[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[Issue]
[Pages 13729-13873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 13729]]
VOLUME 159--PART 10
SENATE--Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Edward J. Markey, a Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Gracious Savior, lead our lives so we will bring You pleasure,
receiving the smile of Heaven's approval.
Guide our Senators, inspiring them to do justly, to love mercy, and
to embrace humility as they walk with You. Lord, strengthen them,
making them eager to lift burdens and to respond to human needs. In
Your unfailing love, give them the wisdom to follow the leading of Your
powerful providence. Do for them immeasurably, abundantly, above all
that they can ask or imagine.
We pray in Your merciful Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Presiding Officer 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. Leahy).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, September 18, 2013.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Edward J. Markey, a Senator from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, to perform the duties of the Chair.
Patrick J. Leahy,
President pro tempore.
Mr. MARKEY 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 leader remarks the Senate will be
in a period of morning business, with the Republicans controlling the
first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes.
Following morning business the Senate will resume consideration of
the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.
We have tried really hard to work on this Energy bill. It is no
wonder the news is reporting today that this is the least productive
Senate in the history of the country.
We have a number of Republican Senators and lots of Republican House
Members who don't believe in government. They want to get rid of it.
They are doing everything they can to make that a fact. We are waiting
now to see what is going to come from the House to fund government or
not fund it. As the Presiding Officer knows, they are obsessed with the
constitutional law that has been in effect now for 4 years, declared
constitutional by the Supreme Court.
The latest we got from our floor staff is that the Republicans on
this Energy bill want five nongermane amendments and whatever other
amendments are filed dealing with energy, which means we are not going
to finish the legislation. That is an understatement. But we will
proceed. We have a number of issues we are going to work on. We have
one that we filed--what is called a rule XIV procedure--yesterday
dealing with continuing to allow our high-tech industry to be
competitive.
We will move forward doing the best we can. We will wait and see what
the House is going to do. They are still struggling to find out which
absurd idea is going to prevail over there.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 1513, S. 1514, H.R. 2009, AND H.R.
2775
Mr. REID. I am told there are four bills at the desk due for second
readings.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bills by
title for a second time.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1513) to amend the Helium Act to complete the
privatization of the Federal helium reserve in a competitive
market fashion that ensures stability in the helium markets
while protecting the interests of American taxpayers, and for
other purposes.
A bill (S. 1514) to save coal jobs, and for other purposes.
A bill (H.R. 2009) to prohibit the Secretary of the
Treasury from enforcing the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act
of 2010.
A bill (H.R. 2775) to condition the provision of premium
and cost-sharing subsidies under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act upon a certification that a program to
verify household income and other qualifications for such
subsidies is operational, and for other purposes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with
respect to all of these bills that were just read into the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The bills will be placed on the calendar under rule XIV.
____________________
HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
Mr. REID. Mr. President, each year Hispanic Heritage Month offers an
opportunity to honor the contributions of a community that has
contributed to our country's progress for centuries.
In the State of Nevada the influence of Hispanic Americans is evident
even in the name of the State, which means ``snowcapped.'' Of course,
our most famous city--one of the most famous cities in the world--means
``the meadows.'' It was a place that in pioneer days was an oasis in
the desert, and that is an understatement. Water from artisan wells
that bubbled out of the ground was the beginning of Las Vegas--the
meadows.
[[Page 13730]]
The first non-Native American who set eyes on Las Vegas Valley was a
man named Rafael Rivera. We honor him in Nevada. In my office here and
in my conference room I have a wonderful painting of Rafael looking
down over Las Vegas. He looked so good, all dressed in his finery, but
in reality he was lost. He had been with a Spanish expedition and was
lost, but he was the first to see Las Vegas, and we recognize that. The
picture is terrific. We see him looking down at a place where there was
nothing other than the meadows, but now there are 2.5 million people
there.
In Nevada and across the Nation we see the contributions of Hispanic
Americans in every facet of our society--on the battlefield, in the
boardroom, in the courtroom and the classroom, at art galleries, and on
the playing field. Hispanic Americans have also played an important
role in this Nation's Armed Forces, serving in every conflict since the
Revolutionary War. More than 2.3 million Hispanic-owned businesses
employ millions of Americans, providing critical goods and services and
helping to drive our economy.
Nationwide, Latinos are expected to make up about 60 percent of the
population growth in the decades to come. To ensure our country
thrives, we must ensure this Hispanic population thrives as well.
Hispanic Heritage Month should be one to celebrate but also one to
reflect on what we can do to help Hispanic families thrive.
This year affords a special moment for reflection as our Nation
commemorates 50 years since the historic march on Washington for Jobs
and Freedom. The struggle for equality, justice, and freedom is
ongoing, but through engagement Hispanic Americans and all Americans
can make heard in Washington their support for quality education,
quality health care, a living wage, and the right to vote without
intimidation or discrimination.
Congress heard their calls for quality affordable health insurance.
That is why we passed, among other reasons, the Affordable Care Act,
known as ObamaCare, which was a huge step forward for Hispanic families
and Nevadans across the country. In Nevada alone, more than 160,000
Latinos and more than 10 million nationwide who currently lack health
insurance will be eligible for coverage through the new marketplaces
that are going to start October 1.
Congress heard the calls for opportunity during tough economic times.
Democrats made small business loans possible for 11,000 Hispanic-owned
businesses. We have significantly cut predatory and discriminatory
lending practices that disproportionately affected Hispanic
communities. Last year Congress cut taxes for 98 percent of American
families, including every middle-class family.
Congress also heard the calls for fair, practical immigration reform,
and this year the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill that will
reform America's illegal immigration system and reduce the deficit by
$1 trillion. This measure will also help 11 million people--people who
are tired of looking over their shoulders and fearing deportation--to
get right with the law and start down an earned pathway to citizenship.
The Senate, though, is still waiting, as we have been waiting for lots
of things, for the Republicans in the House to allow a vote on the
Senate's bipartisan compromise. What better way to celebrate this
important month than by passing a bill that will allow millions of
families to stay together and reach their full potential?
I look forward to Hispanic Heritage Month as an opportunity to
reaffirm my commitment to supporting the 52 million Latinos in America
through our work in the Senate. To me, Hispanic Heritage Month is about
recognizing the incredible contributions of Hispanic Americans to our
Nation, but it is also about building a brighter future for Hispanic
Americans in our Nation.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
TROUBLING REALITIES
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this week we passed the 5-year
mark since the financial crisis hit our country. Incredibly, President
Obama tried to use that opportunity to take credit for the fact that
things aren't as bad as they were back then, and he is back at it again
today. Basically, his message is this: America isn't in a free fall, so
everyone should give him a big pat on the back.
Well, as far as deflections go, it is pretty creative, but it is also
pretty misleading because in an effort to justify his own failed
policies and preserve them, the President is papering over some pretty
troubling realities. The truth is, for most Americans, the past few
years have felt like anything but a recovery. It has been a story of
lost jobs and underemployment and the loss of dignity that comes with
both. It has been a period of stagnant wages and an increasing
disparity between rich and poor. Then there are all the young people
who have been stunned to realize, after graduating from college, that
there just aren't any jobs out there. So now is not the time for
victory laps because if this is his idea of success, I would hate to
see what failure looks like.
Today, nearly 8 million Americans who want full-time jobs can only
find part-time work. That is nearly twice as many involuntary part-
timers as we had throughout most of the previous administration. And,
of course, ObamaCare will make this much worse. What is more, the poor
and middle-income folks and those just starting out on their own are
some of the people who have been struggling the most in the Obama
economy. The unemployment rate for low-income Americans, for instance,
now stands at 21 percent--21 percent unemployment for low-income
Americans--right about where it was during the Great Depression.
The President likes to claim credit for jobs created since the so-
called recovery began, but what he fails to mention is that there are
still fewer jobs today than before the crisis hit, while real median
wages haven't gone up at all over the past 5 years.
Even though Candidate Obama promised to ``spread the wealth around,''
we find that 95 percent of recent income gains have actually gone to
the richest among us. Ninety-five percent of recent income gains have
gone to the richest among us. In other words, we are again faced with
the tragic irony that those on the left who claim most loudly to be
standing for fairness and equality often end up getting the worst
results for those who need help the most. To paraphrase President
Reagan's old line about the apostles of ``fairness,'' maybe they are
fair in one way: Their policies don't discriminate; they bring misery
to everybody--unless, of course, we are speaking of the elite of the
elite. We all know why that is. Because when government policies hurt
economic growth by stifling opportunities and drying up investment, it
is the American worker who loses. It is those at the bottom of the
economic ladder who suffer the most.
The best thing we can do to help the poor and working class is to get
the private sector growing again. And we know how it is done--by
implementing things such as a more competitive tax code, regulatory
relief, approval of the Keystone Pipeline, and, of course, repealing
ObamaCare, which is killing jobs.
The fact is that the policies of today's Washington Democrats
actually entrench unfairness and make the playing field even more
uneven.
