoma.
Finally, I want to commend the Chickasaw Nation for donating this
impressive statue to the college. Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill
Anoatubby described this occasion perfectly when he said this statue
reflects the ``unconquerable'' nature of the Chickasaw people and their
unwavering determination to persevere. Now this statue will stand as a
testament to their spirit, and there is no doubt this extraordinary
gift will serve as an icon for Bacone College's future.
In these times of limited federal funding for higher education, it is
important for the United States Congress to remember the local and
regional universities that educate so many of our citizens, thereby
empowering them to improve the future of their families and
communities. Bacone College is a tremendous asset to eastern Oklahoma,
and I recognize the Chickasaw Nation for their contribution to this
important institution of higher learning.
____________________
H.R. 2112, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
______
HON. KRISTI L. NOEM
of south dakota
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2112, the
Agriculture Appropriations bill. While agriculture, along with every
other industry must take some reductions to get our spending under
control, it should not be in a disproportionate manner. This bill would
take a nearly 14 percent cut in discretionary funding compared to last
year while other appropriations bills thus far have seen cuts less than
3 percent. I could not vote in favor of this bill because I did not
feel that it recognized the importance that agriculture plays in our
nation's economy or take into account the impact this would have on
farmers. While it is important to reduce the deficit, we should do it
in a responsible manner and not disproportionately on the backs of the
farmers who are supplying our nation's, and much of the world's, food
supply.
There were many provisions in the bill that I supported, but I felt
the bill sent the wrong overall message about the importance of
agriculture policy. As South Dakota's lone Representative, I could not
in good conscience vote for a bill that unfairly singled out South
Dakota's number one industry.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE LIFE OF GREG COOPER
______
HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on May 26, 2011, Greg
Cooper lost his battle with cancer at his home in Tustin, Orange
County, California.
Born on June 23, 1945, Greg Cooper proudly served as a United States
Marine Corps Sergeant from 1963 to 1967. His commendable service
included a tour of duty near the city of DaNang, in the Republic of
Vietnam.
Upon his departure with the Marines, Greg worked with the Santa Ana
Police Department where he held several high-profile management and
tactical unit positions. Among these positions, Greg was the SWAT
Commander for 10 years and was active in the original development and
transition from traditional to community oriented policing (COP). This
COP policing model has been successfully duplicated across the United
States for decades.
While serving as a police officer with the Santa Ana Police
Department, Greg earned a Police Science Degree from Santa Ana College,
a Bachelors degree from California State University-Fullerton and a
Masters degree from the University of Southern California.
Leaving the Santa Ana Police Department in 1992, Greg was appointed
Chief of Police in Sanger, California. In 1996 he relocated to
Washington, DC after accepting a position with the Department of
Justice (DOJ) ``COPS'' Program. At the DOJ, Greg would be the Assistant
Director, responsible for monitoring operations for more than 30,000
Federal grants to more than 13,000 State and local law enforcement
agencies.
In 2002, Greg joined the newly formed Department of Homeland Security
as FEMA's Director of Security/Chief Security Officer. He would later
retire from this position in 2008. At FEMA, Greg had oversight for all
FEMA facilities, disaster operations, information security, personnel
security and all national security clearances.
Since retiring from government service, Greg, a highly regarded and
well-known expert in several specialty fields, continued to serve as a
consultant to numerous law enforcement agencies across the nation.
A grateful nation mourns the loss of a loyal friend, a respected
leader and a dedicated public servant.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MIKE McINTYRE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote number 496 on July 6,
2011, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
____________________
THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
______
HON. JAMES P. MORAN
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, it is time to tell the story of all of the
American people. Earlier this week we celebrated of our nation's 235th
birthday. Here in Washington hundreds of thousands of people visited
the National Mall, watched fireworks, took pictures of the monuments,
and toured our national museums. The story of our country's founding to
our current status as the world's beacon of democracy and freedom, were
on display.
But the full story of who we are as a nation and the many, vibrant
ethnicities that make up the fabric of the American experience, remains
incomplete. The story about the making of the American people--of all
of the people--is missing and it needs to be told in the heart of our
nation's capital.