Even the President's allies are beginning to understand. Big Labor
wants to rewrite some provisions of the same ObamaCare law they helped
muscle through. Why? Because, predictably, ObamaCare is now hurting the
40-hour workweek and undermining the kind of employer-sponsored plans
their members like and were told they would be able to keep. Union
bosses also know that the President recently agreed to delay parts of
the law for businesses. Now they want relief too. Why for business and
not for unions? But what about everybody else? What about the
[[Page 13731]]
middle class? What about college graduates or young couples trying to
make ends meet while they start a family? Don't those folks deserve
some relief from ObamaCare too?
That is why Senator Coats and I filed an amendment last week that
would allow everyone else to take advantage of the ObamaCare delay
already offered to businesses. If companies get to catch a break, then
Republicans think the middle class should too. The Democrats who run
Washington need to stop blocking us from even taking a vote on this
important legislation--legislation that already passed the House of
Representatives, by the way, on a bipartisan basis.
After all, as I have already indicated, ObamaCare is a big reason we
are turning into a nation of part-time workers and that so many
Americans will lose their jobs and the health care plans they like. It
is also one of the reasons the rate of those either working or looking
for work has dropped back to Carter-era levels--Carter-era levels--and
that the average time it takes to find a job is longer than it has been
literally in decades.
These are all good reasons not just to delay but to repeal this law
and start over with bipartisan reforms that can actually reduce costs
instead of killing jobs. I have confidence we will get there eventually
because the only person who seems to be happy with ObamaCare is the guy
it is named after--the guy it is named after. Because when everyone
from union bosses to working moms wants to repeal this act, it is hard
to escape the conclusion that the people standing in the way are more
interested in what is good for their legacies than what is good for the
country.
But, look, I am still holding out hope. I hope the President will
take this 5-year anniversary of the financial crisis as a chance to
reflect and to change course. I hope he will finally admit that what he
has tried thus far has not worked; that it is not enough to just
improve the lot of those who have influence in government; that he has
to work for the middle class too. I hope he starts working with Members
of both parties to start over on health care, to put our economy on a
sound and sustainable footing, to get spending under control so we do
not leave the same kind of mess to our children, as CBO again warned us
yesterday.
Most important, I am hoping he starts thinking of ways to give those
who are struggling in this economy a real chance to succeed. When he
does, Republicans will be here ready to work with him, as we have since
he first came to office.
I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the
time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the
majority controlling the final half.
The Senator from Texas.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as you know, today marks the fifth
anniversary of the 2008 financial panic which threw our country into a
severe recession and the worst economic crisis this country has had
since the 1930s. It has been 5 years since Lehman Brothers collapsed.
It has been 5 years since the Federal Government seized full control of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It has been 5 years since Washington bailed
out AIG, the giant insurance company.
In the weeks and months following the events of September 2008,
Members of both parties agreed that one of the most important things we
could do is to fix the idea of too big to fail when it came to some of
the largest financial institutions in America. Too big to fail--so the
only alternative was for taxpayers to bail them out.
We wanted to end it. Five years later, I wish I could say we had
succeeded. I wish I could say that too big to fail was a thing of the
past. Unfortunately, the very law that was passed by our Democratic
friends, primarily, that was supposed to end too big to fail actually
codified it, actually made it more certain to occur because it gave
Federal regulators the power to identify something called systemically
important institutions. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like too big to
fail if you are systemically important financial institutions?
We have already seen that systemically important firms enjoy huge
funding advantages over smaller competitors, primarily community
bankers in places such as my State, mostly because of the perception
that these large companies enjoy a government bailout guarantee. In
other words, their cost of doing business is lower because people
actually perceive they have a Federal Government backstop available to
bail them out if they get into trouble--not so for small credit unions,
community bankers in places such as my State and around the country.
In other words, Dodd-Frank, rather than weakening this concept,
actually strengthened the de facto partnership between Washington, DC,
and New York, and primarily Wall Street. That is the exact opposite of
what I think the American people thought was happening and certainly
the opposite of what they were demanding since 2008. It is exactly the
opposite of what our financial system needs in order to operate more
safely and to avoid taxpayer bailouts such as we saw following 2008.
This is just another reason the U.S. economy continues to slog along,
with the weakest recovery and the longest period of high unemployment
since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Nearly 38 percent of America's
unemployed have been jobless for more than 6 months. Let me say that
again. Nearly 38 percent of Americans unemployed have been jobless for
more than 6 months.
Those are tragic statistics because we all know that the longer
someone is unemployed, the harder it is for them to get back into a job
because they lose skills, they become less competitive in the labor
markets.
The only reason unemployment rates actually fell was not because the
economy was getting strong enough to create new jobs, but it was
because fewer and fewer people actually were looking for work. More and
more people actually gave up. All one has to do is go on the Internet
and look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics under something called the
labor participation rate, and we can see that the percentage of people
actually looking for work has declined to the lowest point in about 30
years or so.
A recent study concludes that America is still 8.3 million jobs away
from a full economic recovery--8.3 million Americans out of work who
need to be back at work in order for us to get back on track.
Is it any wonder that a Pew Research Center poll indicated that 52
percent of people feel as though our job situation has hardly recovered
at all since the great recession? Fifty-two percent think things have
not gotten that much better.
Nevertheless, there seems to be this divide, this gulf between
perception in Washington among the political elites and on Main Street.
For example, in an ABC News broadcast this past weekend, President
Obama said that since he took office, America has witnessed ``progress
across the board.'' I guess ``progress'' is a relative term.
But since the official end of the recession in June 2008, median
household income has declined by nearly $2,500. Average working
families have $2,500 less to spend, so, of course, they do not feel as
though we have had a recovery. They do not feel as though things have
gotten better across the board, such as the President. Of course, that
is before we even account for inflation. When we adjust the numbers to
reflect the increase in consumer prices, the drop in
[[Page 13732]]
median household income has been significantly larger than the $2,500 I
just mentioned.
The President says he is concerned about income inequality, about the
difference between the wealthy and average working families and the
poor. But the New York Times has reported that the trend of rising
income inequality ``appears to have accelerated during [this
President's] administration.'' It has gotten worse. Indeed, according
to one measure of the income gap, inequality has increased about four
times faster under President Obama than it did under President George
W. Bush.
Of course, America's income gap is mirrored by a yawning unemployment
gap. Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported that ``the gap in
employment rates between America's highest- and lowest-income families
has stretched to its widest levels since officials began tracking the
data a decade ago.''
Again, this is happening under a President who said rising income
inequality is morally wrong, a President who believes rising income
inequality is holding America's economic recovery back.
But the problem is not in his diagnosis, it is in his proposed
remedies, his policies. His proposed remedies for growing inequality
include more taxes, more spending by the Federal Government, more debt,
and more regulations. It is symptomatic of the idea that Washington
knows best. It does not, and we know because of the failed experiments
over the last 5 years. Of course, if such policies were truly part of
the solution, inequality would be declining. In other words, if the
President's proposed solutions of more regulations, more taxes, and
more Federal spending would work, we would be well on our way to an
economic recovery, unemployment would be back to historic norms, and
the economy would be growing. But it is not.
Then there is the cost of health insurance. This is another one of
the burdens on particularly small businesses and individuals which are
keeping the economy stagnant.
Back in 2008 the President famously promised that premiums for a
family of four would decrease by about $2,500 if we would just pass his
signature health care legislation, now known as ObamaCare, the
Affordable Care Act, but instead the cost has gone up by nearly $2,400
between 2009 and 2012.
So we have median household income going down about $2,500, but
actually the cost of health care, rather than going down, is going up
by about the same amount. For that matter, the cost problem will only
get worse once ObamaCare is fully implemented, as we are beginning to
see as we see what the premiums are like in the individual market for
people who buy their health care in the exchanges.
The National Journal found that ``for the vast majority of
Americans,'' premiums will be higher under ObamaCare. That is pretty
easy to understand because of the way it has been wired. For example,
someone has said, it is as though, because of the guaranteed issue
aspect of ObamaCare, someone can wait until they are sick to buy health
insurance and the insurance company has to sell it to them. So somebody
said: That is akin to waiting until your house is on fire before you
actually buy fire insurance. That is not insurance anymore, and that
runs up the cost for everybody, as does a phenomenon such as age
banning, where young people my daughters' age, in their early thirties,
are going to have to bear the cost of health care for older Americans
because they cannot charge older Americans any more than three times
more than what they charge young, healthy people such as my daughters,
even though their consumption of health care, we know, will not be
anywhere near that ratio.
As projected, the President's health care law will cause individual
insurance premiums to skyrocket all across America, including Texas.
Policies such as ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, as I keep hearing from my
community bankers, have increased the cost of doing business and
generated enormous uncertainty about the future. I was talking to a
businessman in Houston just 2 days ago. He said: The thing that is
holding America back, our economy back, is uncertainty. People don't
know what their taxes are going to be like, what the regulatory
environment is going to be like. They don't know about our failure to
deal with our national debt, now about $17 trillion. As the Fed begins
to wind down its purchases of our own debt, interest rates start to go
back up. What is that going to mean?
It is going to mean we have to pay China and other creditors more
money for the money they have loaned to us because of that $17 trillion
debt, and it will simply crowd out our ability to fund other priorities
such as national security, among others.
The story of our sluggish recovery is ultimately a story of wasted
human capital, again another tragedy. It is a story of mothers and
fathers who cannot find full-time jobs and who are having trouble
supporting their families. It is a story of college graduates who are
unemployed, living at home, and drowning in student loan debt.