That's why I am introducing a bipartisan resolution that calls for a
Presidential Commission to study the establishment of the National
Museum of the American People. A commission is the first critical step
in the path toward the creation of a national museum that will
highlight the diversity and richness of the cultures from which our
ancestors came and will foster a sense of belonging to the nation by
the waves of people who made us the leading economic, military,
scientific, and cultural force in the world. The Museum's central theme
takes its inspiration from our original national motto: ``E Pluribus
Unum''--From Many We Are One.
The Museum will be America's only national institution devoted
exclusively to telling the full story of how the world's pioneers
interwove their diverse races, religions, and ethnicities into the
strongest societal fabric ever known to modern mankind. Both Canada and
Mexico have major national museums in their capitals telling the story
of their peoples and they are the most visited museums in those
nations. People from every ethnic and minority group will come to see
their own story and learn how they joined together with ``the others''
in pursuit of a more noble national purpose. Foreign visitors will come
to learn how natives of their countries helped create our nation.
I fully understand the current fiscal realities of the day. This
proposal will involve no authorization of federal funds and will not
require the need for any taxpayer money. It does, however, already
enjoy broad support having been endorsed by more than 130 organizations
representing virtually every major ethnic and nationality group in the
nation.
For the different groups who became Americans, the Museum will tell
who, where, when, why and how transformed our nation. Today's
technology makes all of this possible.
The Museum of the American People will be like walking though a
dramatic documentary delving into these grand movements of peoples. It
will follow in the tradition of some of today's most successful story-
telling museums
[[Page 10657]]
such as the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The goal will be to tell our
peoples' compelling story with force and clarity.
While there should always be room for other national museums in our
nation's capital devoted to all manner of art, cultural and scientific
accomplishments, this Museum, covering accurately and adequately each
group's story in the context of every group's story should help stem
the trend of groups having their own individual, specific museums such
as the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Museum of
the African American History and Culture, and the National Museum of
the American Latino. All of their stories should be told, but the list
is nearly infinite while the space, money and political will is not. In
telling everyone's story, the National Museum of the American People
would recognize the important differences that set us apart while
celebrating the common purpose that has brought us together--E Pluribus
Unum.
I encourage my colleagues to support this measure.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CONNIE MACK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. MACK. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 6, 2011, I was unavoidably
delayed and unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 495 through 501. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 495, ``yes'' on No. 496,
``no'' on No. 497, ``no'' on No. 498, ``no'' on No. 499, ``yes'' on No.
500, and ``yes'' on No. 501.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MARY BONO MACK
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, on July 6, 2011, for rollcall Nos. 495
to 501, I was unavoidably absent and unable to vote due to travel
delays. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``no'' on 495, ``aye''
on 496, ``no'' on 497, ``no'' on 498, ``no'' on 499, ``aye'' on 500,
and ``aye'' on 501.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF MR. TIMOTHY WARREN
______
HON. STEVE COHEN
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Memphis
Police Officer Timothy Warren, a courageous and deeply generous man who
bettered the Memphis community through his service as a police officer
and through his charitable work for the homeless. Lamentably, on
Sunday, July 3, Officer Warren laid down his life while responding to a
rogue gunman in a Memphis hotel.
Public safety is an inherent power of government and every day across
our nation police officers put their lives on the line to protect our
citizens. Officer Warren, like his fellow Memphis police officers,
responded when the need arose, without hesitation and with great
courage. His actions on July 3rd may very well have saved the lives of
others.
Born in 1971, Officer Warren grew up in Cleveland, Mississippi and
received a bachelor's degree from Delta State University, where he also
earned a spot on the Mississippi All State Football Team. Despite his
successes during college, he briefly ended up homeless and was forced
to sleep in abandoned houses in the dead of winter. The empathy Officer
Warren developed for the homeless community would last a lifetime.
After moving to Memphis, Officer Warren served as a Deputy Jailer for
the Shelby County Sheriffs office from 2000 until joining the Memphis
Police Department in 2003. He served as a Patrolman in the South Main
district, choosing to work a night shift in order to see his 8-year-old
son, James, off to school in the mornings and to watch his 4-year-old
daughter, Jewel, during the day.
Officer Warren and his wife, Betsy Gray, were active in the community
helping to feed the homeless. While on patrol, Officer Warren would
pass out bottles of cold water to the homeless sweltering in the heat
and humidity of Memphis. While off duty with his family, they would
take their grill to Overton Park to feed the homeless. At one point,
Officer Warren considered leaving law enforcement to start a church.