As economists Keith Hennessey and Ed Lazear have written, ``The
severe recession was bad enough, but the slow recovery is doing just as
much damage to living standards since it is sustained over a longer
time frame.''
I would say to our President: If you care about reducing income
inequality, if you care about saving the American dream, let's try
something new. You know, the definition of insanity, one pundit said,
was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different
outcome. So let's try something new, because we know the status quo has
not worked. Instead of piling more burdens on job creators and making
it harder for Americans to secure full-time employment, let's embrace
policies that make it easier to create jobs and easier to get full-time
work. Let's reform our Tax Code so it is progrowth, make it simpler,
make it fairer, make it more logical, make it more conducive to that
strong economic growth that is going to create jobs.
Let's go back to the drawing board on health care and embrace
sensible patient-centered reforms that will reduce costs and increase
accessibility. We are never going to change our economic trajectory
until we change our economic policies. Again, doing the same thing over
and over again is not going to change the outcome. We need to try
something new.
The policies of the past 4\1/2\ years have given us an economy that
is failing to deliver the kind of job creation and income gains
Americans want and they need. As the President's own Treasury Secretary
said this week, ``Too many Americans cannot find work, growth is not
fast enough, and the very definition of what it means to be middle
class is being undercut by trends in our economy that must be
addressed.''
I could not agree with him more. So isn't it time to try something
different?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
____________________
ENERGY AMENDMENT
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I would like to follow up on some
of the comments by Senator Cornyn about these massive burdens on
American families, how it is impacting their lives, their quality of
life. Those are burdens forced upon them by this administration.
I rise to talk about an amendment I filed to the energy efficiency
bill that we will be debating today on the floor. This amendment would
stop President Obama's attempt to impose a massive increase to the
national energy bill. It will affect all Americans because, in a sense,
essentially what we have is a huge energy tax caused by government
regulations.
My amendment blocks the issuance of new carbon pollution standards
for new and existing coal-fired powerplants. Those standards are due
out from the Environmental Protection Agency this very week. They can
do great harm to the American economy and to American families.
We need to make America's energy as clean as we can as fast as we
can. Everyone knows that. It is important,
[[Page 13733]]
though, that we do it without hurting our economy and without costing
thousands of middle-class jobs. The American people, through their
elected representatives in Congress, have rejected President Obama's
reckless energy policies in the past. This past June President Obama
issued a Presidential memorandum directing the EPA to issue carbon
pollution standard regulations.
My amendment would require the approval of Congress for any
regulations causing increases of our national energy bill, just like
the one the EPA would create with these regulations. If these
regulations are allowed to take effect, they will increase energy costs
for the people who can bear the burden the least--seniors, low-income
families, small businesses.
High energy costs will destroy thousands of jobs in places such as my
home State of Wyoming but also in Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia,
Montana, and many other States. We have already seen coal-fired
powerplants shut down and reduce capacity, putting many people out of
work. That has been the President's plan all along. These new
regulations would be the latest step.
Remember, President Obama said that under his plan ``electricity
rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Skyrocket. That is his word, not
mine. He said energy producers could still build coal-fired
powerplants, but that the cost would be so high it would bankrupt them.
The President should be looking for ways to help businesses grow, to
help create jobs, not pushing his regulations to find backdoor ways to
bankrupt them.
My amendment accomplishes a number of goals, beginning with
protecting American jobs. That has been our focus in this difficult
economy. The Nation's recession ended more than 4 years ago. We have
not had the recovery, though, we should have had because the
President's policies have failed. The President promised he had a plan
to create so-called green jobs. People have seen that those green jobs
never materialized.
Now the President is going after the red, white, and blue jobs that
continue to power our country. The Obama administration and its allies
in the fringe environmental movement say we need to get rid of those
jobs to make way for new ones. They say coal miners and powerplant
workers should fade into history along with the men and women who built
stagecoaches, telegraphs, and record players. Their idea is that if we
simply let coal die, those folks can start making something new.
That kind of thinking is a luxury a lot of Americans do not want and
cannot afford. When excessive Washington redtape crushes a coal mine or
a coal-fired powerplant in a small community, those jobs are not the
only thing that go. The town loses its revenue base. That hurts its
public schools, its police, its fire departments, senior busing
services for those who cannot drive. Everything that town does to serve
its people suffers because of decisions made by this administration in
Washington, DC.
Before long, people start to move away, looking for a better chance
somewhere else. Small businesses do not have enough customers, so they
shut down, and the town withers away. When Washington uses the heavy
hand of excessive regulation, there are a whole host of ways it hurts
American communities. One of those ways is its impact on public health.
Studies consistently show unemployment increases the likelihood of
illness, hospital visits, and premature death. Families where a parent
is out of work are more likely to fall into poverty. Children in poor
families are four times as likely as other children to be in fair or
poor health.
The bureaucrats at the EPA can shake their magic eight ball to
predict health impacts of carbon pollution on virtual people who have
not been born yet, years into the future. But if their predictions are
wrong, and I expect they are, they will simply shake their magic eight
ball again.
Meanwhile, the health effects caused by their excessive regulations
are very real for real families, real children, real seniors. My
amendment addresses this public health issue. It does it by preventing
this massive unemployment that would result from new redtape and higher
energy costs.
Finally, my amendment is clear that Congress should act on an
affordable energy plan. Nothing in my amendment says Congress should
not work with State and local governments to protect communities from
severe weather events where lives are at stake. My amendment is clear
that these kinds of decisions should be for Congress to make, not for
the President to make on his own. That is true whether the President is
a Democrat or a Republican. I hope to get a vote on my amendment to
ensure that the Obama administration does not impose an increase in our
national energy bill on the American people.
Along the same lines, I want to speak briefly about another
opportunity we have to ensure a stronger energy future for our country.
This week will mark an anniversary that I hope will spur the American
people to demand some action from the Obama administration. Five full
years ago TransCanada first applied for permission to build the
Keystone XL Pipeline. President Obama still cannot make up his mind to
approve the permits. He dithers, he delays, he makes excuses.
It is time to act. It is time finally to approve the Keystone XL
Pipeline so America can start to get the benefits of this important
energy project.
According to the State Department analysis, the pipeline's
construction could support 42,000 jobs across the country. The
President should be grabbing any opportunity he can to help the private
sector create jobs. Instead, he says the jobs the Keystone XL Pipeline
would create are ``a blip relative to the need.'' Is this how the
President sees the livelihoods of 42,000 American families, a blip?
This is the fourth major pipeline project between Canada and the
United States since 2006. All the others were approved and the process
took between 15 and 28 months for each of them. The permit process for
Keystone XL is now 60 months and still counting. Why is it taking so
long? In October 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said her
department was ``inclined'' to approve the project. In July 2011, the
administration said it was ``publicly committed to reaching a
decision'' before the end of the year. That was 2011. The deadline came
and it went.
This past June, the President suddenly raised the bar. He said the
``net effects of the pipeline's impacts on our climate will be
absolutely critical'' in his decision. We know today what those effects
would be. Studies show the Keystone XL Pipeline would not have a
substantial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. That is because even if
the pipeline does not get built, the energy is still going to be
developed. China has absolutely offered to buy the energy from Canada.
This pipeline has the support of more than 70 percent of the American
people. It has the support of major labor unions, of every State along
its route.
A bipartisan majority in the House and 62 Senators support it. Still,
President Obama cannot make up his mind. He delays his decisions on
this vital infrastructure project and at the same time orders
regulations that would impose what amounts to a national energy tax. He
stalls a pipeline that would create thousands of jobs and at the same
time orders regulations that would destroy thousands of jobs. He stalls
a pipeline that would help middle-class families while he promotes a
policy that would take more money out of the pockets of hard-working
Americans. We need to improve America's energy picture, without
destroying jobs or bankrupting our country.
President Obama can help do that. He can do it today by doing two
things. First, he should drop his plan to impose a new increase on
national energy costs and let it be debated by Congress. Second, he
should immediately approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. If the President
is serious about helping middle-class families, he will prove it. If he
is not ready to join Democrats and Republicans in Congress in making
reasonable energy policies that help American families, then the Senate
should act.
[[Page 13734]]
Struggling middle-class families are asking for our help. It is time
to give them the help they need.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
15 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Affordable Care
Act. At home in Hawaii we have a saying, ``Lucky you live Hawaii.''
That can mean a lot of different things to different people, but when
talking about access to affordable, effective care, this phrase has
particular meaning.
In the early 1970s, the rate of uninsured in our State was about 30
percent, meaning roughly 1 in 3 in our population would live in fear
that sickness or injury could cause financial ruin for themselves or
their families. The people of Hawaii knew this was unacceptable.
In 1974, the State government passed an innovative piece of
legislation, the Prepaid Health Care Act. Now simply known as Prepaid,
this legislation requires employers to provide affordable and quality
care for hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families.
Our uninsured rate is one of the lowest in the country, with only 8
percent of our population lacking any type of insurance. Even though
Hawaii has been at the forefront in making health care a right and not
a privilege, we still have a way to go. Even with Prepaid, there are
more than 100,000 people in our State still uninsured.