However his good friend and ordained minister, Jeff Gray, remembers him
saying ``Well, police work is all I know. I enjoy it. It also gives me
the chance to minister to people because I'm right there.''
Officer Timothy Warren was a man of exceptional courage with a big
heart. His was a life too short, but today I honor him as a public
servant and a hero. The city of Memphis is better because of his
calling to serve and protect and because of his love for Memphis and
its citizens. Officer Warren is survived by his wife Betsy, two
children, James and Jewel, his father Jimmy Warren and his Sister Dondi
Warren.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL DANCE DAY ON
SATURDAY, JULY 30, 2011
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a resolution designating
the last Saturday in July as National Dance Day to combat obesity and
overweight through dance of all kinds. This year, each community
throughout the country is encouraged to celebrate National Dance Day on
Saturday, July 30. In the nation's capital, National Dance Day will be
celebrated at the Sylvan Theatre on the National Mall.
Our country has a notorious adult and child overweight and obesity
epidemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
childhood obesity in the United States has more than tripled in the
past 30 years. In the United States, almost one-third of children and
teenagers ages 2 to 19 and 68 percent of adults ages 20 and older are
obese or overweight. We can promote physical activity among children
and adults while having fun dancing, an exercise that most enjoy.
On the National Mall, ``So You Think You Can Dance'' producer and
celebrity judge Nigel Lythgoe, the Dizzy Feet Foundation, and the Larry
King Cardiac Foundation will host a variety of dance groups that will
perform the dances that keep them fit. A Flash Mob will also have
everybody dancing for fun and physical fitness on July 30.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the resolution and to encourage
dancing for physical exercise on National Dance Day and throughout the
year.
____________________
A TRIBUTE IN HONOR OF THE LIFE OF RALPH CALCATERRA
______
HON. ANNA G. ESHOO
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2011, surrounded by his family,
my friend Ralph Calcaterra of Atherton, California, passed away. He
leaves his wife Ferne, two children, Melissa Freeman and Richard
Calcaterra, and three grandchildren.
For almost forty years, my family was blessed with the friendship of
Ralph Calcaterra.
He made us laugh across the decades and generations.
He rode his bike to our house on Saturdays for almost twenty years--
smiling and calling out, ``anybody home?'' and ``what's going on?''
We learned more about Iron Mountain, Michigan, and Las Vegas, than
anybody else in Atherton.
We saw how much a man can love his wife, his children, and his
grandchildren.
We learned the latest prices of real estate in Atherton--including
who had bought what, and at what price.
Most of all, we saw close up and personal, what loyal friendship was.
Ralph embodied it.
Today, heaven is a better place. Saints and sinners alike are
laughing and learning as we did because Ralph is there.
Thank you Ralph, for being our loving, smiling and loyal friend.
You enriched our lives just by being wonderful you, and we are
already missing you.
Happy bike riding across heaven, and know we will love you across
eternity.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in
offering our condolences to the family of Ralph Calcaterra, a proud
citizen and a true patriot of our country.
[[Page 10658]]
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MIKE McINTYRE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 495 on July 6,
2011, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
____________________
THE AVIATION HALL OF FAME
______
HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Aviation Hall of Fame was established in
Dayton, Ohio, on October 5, 1961, with five Daytonians as its founding
fathers.
The founders of the Hall of Fame were tasked with preserving the
history of aviation heroes, fostering a better appreciation of the
origins and growth of aviation and cataloging the role aviation has
played in changing the economic, social and scientific trajectory of
our nation.
Through the tireless efforts of its founders in establishing the Hall
of Fame, aviation pioneers and achievers have been suitably honored for
the last half-century.
Located within the NMUSAF with over 200 inductees, the Hall will
induct 4 new honorees this month.
From pioneers Wilbur and Orville Wright of Ohio, to astronauts, such
as Neil Armstrong, pilots, such as Charles Lindberg and Amelia Earhart,
inventors, such as Alexander Graham Bell, and entrepreneurs, such as
William Boeing, among countless others whose contributions to aviation
have made the U.S. aerospace industry the most advanced in the world.
Since 1981 the Hall of Fame has annually bestowed its prestigious
``Spirit of Flight'' Award upon a group or organization in recognition
of its achievement in advancing aviation. The 2011 Milton Caniff
``Spirit of Flight'' Award recipient will be the U.S. Navy Blue Angels
Flight Demonstration Team, in recognition of the group's 65-year
history of serving as positive role models and goodwill ambassadors for
the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. More than 460 million fans have
witnessed the teams' spectacularly choreographed aerial performances
since the group was formed in 1946.
The Hall of Fame Learning Center exhibit hall features interactive
exhibits and displays serving nearly one million learners of all ages a
year. Visitors can experience landing an aircraft on a Navy carrier,
controlling the movement of a helicopter, docking in space with the
Hubble Space Telescope, and taking the controls of an historic aircraft
on one of four flight simulators.
On behalf of all the Americans who have been inspired by the history
of flight and the accomplishments of our aviation pioneers, I
congratulate the Aviation Hall of Fame, its board of trustees, and
dedicated staff on their many accomplishments.
This month marks the Hall of Fame's fiftieth enshrinement ceremony,
celebrating an historic milestone in the integral role it has served in
honoring pioneers of aviation.
I join Ohioans and fans of aviation everywhere to recognize those
founders and the National Aviation Hall of Fame: James W. Jacobs,
Gregory C. Karas, John A. Lombard, Larry E. O'Neil, and Gerald E.
Weller.
Their vision, leadership, and dedication have helped to preserve the
rich history of aviation for all Americans over the past fifty years.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. STEVE KING
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 25, I was delayed in
leaving the Medal of Honor Recognition Ceremony for Staff Sergeant
Salvatore Guinta and was unable to reach the floor to cast my vote
before the vote was closed.
Had I been present, I would have voted, ``yes''.
____________________
HONORING THEOLA MARIE STARKS
______
HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, Theola Marie Starks was born on June 2nd,
1928 in Grant, Oklahoma, the fourth of ten children of Reverend John B.
and Marie C. Dawson. She and her husband, Burnes O. (Chief) Starks,
Sr., moved to Phoenix in 1949 and started a family with the first of
their ten children, Burnes O. (Burney) Starks, Jr. Mr. Starks was a
chemist and soil tester for Arizona Testing Laboratories, and both Mr.
and Mrs. Starks supplemented their income by picking cotton across the
state.
The family moved to Tucson in 1966 and continued to raise their ten
children on the south side of town in the Western Hills and Las Vistas
neighborhoods. Mrs. Starks was very involved in community service,
working as a teacher's aide and volunteering at a number of schools
including Utterback, Cavett and Townsend. She always made friends
easily and turned them into family. She believed in the Village raising
children--she felt strongly that ``your kids are mine and mine are
yours.''
Mrs. Starks also frequently volunteered with respected neighborhood
matriarch Mrs. Tommie Thomas. Even though she only had a tenth grade
education, she made sure her children understood the value and
importance of education, integrity and hard work. All ten children--
Burnes O., Gary E., Daryl D., Terry L., Charles G., Donna R., Harry J.,
Jacqueline B., Larry D., and Timothy B.--finished high school and
entered college. Seven of the ten children earned college degrees.
Dr. Kevin Leman, noted psychologist and birth order doctor, has often
commented on this woman and the remarkable way she raised ten children.
Beyond her immediate family, nearly 100 children knew her as ``mom'' or
``grandma.''
Theola Starks' life was defined by miracles, as those who know her
can testify, but the greatest miracle was her--the ability to smile,
touch, befriend, forgive, mother and love anyone who came into her
life. She was the ultimate prayer warrior. Today, we mark her passing
and commend her as a role model and a wonderful person.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF HOLDING THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION IN NORTHERN NEW
JERSEY
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to propose that
the 2016 Democratic Convention be held in Northern New Jersey. With
easy access to a wide variety of transportation options, many local
tourist attractions, and a proven record of successfully hosting large-
scale events, Northern New Jersey is an ideal location and I urge my
Democratic colleagues to join me in support of our bid to host the 2016
Convention.
Northern New Jersey has everything that a large-scale, high-profile
event requires in order to go off without a hitch. Multiple airports
provide access for visitors arriving from all across the country, while
those traveling along the Eastern Seaboard have the option of taking
Amtrak or one of several bus lines--all of which are particularly
convenient to visitors from Washington, DC. Whether hosted in my
district at the New Meadowlands Stadium in East Rutherford, at the
Prudential Center in Newark, or both: our convention facilities are
brand new, state-of-the-art, and well-equipped to host large events.