When the Affordable Care Act passed 3 years ago, I knew it meant that
those who are uninsured or underinsured in Hawaii would find some
relief. We have already seen major successes since this landmark
legislation passed.
Yet people are still afraid of ObamaCare. This is because a lot of
people have spent a lot of time and money to make the American public
believe that somehow this legislation is bad for them and will harm
them. That is why, when asked about health care reform as a whole, many
Americans say they are concerned, they have anxiety. But when you talk
to people back in Hawaii and across the Nation, and even those who
think they don't like health care reform, they like what it does.
For example, parents like that they can keep their children on their
health insurance until the age of 26, which affects 6,000 young adults
in the State of Hawaii. People will no longer have to live in fear of
lifetime limits on health benefits, which will help more than 460,000
residents of Hawaii, including 115,000 children. More than half a
million people in my State will no longer have to worry about being
denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
As a State that has committed to Medicaid expansion, Hawaii will also
now be able to provide care to close to more than 68,000 residents
starting in 2014.
People like these policies. People like what health care reform is
already doing for them.
While my colleagues across the aisle are looking to repeal this
historic legislation, I am looking forward to how we can build on its
success.
Let me be clear. The fact that health care reform is working is
exactly why the detractors of the ACA are trying so hard to stop it
from being fully implemented. They know the American people are
embracing ObamaCare because of all the good it will do for our
families.
In particular, I am looking forward to the opening of our
marketplace, the Hawaii Health Connector, on October 1. Many of the
people I have spoken to want to know what the marketplace may mean for
them. Simply, the Hawaii Health Connector is going to provide a
consumer-friendly way for residents of my State to view and compare a
wide variety of plans. Then they will be able to pick the coverage that
best suits them and their families. My office has been in constant
contact with the Connector, and their staff in Hawaii has been working
tirelessly to set up the online and phone interface, and to provide
assistance and navigation in the form of kokua, a word in Hawaiian that
essentially means pitching in to help your neighbors and your community
with no regard for personal gain.
This is reflective of the values we have in Hawaii, that everyone
deserves to be healthy and have access to affordable and quality care.
That doesn't mean we still don't have a lot of work to do.
I am hoping a number of bills I have introduced, including the Rural
Preventive Health Care Training Act and the Strengthening Health
Disparities Data Collection Act, will be considered and voted on by the
full Senate in order to solve some of our worst issues in providing
care to rural and underserved populations in Hawaii and across the
Nation.
I believe ACA is working the way it should be. It is increasing the
number of insured Americans, promoting preventive care that will help
to reduce the human and financial costs of avoidable illness and
lowering the costs of care for everyone.
Many of my colleagues in Congress choose not to see any of this. The
only option for them is total repeal, with zero tolerance for open
discussion or compromise on this landmark legislation, but that kind of
thinking is what causes the gridlock Americans are so tired of. I
understand there will be parts of this law, which is a sweeping piece
of legislation, that will need to be amended over time to resolve any
kinks. These kinds of revisions have been done with every other
landmark domestic social policy that has been passed in this country,
including Medicare and Social Security.
I am willing, as are my colleagues on the Democratic side, to come to
the table and work with Republicans to make necessary improvements over
time, but I refuse to engage in the process of political and
parliamentary gymnastics designed to score small, short-term wins at
the expense of the American people and the economy.
It must be pointed out that anyone who wants to grind the entire
government to a halt over the implementation of this several-years-old
law will cause harm to the economy and harm to their communities,
because Federal funding provides essential services and programs to
constituents in every State and every county in every district. If
improvements or changes need to be made, they can be done through the
regular order with hearings, serious discussions, and bipartisan
support. Ultimately, what we are seeing in Hawaii and across the Nation
is President Obama's historic health care package is making inroads in
improving our health care system. Efforts to stop that cannot be
tolerated by Members of Congress and the people of this Nation.
I will continue to support its full implementation and look forward
to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate to build upon its
success.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
A MASSACHUSETTS PERSPECTIVE
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, today I am here to give my first speech
on the floor of the Senate. I do so with deep respect and reverence for
the history of this Chamber and for the giants of the Senate who have
served before us. From Massachusetts, our recent roster of Senators
reads like a history textbook: President John F. Kennedy, who inspired
a Nation--President Kennedy's desk is right here, and it is so
[[Page 13735]]
appropriate that my extraordinary partner from Massachusetts, Senator
Warren, occupies it today--the legendary Ted Kennedy--he had the vision
to make health care a right and not a privilege; Ed Brooke, the first
African-American popularly elected to the Senate; Paul Tsongas, a model
of independence; for 28 years John Kerry was a champion for the people
of Massachusetts. Now he is our chief diplomat to the world, his skill
already shown in his ability to bring Russia and Syria to the
negotiating table.
America is the greatest country on Earth.
My father drove a truck for the Hood Milk Company. He graduated from
the vocational program at Lawrence High School. My mother was going to
be senior class president in high school, but her mother died when she
was a junior. She had to abandon her college dreams to stay home and
take care of her younger sisters.
That was before the New Deal, before Social Security, and before
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In those days the only social safety net for
families was that one of the girls had to stay home.
I was the first in my family to go to college. I drove an ice cream
truck to work my way through Boston College as a commuter. I did the
same for law school. I took out Federal student loans, like so many
millions of American students have to do today.
Thanks to the people of our State, this son of a milkman is now
serving the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate.
I am a son of Malden, but I do not come just to occupy a seat in the
Senate. I come here to stand and to speak for all those families, to
seek change that uplifts those families and their future. To everyone
here I say: That will be how I conduct myself here in the Senate.
I come here today to discuss my perspective, formed by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, guided by its people, practiced in the
House of Representatives for more than 36 years, and open to new
knowledge, new ideas, and innovative ways to move our country forward.
From its inception, Massachusetts has thrived because it is a
wellspring for the advancement of humanity's ideas and ideals. Nearly
400 years ago the pilgrims braved an uncertain passage to Plymouth as
religious innovators, but the pilgrims would likely not have survived
the new world's harsh environment without learning new ways from the
native Wampanoag Indians--the ``people of the dawn,'' as their tribal
name translates.
So our bearings were set early in the Bay State. In a sense, we in
Massachusetts are all people of the dawn, looking over the horizon
toward a new frontier, striving to forge a better tomorrow.
It is no surprise that when America moved from farms to factories it
began in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has survived and it has thrived
because of our tradition of innovation and imagination.
We invent the materials that power our economy. We initiate the moral
discussions that advance a Nation. We are never satisfied with what we
have accomplished, instead, always pushing for progress and embracing
the promise of the rising sun. We know from experience that when we
invest in the future we create jobs here and now in our country.
During the last few decades, the pursuit of the possible that is hard
wired into our Massachusetts DNA has helped us weather tough economies
and rough international competition better than many other States.
We have become a high-tech, clean-tech, biotech hub for America and
for the world. At places such as MIT and at companies such as Bolt,
Beranek and Newman in Boston, the underlying architecture of the
Internet was envisioned and set in motion.
Earlier in my career, Congress passed three telecommunications bills
on a bipartisan basis that I helped author. They removed barriers for
innovation and unlocked opportunity for entrepreneurs, creating jobs in
Massachusetts and across the Nation by unleashing more than $1 trillion
of private sector investment in this emerging technology area.
Now the future of telecom is mobile. Massachusetts has several
hundred mobile companies. We have the strongest robotics centers in the
Nation. We have the burgeoning digital games industry centered in our
State. We are ready for the next generation of technology jobs because
we spent decades building our digital foundation.
Massachusetts was once the Nation's leading power producer, when
Melville wrote ``Moby Dick'' by the light of a whale oil lamp. Now we
are at the forefront of the most recent energy revolution.
Our electricity is getting cleaner, we are using it smarter, and it
is getting cheaper. Massachusetts is now the No. 1 State in the country
when it comes to energy efficiency. Just yesterday Boston was named
America's most energy-efficient city.
Our shores will host the first offshore wind energy farm in the
Nation. The same winds that brought the pilgrims to Plymouth Rock will
now power a new generation of jobs in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts is seventh in the Nation in solar installed per person,
even in a State more known for the perfect storm than for perfect sunny
days.
In Massachusetts alone, clean energy now employs 80,000 people across
5,000 businesses in our State.
If we continue our commitments to clean energy, we will put
steelworkers, iron workers, welders, and electricians to work building
a new backbone for a new energy economy in the United States and around
the world.
Massachusetts is the hub for biotech on the entire planet. We are No.
1 in per-capita dollars awarded by the National Institutes of Health,
supporting 35,000 jobs Statewide. Health is our first wealth, but in
Massachusetts it is also one of the best job creators.
We are an idea factory pumping out new concepts, creating new
companies that produce new jobs and discover cures for deadly diseases.
In Massachusetts, we recognize that education is a ladder of
opportunity that allows every child to maximize their God-given
abilities. The first public school in America was established in
Massachusetts. Today, Massachusetts students are No. 1 in the Nation in
math, in reading, and tied for No. 1 with New York in science.
For students in Massachusetts and around the country, we should never
let the big dreams of attending college be thwarted by the small print
of overly burdensome loans.
As children learn in an online environment, we need to make sure they
can grow, develop, and make mistakes that won't derail a promising
future. That is why I will soon introduce my do not track kids
legislation on a bipartisan basis to protect the privacy of children
online.