Northern New Jersey boasts many hotels and tourist attractions for
visitors, as well as proximity to other exciting locations; convention-
goers would be just across the river from New York City and just up the
Jersey shore from Atlantic City. Even as our national economy struggles
to bounce back, tourism in Northern New Jersey has continued to
flourish over the past few years, due in no small part to the
infrastructure and facilities that our region has to offer visitors
from across the Nation.
Most recently, the city of Newark hosted the 2011 NCAA East Regional
Championship at the Prudential Center. Visitors, players, and league
administrators alike were impressed and pleased with their newly chosen
host city, with top NCAA officials noting that they are definitely on
board with a future hosting bid. Looking toward the future, Super Bowl
XLVII will be held at the New Meadowlands Stadium in 2014, and over
100,000 visitors from across the country are expected to travel to
Northern New Jersey for this historic game. Both of these important
events of national importance were brought to Northern New Jersey
because of everything we have to offer, and I am confident that
delegates and Convention participants alike would be pleased with the
choice
[[Page 10659]]
to hold our party's most important meeting here as well. A highly
diverse region, Northern New Jersey is emblematic of the many cultures,
ideas, and priorities that make up our great Nation, and I believe this
is a fitting backdrop for the selection of our party's nominee for the
2016 Presidential race.
Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to consider Northern New
Jersey as the site for the 2016 Democratic Convention. I know that we
would host a memorable and well-executed Convention and I urge the
Democratic Party to explore this option for 2016.
____________________
INTRODUCTION ON RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO THE
MONTFORD POINT MARINES
______
HON. CORRINE BROWN
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with many of
my colleagues to introduce a resolution to grant the Montford Point
Marines a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor that can
be bestowed for an outstanding deed or act of service to the security,
prosperity, and national interest of the United States.
On June 25, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive
Order No. 8802 establishing the Fair Employment Practices Commission
and opening the doors for the very first African Americans to enlist in
the United States Marine Corps.
These African Americans, from all states, were not sent to the
traditional boot camps of Parris Island, South Carolina, and San Diego,
California. Instead, African American Marines were segregated--
experiencing basic training at Camp Montford Point near the New River
in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Approximately 20,000 African American
Marines received basic training at Montford Point between 1942 and
1949.
On August 26, 1942, Howard P. Perry of Charlotte, North Carolina, was
the first Black private to set foot on Montford Point.
During April 1943 the first African American Marine Drill Instructors
took over as the senior Drill Instructors of the eight platoons then in
training; the 16th Platoon (Edgar R. Huff), 17th (Thomas Brokaw), 18th
(Charles E. Allen), 19th (Gilbert H. Johnson), 20th (Arnold R. Bostic),
21st (Mortimer A. Cox), 22nd (Edgar R. Davis, Jr.), and 23rd (George A.
Jackson).
The initial intent was to discharge these African American Marines
after the War, returning them to civilian life. Attitudes changed as
the war progressed. Once given the chance to prove themselves, it
became impossible to deny the fact that African American Marines were
just as capable as all other Marines regardless of race, color, creed
or National origin.
Black Marines of the 8th Ammunition Company and the 36th Depot
Company landed on the island of Iwo Jima on D-day, February 19, 1945.
The largest number of Black Marines to serve in combat during World War
II took part in the seizure of Okinawa in the Ryuku Islands with some
2,000 Black Marines seeing action during the campaign. Overall 19,168
Blacks served in the Marine Corps in World War II.
On November 10, 1945, Frederick C. Branch was the first African
American Marine to be commissioned as a second lieutenant, at the
Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia.
In July of 1948 President Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order 9981
ending segregation in the military. In September of 1949, Montford
Marine Camp was deactivated--ending seven years of segregation.
I am honored to offer this resolution to recognize their service and
sacrifice and acknowledge today's United States Marine Corps as an
excellent opportunity for advancement of persons of all races due to
the service and example of the original Montford Point Marines.
____________________
SUPREME COURT RECUSAL PROCESS IN NEED OF TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
______
HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern that
justices of the Supreme Court are not required to explain their
decisions to recuse--or not recuse themselves in a particular case
before the Court, and that those decisions are final and unreviewable.
Recusal decisions, left to each individual justice to make on his or
her own and with no opportunity for review, require that each justice
be a judge in their own case.
Questions of impartiality erode the integrity of the Court and
threaten to undermine public trust in our judicial system. The recusal
process for Supreme Court justices must be reformed to provide an open
and reviewable process.