The value of our economy grows because it is imbued with our American
values. What unites us is the unshakable belief that no matter where
you come from, no matter what your circumstances, you can achieve the
American dream. We believe everyone should get a fair shot. No one
should be left behind.
It is time to get back to the values that made Massachusetts and this
country great. It is time to make real progress, creating an economy
that works for everyone. It is time to protect a woman's right to
choose. It is time to deliver to the LGBT community all of the
protections and rights under the Constitution.
It is time that we put real gun control measures on the books. The
horrific mass shooting at the Navy yard is the latest deadly reminder
that we need to do more to stem the tide of gun violence in this
country. Newtown, Aurora--these tragedies are not inevitable, they are
preventable. This senseless carnage must end.
We need a ban on assault weapons, and we need a ban on high-capacity
magazines. We need universal background checks combined with
comprehensive care for our mentally ill. We need to put an end to the
partisan gridlock that prevents even the most basic of gun control
measures from becoming law.
In the next few weeks we will see our seventh fight over our debt and
deficit
[[Page 13736]]
in the last couple of years. We need to break down this rampant
ideology that threatens to turn a government that works for the people
into a government that simply shuts down.
We must also end the mindless across-the-board cuts from
sequestration. Cutting programs such as Head Start will leave a
generation of kids lagging behind. Slashing investments in science
means the breakthroughs that create jobs and cure deadly diseases could
go undiscovered. Cutting defense spending mindlessly can undermine our
security.
We need a new transportation bill that puts union workers back out
there working, rebuilding our roads and our bridges.
While many economists have labeled the recent downturn a recession,
for our working families and low-wage earners it has become an economic
depression. Economic inequality tears at the fabric that makes our
country great. It turns ``E pluribus unum'' into ``everyone for
themselves.'' We must raise the minimum wage for the people who are
struggling to make it into the middle class.
We need to create an end to the era of climate denial. Climate change
is irrefutable. It is raising sea levels. It is giving storms more
power.
The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for
planets. We must put in place the preventive care of unleashing a
renewable energy revolution in wind and solar, in biomass and
geothermal, and in energy efficiency to avoid the worst, most
catastrophic impact of climate change on this planet. We are seeing it
on an ongoing basis not just here in our country but across the planet.
Our moral duty to future generations calls for us to address climate
change, but it also is an economic opportunity to create new jobs here
in our country.
I will soon introduce legislation that will call for America, by
2025, to reach a 25-percent target of clean energy and energy
efficiency improvements. This bill will create jobs as it cuts
pollution. And I will continue to work to pass climate legislation, as
I did in the House of Representatives.
I will also introduce legislation to fix our aging natural gas system
in Massachusetts and across the country, making it cleaner and more
efficient. We can use affordable natural gas and clean energy, built
and delivered through the work of union hands, to power new American
manufacturing centers. That is a job-creation triple play--generate new
energy, build new infrastructure, and manufacture new American
products.
We must not massively export our natural gas abroad or I fear we will
continue to export our young men and women to dangerous places all over
the world and lose opportunities to lower electricity rates here and to
increase the manufacturing jobs here in the United States.
Fifty years ago President Kennedy announced the ambitious goal of
sending an American safely to the Moon. He told us that we would need a
giant rocket made of new metal alloys, some of which had not yet been
invented. It would have to be fitted together with precision better
than the finest watch. It would have to be able to be returned to Earth
safely at speeds never before approximated by humanity. And it would
all have to be done in less than 8 years.
President Kennedy urged us to be bold. I say to this Chamber, it is
time for us to be bold. In this era of innovation, there are jobs that
are not yet imagined in fields that haven't been created with
industries that don't yet exist. We should be bold.
America watched with pride as Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon
and an American flag was planted as a symbol of our success. In this
Capitol Building, there is a flag that was brought back from the Moon.
It testifies to the returns we receive when we invest in American
ingenuity, when we seek the dawn of discovery, when we invest in our
people and in our industries, and when we follow the universal American
values of justice and tolerance and liberty and equality.
We can use our talents and our tools to help all people everywhere
build a more peaceful, prosperous future.
I look forward to working with every Senator in the months and years
ahead to make the 21st century more educated, more healthy, more
prosperous, and more fair than the 20th century was. That is our
challenge. That is our opportunity. But we must do it together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I extend my appreciation to Senator
Markey. I had the good fortune of serving in the House of
Representatives with him. When he decided to run for the Senate, I was
excited, and I am so happy he is here with us. The speech he just gave
indicates the work we should be doing. I have always admired him.
I appreciate very much what he has done for the State of Nevada in
many different areas. He has been at the forefront of protecting Nevada
from the ravages of something that could be an environmental disaster--
nuclear waste--and has been someone who has led the country in so many
different ways in recognizing the dangers of climate change.
In telecommunications, no one in the last 30 years has done more for
modernizing our telecommunications system than Ed Markey. So I
appreciate very much his good work.
As I sat and listened to this remarkably important speech, I thought
of the Massachusetts delegation--two new Senators, but what wonderful
Senators they are, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Ed Markey. The
potential they have is so astounding.
On the news today: This will be the least productive Senate in the
history of the country. People, such as the Senators from
Massachusetts, are being prevented from doing good. There is no better
example of that than the Senator who was on the floor listening to
Senator Markey, the senior Senator from New Hampshire.
A bill to make our energy consumption around America more efficient,
energy efficiency, a bill we should have done a long time ago--we can't
do it because we have the anarchists running the House of
Representatives, and they are doing a pretty good job over here too. I
would say about 40 percent of the Republicans over here are anarchists,
tea party-driven.
This Energy bill has five nongermane amendments, most of them dealing
with health care. The Republicans are obsessed with what is the law of
the land--ObamaCare. It has been the law for almost 4 years. The U.S.
Supreme Court has said it is constitutional, but that doesn't take away
their obsession to try to undercut this legislation, which is going
into effect in a big way on October 1.
It is a shame that we are not able to legislate the way we did.
Everything is a squabble and a fight. I came here more than three
decades ago having already had a legislative career in the State of
Nevada, and we have been able to work together to do so many good
things--until recently.
We are now waiting to see what the House of Representatives is going
to do, how absurd what it sends us is going to be. We know it is going
to be something really strange and weird because the Speaker has to do
everything he can to try to mold a piece of legislation to meet the
needs of the tea party, the anarchists. And I say that without any
equivocation. They do not want government to work on any level--not the
local level, not the State level, and certainly not here. Any day that
is a bad day for government is a cheering day for them.
So I am so impressed with the Senator's speech, but I am distressed
at what is going on here in the Senate as far as trying to get work
done. Bipartisanship is a thing of the past. Now all we do is
``gotcha'' legislation.
I was given this assurance by many Republicans: Let's do energy.
Energy efficiency--let's do it. We will work together on a bipartisan
basis.
And the first thing out of the box is something that will derail this
legislation.
So I am thankful that we have a new Senator who is as talented and as
good as he is, but I wish his talents could be better put to work here
in the Senate.
[[Page 13737]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I am proud to come to the floor today to
welcome my colleague Ed Markey on giving his first speech on the floor
of the Senate.
Long before I became a U.S. Senator, Ed Markey was in the House of
Representatives, became the dean of the Massachusetts delegation, and
has been out there working for the families of Massachusetts and the
families of this country. He has been a leader on issues ranging from
energy and the environment to technology and telecommunications, and he
knows how to get things done. That is very inspiring.
I just wanted to come by today to listen to his first speech,
congratulate him on his first speech, and to say how much I am looking
forward to working with my partner Ed Markey in the Senate. We are
going to do our best to get something done.
Congratulations.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2013
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1392, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1392) to promote energy savings in residential
buildings and industry, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Wyden (for Merkley) amendment No. 1858, to provide for a
study and report on standby usage power standards implemented
by States and other industrialized nations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I also would like to welcome the new
Senator from Massachusetts to this body. I listened to his speech, and
we will have some discussions over some of those items at some time, I
am certain. But I also listened to the leader's speech following that,
and I am a little bit disappointed in that speech.
He mentioned that we were the least productive Senate in history. I
think there is a reason for that, and the reason is that we are doing
dealmaking now instead of legislating.
I came here 16 years ago and have watched for a number of years as we
have legislated--and ``legislated'' means getting votes on amendments.
Getting votes on amendments happens much quicker than trying to make
some kind of deal to limit amendments. Yes, some of the amendments in
all those years have not been relevant to the bill we were talking
about. Usually, once they have been covered, they are kind of done with
and they do not come up on every bill. But the same tactic has been
used to stifle amendments to bills, even relevant ones.
Both sides are at fault. It is not just one side. Both sides are
stopping amendments from being voted on. We need to vote on amendments.
Of course, the first one up is one I have been working on. The reason
it is being brought up on this bill is that this is the first bill
after a recess on which we can put anything.
During the recess, there was a huge change in the health care reform
bill. That huge change was that the President decided he would exempt
Congress from being under the bill, from having to do the same thing
the rest of America will do. If you work in a business in America, a
private business, and your business does not provide insurance and you
have to go on the exchange--now, of course, the Senate and Federal
Government provides insurance, but we all agreed we would go on the
exchange because the American people had to go on the exchange. When we
go on the exchange, we should have to abide by the same rules as
anybody else who goes on the exchange.
Private business, if they say we are not going to buy insurance,
their people have to go on the exchange, and if they go on the
exchange, they cannot get a contribution from their employer for their
insurance. There is a subsidy for people who earn under, I think it is
$42,000 a year as an individual or $92,000 as a family. They can get a
Federal subsidy. They cannot get a subsidy from their employer.
The President decided, through the Office of Personnel Management,
that Senators should be able to move that contribution over to the
exchanges. That is different from everybody else. We should have to
live under the same laws we passed. That was the contention we made
when we put that amendment in the bill. That amendment went in the bill
in the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. It went in the
bill in the Finance Committee. It was agreed to on the floor of the
Senate. We said we ought to be under the same rules as everybody else
when it comes to the health exchanges, and we ought to try those health
exchanges so we can see what America is going through.
We did that. We did it--maybe did it to ourselves--but that is the
way government ought to work, with those who pass the law living under
the law. All we are asking for is a vote to see if the Senate agrees we
ought to live under the law the way the other people will have to live
under the law.
As far as delaying the bill, it only takes probably 30 minutes for a
15-minute vote. It should only take 15 minutes for a 15-minute vote,
but it takes 30 minutes at least, sometimes a couple hours for a 15-
minute vote, if it is a close one and they want to negotiate with some
of the people voting on it, but we ought to have to vote on it. We
ought to put our names on the line as to how we feel about having the
American people in a situation where their employer cannot contribute
to their health insurance if they go on the exchange and make that same
law apply to us.
I traveled Wyoming during the recess. We traveled about 6,000 miles
by car, and I did a lot of listening sessions. I never heard anybody
say, no, I think Congress ought to be able to continue doing what they
have been doing before; instead, Congress ought to come under the same
law.
There is a little addition to this bill that we did not put in the
original bill. Maybe that is what is holding it up. That little
addition to the bill is saying the President and the Vice President and
the President's appointees should come under the same rules as Congress
in this instance, going into the exchange. I hope the President, since
the bill is kind of named after him, would want to be under the bill
just like everybody else. If we are not going to allow contributions
from businesses to go to regular people who go onto the exchange, then
the same rule ought to apply to us.
That is pretty much what the amendment says. It clarifies the law and
makes sure the Office of Personnel Management cannot exempt us without
authority. It is more than a clarification, it is a complete reversal
of what we passed in this body. When we passed it, I think on the floor
it was unanimous. That means it was pretty bipartisan. That means we
all agreed that maybe we ought to live under the same laws as the rest
of the people in America.
Let's just have a vote on it. As I say, 30 minutes is about all it
would take for a 15-minute vote and we could move on to other issues.
That is the way we used to do things around here. It was not unusual
for a bill to have 150 amendments. I don't ever remember voting on 150
amendments because there is some duplication in amendments that are
turned in. There are also some people who realize, as the debate goes
along, that their amendment would not pass and they do not want it to
be voted on and lose when they might be able to win with it later. Of
course I am in favor of doing relevant amendments on bills. You will
find usually any amendment I am signed on to is relevant to the bill.
The reason this is an exception is because it came up during the
recess and the effect begins on October 1. I do not know what other
bills are going to come up before October 1. At the pace we are going,
this will not even make
[[Page 13738]]
it by October 1. Just voting on bills rather than trying to negotiate
it down to a 10-vote package--on the immigration bill I think we had 9
votes. It took us 3 weeks. There were about 200 amendments, probably
150 that could have been voted on and in 3 weeks I think we could have
been through 150 of them and it would have made it a better bill. That
is what legislating is.
All of those would not have passed. Maybe very few would have passed.
Maybe only 9 would have passed. But people would have had a decision
and would have been able to represent what their people back home are
telling them, and that is what we are supposed to do here. The reason
the Senate has the rules it does is so we can actually represent the
people back home. One of the ways we do that is through amendments.
Occasionally, there will be surprises that something that is not
relevant might wind up on a bill. Usually, if it is not relevant, it
gets defeated. There is usually a way to process a whole lot of
amendments in a hurry; that is, with a tabling motion, but we are just
not getting the vote. We ought to do some voting around here and move
on.
This is an important bill, and there are some good amendments that
have been turned in on which we would also like a vote. We should go
through them and then we can be a productive body. Then we could cover
a lot of bills that would go through in about 3 days, but we spend days
negotiating not having amendments, and when we have that pent-up
objection to our amendments not getting on there, it gets more pent up,
more angry, more divisive, more partisan as the process goes by.
What I have referred to, the way the Senate used to work--just vote
on amendments. We will not like all of them. We know some of them will
wind up in an ad against us when we run, but that has always been the
case and there is no reason to change it now.
I hope we vote on amendments and get busy. It is an important bill. I
would like to see the bill finished. We need to do a lot of things on
energy for this country, particularly to keep energy prices down where
people expect them to be. Again, let's vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I certainly appreciate the comments
from my friend and fellow Senator. He does speak to the obvious. We
have an opportunity for some amendments on what I think most of us
would agree is an important bill, this energy efficiency bill. How we
move forward is indicative of whether this is a body that is going to
start working, whether this is going to be a body that is defined as
dysfunctional or, as was suggested earlier in a report that came out
early in September, that this Senate could prove to be the least
productive in our Senate history.
That is not a title or a banner this Senator wants to wear. I think
we want to work around here. I think we want to try to produce. I think
we want to legislate. In fact, I know that is what I want to do. That
is why I applaud my colleagues, Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman,
for all of the effort they have given--themselves, their staffs working
with the chairman of the energy committee, his staff, my staff working
together for a couple of years now--to produce what I think is a pretty
good bill. This is a bill that is focused on a piece of our energy
portfolio, if you will, that is critically important: the aspect of
efficiency and how we work to use less.
What we have in front of us is not legislation that is controversial
in the sense that it is pitting different philosophies against one
another. We are bogged down in our own inertia and cannot figure out
how we even get to start. That is a pretty poor reflection on us. The
way we get to start is how we started this debate just a few days ago,
when Senator Wyden and I came to the floor with the sponsors of the
bill, Senator Shaheen, Senator Portman, and we said: OK, great bill. We
talked about the advantages of energy efficiency and all that Shaheen-
Portman delivers, this very bipartisan product and effort.
Then we started talking about amendments, amendments that would
actually strengthen this bill. We had no fewer than one dozen Members
come to the floor, on both sides of the aisle, talking about their good
ideas, how we are going to build in more efficiencies--whether it is in
our schools or public buildings; how we can help nonprofits. These are
all good, strong, healthy ideas.
Then we are here today and, as my friend from Wyoming has indicated,
we are stalled out. We are not moving forward. The majority leader
suggested this morning--his words, not mine--that we perhaps would not
finish this legislation. That is quite disturbing to me. That is quite
disturbing to me because if we cannot finish legislation such as an
energy efficiency bill, something that most of us would recognize is a
good approach to our energy issues in this country, what are we going
to be able to do on the very big stuff?
We talk about pent-up demand for amendments. Let me suggest there is
a pent-up demand for real energy legislation. For 5 years now we have
not seen an energy measure debated on the floor of the Senate. That
doesn't mean we have not passed some good energy bills. In fact, I was
pleased to work with the chairman in passing two hydroelectric bills
just before the August recess. These are good bills. These are truly
going to help us as we work to reduce our emissions, provide for jobs,
provide for greater electrification across the country. These are good.
But we have not had that good, comprehensive discussion about the
energy issues that have impacted our Nation in the past 5 years.
Think about what has happened in 5 years. Five years ago, if someone
had mentioned the shale revolution, people would not have had a clue
what they were talking about.
Think about what has happened with natural gas over the past 5 years.
The Presiding Officer knows full well because her State has the lowest
unemployment in the Nation. The Presiding Officer represents a State
where almost everybody has a job. In fact, most people have two or
three jobs.
When you think about the changing dynamics of an energy world, think
about it in the context of a timeline. What happened over the last 5
years? Boom. Think about what happened to the economy. We read the
articles from just a couple of weeks ago about how natural gas is not
only helping those who work in the industry, it is a rising tide that
lifts all boats. When people are paying less for their utilities, it
allows them to spend more on the economy, and as a result everyone is
benefiting. Our economy is benefiting and the unemployment picture is
improving.
We are seeing good, positive things because of our energy future.
Everybody seems to be bullish about it except us in the Senate because
we cannot seem to get an energy bill to the floor. When we do finally
have a bill, after years of good hard work by good folks wanting to do
the right thing, we get to the floor and we get stalled out.
Again, there is pent-up demand for amendments because what we have
known as regular order has not been so regular anymore. The chairman of
the energy committee, and I, as the ranking member, think we have
worked very hard. We have worked diligently on a daily basis to make
sure we are working within our committee. We are producing bills.
In fact, as I understand, our committee has produced more than half
of all the bills that have been reported and are ready for action on
the floor. We have rolled up our sleeves and said: There are going to
be areas where we disagree, but on those areas where we can come
together and make some good happen, let's make it happen, and we have
been doing that. But you know what. If a committee works hard and
produces good things and still doesn't go anywhere--wow. After a while
we wonder why we are working so hard around here.