A Supreme Court Justice's Recusal Decisions Should Be Transparent and
Reviewable
(By the Alliance for Justice)
The recusal process for Supreme Court justices needs
transparency and accountability. Although there is a statute
governing recusal--28 U.S.C. Sec. 4551--that applies to
Supreme Court justices, the statute does not require
individual justices to explain their recusal decisions, and
those decisions are final and unreviewable. This system
violates the basic maxim that no one should be a judge in his
own case. It also ignores the fact that the standard to be
applied in recusal cases is the appearance of bias, which by
necessity depends on the views of others, and not the
justice's own views of his or her impartiality. Exacerbating
this lack of accountability is a lack of transparency, as
justices are not required to issue a written opinion
explaining a recusal decision.
That's why over 100 law professors recently sent a letter
calling on Congress to hold hearings and implement
legislation to increase the transparency and accountability
of recusal decisions.
A recent Supreme Court case, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal,
Inc. provides an object lesson in the hazards of a self-
policing judiciary, in which individual judges determine
whether or not their impartiality can reasonably be
questioned. In Caperton, West Virginia Justice Brent D.
Benjamin received substantial campaign contributions made
directly or indirectly from the president of a company with
an outstanding $50 million judgment against it on appeal
before the judge. Justice Benjamin denied three motions to
recuse himself, and then voted in the 3-2 majority to reverse
the judgment against the company. A public opinion poll
indicated that 67% of West Virginians doubted Justice
Benjamin would be fair and impartial.
The Supreme Court reversed Justice Benjamin's decisions not
to recuse himself on the basis that the risk of actual bias
was so high that it violated petitioners' constitutional due
process rights. It did not matter what Justice Benjamin
thought of his own potential for bias, the key was whether
the appearance of impartiality was compromised, the Court
held. The Court emphasized the need for an objective test to
evaluate whether an interest rises to such a degree that the
average judge might become biased, rather than relying on a
judge's self-evaluation of actual bias. ``The difficulties of
inquiring into actual bias and the fact that the inquiry is
often a private one, simply underscore the need for objective
rules,'' the Court added. The Court held that the need for an
independent inquiry is particularly important ``where, as
here, there is no procedure for judicial factfinding and the
sole trier of fact is the one accused of bias.''
The opacity and lack of accountability of the recusal
process erodes public confidence in the integrity of the
Court and the sense that justice is being administered
fairly. For example:
In 2003, a prominent legal ethicist argued that Justice
Breyer should have recused from Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America v. Walsh, in which an association of
drug manufacturers, including three in which Justice Breyer
held stock, brought suit challenging the constitutionality of
state regulations aimed at keeping drug costs down for
consumers. Justice Breyer chose not to recuse himself,
despite his potential financial conflict of interest.
In 2004, just weeks after the Supreme Court granted
certiorari in a public records case brought by the Sierra
Club against then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Justice Scalia
went duck hunting with Cheney and accepted a free ride on the
Vice President's plane. Despite widespread public criticism
questioning his appearance of bias in the case, Justice
Scalia refused to recuse himself. In a memorandum opinion
denying the Sierra Club's motion to recuse, Justice Scalia
wrote that he ``would have been pleased to demonstrate [his]
integrity'' by disqualifying himself from the case, but
nonetheless decided there was no basis for recusal. He then
cast his vote in support of Vice President Cheney's position.
This year, the advocacy organization Common Cause filed a
petition with the Department of Justice, requesting that it
file a Rule 60(b) motion seeking the invalidation of last
year's Citizens United v. FEC ruling on the basis that
Justices Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves.
The petition alleged the impartiality of both justices could
reasonably be questioned under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a) due to
their alleged attendance at a closed-door retreat hosted by
Koch Industries, a politically active corporation that
supported and has benefited from Citizen United's dismantling
of campaign finance laws. Common Cause also alleges that
Justice Thomas had an obligation to recuse himself under 18
U.S.C. Sec. 455(b), due to a financial conflict of interest
created by his
[[Page 10660]]
wife's employment at a conservative political organization
that stood to benefit from unrestricted corporate donations
made possible by Citizens United.