I know why I am working hard. I am working hard because the people in
my State pay more for their energy than anyplace else in the country. I
am working hard to make sure we have jobs for Alaskans and jobs for all
people. I am working hard because I think
[[Page 13739]]
the energy policy is fundamental to everything we do. We need to have
the opportunity to have a full-on debate, and if we have some
amendments that are tough, that is the way it is. Nobody asked me to
come here and represent the people of Alaska because they knew that
every vote was going to be easy. That is not how it works. Let's take
some of the hard votes and let's get to the business at hand, which is
a good, strong, bipartisan energy efficiency bill. Then when we are
done with that one, I want to work with the chairman to address the
unfinished business.
I want to work on measures that will help us enhance our energy
production, whether it is with our natural gas onshore or offshore,
whether it is to do what we can so we truly become an energy-
independent nation or whether it is how we deal with some pretty hard
issues, such as how we treat our nuclear waste and how we are going to
move forward with an energy future that is based on renewables and
alternatives, which I am all about.
We all stand here and talk about an ``all of the above'' approach.
But you know what. People stop believing it when we just talk about it
and we don't do anything to enhance our policies because we cannot get
a bill to the floor. Then, when we get a bill to the floor, we
hamstring ourselves.
I am not ready to give up on this energy efficiency bill. I am not
ready to give up on energy policy or legislating in the energy sector
just because we are getting bogged down. We have to demonstrate to the
American public that we are governing. They are asking us to lead in an
area on which we have not legislated in 5 years.
I know my colleague from Oregon, the chairman, agrees with me when I
say we had some issues within our committee, and we are proud of the
work we have done. We have proposals that focus on how we can make
existing programs better or perhaps we need to repeal them. We have
worked hard on a bipartisan basis with the authorizers and the
appropriators to develop a good, solid proposal for how we deal with
nuclear waste. If we cannot move forward on energy efficiency, how are
we going to tackle these hard issues? How are we going to tackle the
issues as they relate to this amazing expansion of natural gas and the
recognition that we need to have an infrastructure that keeps up with
demand and everything else that is going on?
We are not giving up on this bill. We are not going to give up on the
good bipartisan work Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman have crafted.
There are many other Members who have stepped forward to say: This is
good stuff. Let's make it happen. So there is a lot of pent-up demand.
For those who have waited a couple of weeks for their amendment, good.
We need to address those too. But let's not sacrifice a good, strong
bill that can be made better by good amendments to the bill itself.
Let's not sacrifice that. This is a bill that has been in process for a
couple of years because folks are saying: I have to have my piece right
now. We can figure out how we craft an agreement that is workable from
both sides.
I am certainly prepared to continue that work, and if the deal that
has been offered at this point in time is not acceptable, OK, let's go
back and figure out what is going to be acceptable. Let's not throw in
the towel. This is too important. We have too much pent-up demand for
energy solutions for this country.
I am here to stay focused on the issues at hand, but what we have in
front of us--the bill we are working on--is a good, strong, bipartisan
energy efficiency bill, and I want to continue that. I know my
colleague, the chairman of the committee, wants to continue with that,
and I think that is our effort here.
With that, I thank those who have stuck with us throughout this past
week, but I am hoping we are going to be sticking with this for a while
longer and we are going to see this bill cross the finish line.
I know the chairman wants to speak as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I could see that we both--the Presiding Officer and I--
were riveted by Senator Murkowski and her remarks for a reason. Her
remarks were truly inspiring. I will just say I think the Senate needed
to hear Senator Murkowski's remarks, and I think that is why the
Senator from North Dakota, and all of us, were listening so carefully.
I just want to highlight some of what Senator Murkowski said. The
bill we are considering now is pretty much the platonic ideal for
consensus legislation. It pretty much follows the kind of rules Senator
Enzi and Senator Kennedy used to talk about--that wonderful 80-20 rule.
I remember Senator Enzi talking to me about how they would try to agree
on 80 percent but may not agree on 20 percent.
The Shaheen-Portman legislation has the Kennedy-Enzi type of
principle, where 80 percent of it is common ground that makes sense,
doesn't have any mandates, uses the private sector, and focuses on
efficiency which creates jobs. Frankly, around the world, some of the
other countries try to get ahead by paying people low wages. We are
trying to get ahead with legislation such as this, so we can wring more
value out of the American economy and save money for businesses and
consumers.
I think Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman are going to talk more
about the 3 years they put into meeting that kind of Kennedy-Enzi
principle of good government and finding common ground. I can tell
everyone that when they write a textbook on how we ought to put
together a bipartisan bill, these two fine Senators have complied with
it.
It is not by osmosis that they got the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable to
meet halfway with some of the country's leading environmental groups.
It is because--as the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from
Ohio demonstrated--they were out there sweating the efforts to try to
find common ground. Of course, neither side gets exactly what they
want, but that is how they built this extraordinary coalition.
Point No. 2 that Senator Murkowski addressed--and I think it is very
important as it was highlighted by my visit to the Presiding Officer's
State in the last few days--is the whole question with respect to
future legislation.
I come from a State--my colleagues know this--that doesn't produce
any fossil fuels. We are a hydrostate and we have renewables, so a lot
of people said: Ron is going to be chairman of the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources so nobody is going to talk about anything except
hydro and renewables.
The first hearing we held in our committee was on natural gas. The
reason why Senator Murkowski and I made that decision jointly is
because there ought to be bipartisan common ground on capping the
potential of natural gas for our country, our consumers, and the
planet. It is 50 percent cleaner than the other fossil fuels. We have
it, the world wants it, and a lot of companies are talking about coming
back from overseas because they want that pricing advantage.
What I have been talking about to Senators--and I do it at every
opportunity--is how do we find a win-win approach that is good for the
consumer and good for business and good for the environment? For
example, for natural gas we are going to need a way to get that gas to
markets, and that is going to mean more pipelines. So one of the ideas
that I want to talk about with Senators on our committee as well as off
the committee is, wouldn't it make sense to say if we are going to need
more pipelines, the pipelines of the future ought to be better, meet
the needs of the industry, and also help us get that added little
benefit for consumers and the planet by not wasting energy.
I saw folks in North Dakota working really hard to try to deal with
flaring and these methane emissions. So what I would like to do is
exactly what Senator Murkowski described this morning. She wants to get
a bipartisan energy efficiency bill, which is a logical place to start,
as the Senator said, on the ``all of the above'' strategy.
[[Page 13740]]
When we are done with that, we are going to move on to a whole host
of other issues and in each case take as our lodestar this kind of win-
win concept that can bring people together to find some common ground
so we can tackle big issues. If we do that in the energy context, we
will be doing something that helps create good-paying jobs, helps the
consumer, and is also good for the planet.
My sense right now is that we have a number of issues colleagues on
the other side of the aisle have felt strongly about for quite some
time.
I think there is a real chance--and I have been advocating for it--to
work out an agreement to deal with the two issues that have been
particularly on the minds of some colleagues on the other side of the
aisle--the health care issue and Keystone. Certainly I think there is a
way to find common ground on those two issues procedurally so we could
have a vote on two issues I have heard particularly conservative
colleagues say are extraordinarily important to them. At that point, if
our leadership could get an agreement on those two--and they could
negotiate on any other matters where we could agree--but what we would
ensure is we wouldn't have a situation where, in effect, a handful of
colleagues who want to offer amendments unrelated to energy efficiency
wouldn't be blocking dozens of Senators of both political parties who
would like to offer bipartisan energy efficiency amendments. That is
what we would face if we don't find a way to work this out.
I am part of this ``we aren't giving up caucus'' Senator Murkowski
described, because I think we came here to find a way to come together
and deal with these issues. I will say, speaking for myself, if there
is one thing I want to be able to take away from my time in public
service--just one thing--and I would say to Senator Murkowski that
apparently the Presiding Officer was a volunteer in my first campaign;
I was a Gray Panther, had a full head of hair and rugged good looks and
all that--she is denying that, I can tell--if there is one thing I wish
to take away from my time in public service it is what Senator
Murkowski alluded to, which is that we did everything on our watch to
find common ground and deal with some of these issues.
That is why Senator Isakson and I have a fresh approach that I think
will appeal to both sides of the aisle on Medicare. I have been
involved with Senators on bipartisan tax reform, and Senator Murkowski
and I have been working on energy. She said, Let's not miss this ideal
opportunity to put good government into action and that is by moving
ahead with the Shaheen-Portman legislation.
Let us get an agreement. I think it ought to be achievable in the
next few hours. I am going to go back--I have met with leadership on
both sides and I am making the case that I think there is a procedural
way out. I think Senator Murkowski described it with the goodwill she
demonstrated in what I thought was an inspiring address, and I can tell
the Presiding Officer thought the same thing. I think we can find our
way out of this.
I see the sponsors of the underlying legislation, Senator Shaheen and
Senator Portman, on the floor. I wish to thank them for the fact they
have consistently said throughout this process they are willing to work
with Senator Murkowski and me for this kind of procedural route
forward, and I think it is achievable, particularly if Senators reflect
on the outstanding remarks just given by the Senator from Alaska.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join Chairman Wyden
and Ranking Member Murkowski on the floor of the Senate today. I want
to sign up for the ``get it done caucus,'' because I think this is
legislation we can get done. It has bipartisan support from I believe
the majority of the Members in this Senate. I think if we can get some
agreement to move forward on this legislation and on the amendments, we
can show the public, which is very frustrated with what is happening
here in Washington, that we can actually get something done.