Also this year, Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and 73
other members of the House of Representatives have asked
Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any upcoming review of
the Affordable Care Act due to his wife's ties to
organizations lobbying to repeal the Act. Rep. Weiner asserts
that IRS records show that between 2003 and 2007, Virginia
(``Ginni'') Thomas was paid $686,589 by the conservative
Heritage Foundation, which at the time opposed health care
reform. He adds that in 2009, Ms. Thomas became the CEO of a
nonprofit, Liberty Central, which also opposed health care
reform, and that earlier this year, Ms. Thomas announced that
she had formed a lobbying firm, ``Liberty Consulting,'' to
advance various Tea Party legislative initiatives, including
the repeal or nullification of the Affordable Care Act. Rep.
Weiner alleges that these connections give rise to an
appearance of partiality, and a potential financial conflict
of interest that require Justice Thomas to recuse himself, if
the Affordable Care Act reaches the Court. While a judge's
spouse is not prohibited from engaging in political
activities, Judicial Conference Advisory Opinions
interpreting the Code of Conduct make clear that a spouse's
political activities may increase the likelihood that a judge
must recuse from a particular case.
These examples highlight the need for transparency and
review of recusal issues that arise for Supreme Court
justices. The impartiality of specific justices, and thereby
the integrity of the Court, has come under question because
the recusal statute fails to provide an open and reviewable
process. This needs to change, either through Congressional
legislation, or by the Court itself adopting new recusal
policies.
____________________
OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today our national debt is
$14,343,021,848,987.23.
On January 6th, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national
debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.
This means the national debt has increased by $3,704,596,102,693.43
since then.
This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children
and all future Americans.
____________________
ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA LETTER CARRIERS LEAD NATION IN COLLECTION OF
FOOD
______
HON. C.W. BILL YOUNG
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the third time in five years,
the men and women of the National Association of Letter Carriers Branch
1477 of St. Petersburg, Florida, led the Nation in food collection as
part of the national ``Stamp Out Hunger'' food drive.
Their chapter alone collected an astounding 1,770,814 pounds of food
that has been distributed to Pinellas County food banks, pantries and
shelters, many of which are affiliated with Feeding America. St.
Petersburg Branch 1477, combined with another local branch, Tampa 599,
collected 3,500,196 pounds, more food than in any other geographic area
in the Nation. In fact, these two chapters accounted for two of the top
five branch totals nationally.
Having spent time with many members of Branch 1477, I know of the
great pride they have in serving our community. They acknowledge that
the ``Stamp Out Hunger'' food drive is an outstanding partnership
between the National Association of Letter Carriers, the United States
Postal Services, the American Postal Workers Union, the National Rural
Letter Carrier's Association, Campbell's Soup Company, United Way
Worldwide, AFL-CIO, and local businesses including Uncle Bob's Self
Storage and Valpak, a major sponsor in my area. Most importantly
though, the level of success of this annual drive is due to the
compassion and support of the residents of our local communities who
place bag after bag of food out at their mail box on this one day of
the year to lend a helping hand to their neighbors in need.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking the National Association of
Letter Carriers for taking the initiative to sponsor the ``Stamp Out
Hunger'' program for these past 19 years and in congratulating the
letter carriers of Branch 1477 who serve from Dunedin through Largo,
Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and south to Punta Gorda, Florida, for
once again topping the Nation in the collection of food. This program
is in the finest American tradition of neighbor helping neighbor.
____________________
HONORING LOUIS AND SUSANNA HAGER AS CO-CHAIRS OF THE OTSEGO COUNTY
CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
______
HON. RICHARD L. HANNA
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Louis and
Susanna Busch Hager, co-chairs of the Otsego County Conservation
Association, serving as long-time stewards of Otsego Lake. The Hagers
are dedicated to the preservation of our most precious natural
resources, particularly Otsego Lake in Cooperstown, New York.
Mr. and Mrs. Hager have played a vital role in supporting community
education regarding the challenging present issues surrounding
development and maintenance of healthy lakes. They have also generously
supported numerous environmental campaigns and programs, most notably
the Otsego Lake Challenge Campaign.
It is with great honor that I rise today to commend the Hagers for
their tremendously positive impact on our community and its future.
They are being honored tonight for working tirelessly and devoting
countless volunteer hours to the Otsego County Conservation Association
and other community organizations. Through their significant
philanthropic contributions, future generations can have hope for a
clean and healthy living environment.
Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Louis and
Susanna Busch Hager for their invaluable contribution to this
community, our environment and our future. The positive results of
their contribution will be noted for generations to come.