I wish to thank Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski for all of their
great work on the energy committee. I had the opportunity to serve my
first 4 years on the energy committee. It is a great committee. They
have done a terrific job of showing what it is like to be able to get
work done, to be able to get people to come together and figure out
where they can get agreement and move forward. It was in that spirit
that Senator Portman and I started working together 3 years ago, when
we were both members of the energy committee, on energy efficiency
legislation, working with the Alliance to Save Energy, and a number of
members of the business community, and with all of these groups that
have endorsed this legislation, to try and put together a bill where we
could find some agreement. There has been a lot of division around
energy issues in the last decade or so.
That is why it has been I think 6 years--actually since 2007--since
an energy bill has come to the floor of the Senate, because there are
those of us who believe the best way forward is to focus on fossil
fuels and more oil and gas. There are others who believe alternatives
and renewables, hydro and solar and wind, are the best way forward.
One of the aspects that is true in this entire energy debate, whether
one comes from North Dakota, as the Presiding Officer does, or New
Hampshire, as I do, is that energy efficiency benefits all of us. It
doesn't matter which form of energy one supports or which region of the
country one is from; this is a place where we can get some consensus.
It is agreement that allows us to move forward on job creation; it
allows us to move forward on saving on pollution.
We have had several Senators on the floor over the last couple of
days talking about the challenges of climate change and what is
happening with our weather. This is a way to save on those emissions.
It is a way to address cost savings. I have been to businesses all over
New Hampshire that have been able to stay competitive because they have
reduced their energy costs. In a State such as New Hampshire where we
have the sixth highest energy costs in the country, it is important for
us to figure out how we can lower those costs. That is one of the
things this bill does.
The other aspect of the legislation that we haven't talked about as
much on the floor is it reduces our dependence on foreign oil and
foreign sources of energy, so it is also critical to our national
security. As we think about our energy challenges in the future, making
sure we can produce the energy we use in the United States is very
important. As we think about what is happening in the Middle East, as
we think about the challenges we have to stay competitive in the world,
energy, as Senator Murkowski said so well, is something that affects
everything we do.
This bill has been criticized by some quarters for not being robust
enough. I appreciate there are provisions in the legislation I might
not have chosen to put in. There are others I would like to have seen
in it we didn't get consensus on. But I think that is what we are
talking about when we are talking about how do we reach consensus on a
bipartisan bill and how do we get something done that can get through
not only the Senate but the House. I think we have a good start in this
legislation.
The bill would do several things. First, it would strengthen national
model building codes to make new homes and new commercial buildings
more energy efficient. We know about 40 percent of our energy used in
this country is used in buildings, so making sure those buildings are
more energy efficient is critical. It is particularly important for
those of us who are in the northeast. In New Hampshire we have a lot of
old buildings because we are an older part of the country, so we have a
lot of buildings that have been there for a long time and we need to do
what we can to make them more energy efficient.
Then the legislation would also train the next generation of workers
in energy-efficient commercial building design and operation. It would
expand on
[[Page 13741]]
university-based building training and research assessment centers--
something that is very important as we think about the future
workforce.
Let me go back because when I talked about the national model
building codes, I wanted to make sure everybody is clear that these
building codes are voluntary; they are not mandatory. As Senator
Portman has said so well, there are no mandates in this legislation.
This is an effort to look at incentives, to look at how we can
encourage the private sector and consumers to be more energy efficient.
Then the bill also deals with the manufacturing sector, which is the
biggest user of energy in our economy. It directs the Department of
Energy to work closely with private sector partners to encourage
research, development, and commercialization of innovative energy-
efficient technology and processes for industrial applications. That is
a mouthful, but what it says is--and this is something we heard from
stakeholders, from those businesses that work in the energy industry,
which is they want to have a better working relationship with the
Department of Energy. They want to be able to feel as though there is
support there as they are trying to take technologies to
commercialization. It also helps manufacturers reduce energy use and
become more competitive by incentivizing the use of more energy-
efficient electric motors and transformers.
About 4 percent of energy use in this country is through electric
motors and transformers. I have been interested in transformers because
we have a company in New Hampshire called Warner Power that has made
the first breakthrough in transformer design in 100 years. If we can
get their energy-efficient transformers, or something like them, into
buildings and projects across the country, we could save significant
amounts of energy.
As we look at the manufacturing sector, the legislation also
establishes a program called Supply Star, to help make companies look
at their supply chains and figure out how to make their supply chains
more efficient. I can remember when I was on the energy committee and
we were talking about this whole issue of supply chains and we were
debating whether it was important to encourage companies to look at
their supply chains, people were saying, It doesn't make that much
difference in terms of the actual energy use. I pointed out that we
have a company in New Hampshire called Stoneyfield Farm that makes
yogurt--great yogurt. If my colleagues haven't had it, they should try
it. But they have been very interested in being more energy efficient.
They have looked at all of their processes and they have figured out
how they can do the best possible job at saving on energy. What they
discovered is their biggest problem isn't how they produce the yogurt,
it is the cows they depend upon for the milk to produce the yogurt
because the cows release so much methane. That was the problem in terms
of their supply chain and with the amount of energy they were using. So
helping companies take a look at their supply chain and figure out how
to reduce the energy use through that supply chain is very important
and it is an important piece of this bill.
Then the third section in the legislation deals with the Federal
Government. I know all of us know this because we are here and we are
working hard on energy. The Federal Government is the biggest user of
energy in this country. Most of that energy is used by the military.
About 93 percent is used by the military. The military understands it
is important for them to figure out how to be more energy efficient.
They have been real leaders in government--the Navy in particular, but
all branches in the military have looked at how they can be more
efficient in using energy. Our legislation tries to incentivize the
rest of the government to catch up with the military. So we would ask
agencies to look at data centers--and we have some very good amendments
from Senators Risch and Udall and Senator Coburn to take a look at data
centers because they are a big waster of energy in the Federal
Government. It would allow Federal agencies to use existing funds to
update plans when they are constructing new buildings so they can make
them more energy efficient. We have a number of amendments which would
also address how we can make the Federal Government more energy
efficient and be a leader as we look at what is happening in the
private sector to save on energy, so this bill is a very good start for
how to address energy efficiency. Senators Murkowski and Wyden have
said we have over a dozen agreed to, bipartisan amendments that would
make the bill even better. I hope we can get to those amendments. I
think it is really important for us to do this.
But to answer those people who say that this is just a little bill,
that it is not going to make much difference, I would point to a new
study that just came out from the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy. They looked at this legislation without the
amendments--and the amendments are going to make it better--and they
said that if we can pass this legislation, by 2025 the legislation will
encourage the creation of 136,000 new jobs, not just in businesses that
are going to be more efficient and so they can create more jobs but in
businesses that are producing the energy-efficient technologies that
are going to allow us to be more energy efficient. By 2030 the bill
would net an annual savings of over $13 billion to consumers, and it
would lower carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollutants by the
equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. That is a pretty
good savings and solution.
So, as we have all said, this is a win-win-win. It makes sense for us
to move on this legislation. It makes sense for what we can accomplish
with the legislation itself. It makes sense in terms of other energy
issues that are pending and what we need to do to make sure we position
the United States and our businesses and our families to be more energy
efficient to be able to compete in the new energy world we are
entering.
We need to start now to address energy, and I hope we are going to be
able to get by the impediments that currently face us so we can begin
to vote, so we can adopt the great amendments that have been proposed,
and so we can actually act on this bill.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
I am pleased to see my partner on this legislation on the floor to
talk about why we need to pass this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the
Senator from New Hampshire on the important benefits of this
legislation. I will start by saying I think we are pretty close to
figuring out a way to move forward if we can get both the majority and
the minority party leadership teams to look at the list. We have about
a dozen bipartisan amendments ready to go on. In fact, more than half
of those amendments have already been discussed at some length on the
floor, so I think the time agreement could be relatively narrow, and we
could move quickly. Some of them could be voice-voted. And then we have
some amendments that are not directly related to energy efficiency but
related to energy. I would hope we could take those up as well.
My understanding is that there has been a general agreement to have a
vote on the Vitter amendment. That is something I have heard on the
floor from leadership. And then we also have a Keystone amendment that
I think there is an agreement to move forward on that relates to energy
more broadly and one where I think this body has a strong interest in
expressing itself.
I hope we could figure out how to move forward on this and do it
quickly. We are wasting time right now. We have spent the last couple
days on the floor, again, talking about all these amendments. So if
there are concerns about time, let's get going because we can process
these amendments quickly. I appreciate the fact that the majority
leader is working with us. He is keeping the door open. So we are going
back and forth.
I really do believe this is a seminal moment in the sense that if we
cannot
[[Page 13742]]
even do a bipartisan bill like this on energy efficiency that came out
of the committee with a 19-to-3 vote, what can we do? It is an
important piece of legislation. It is not a major piece of legislation
like the continuing resolution or the debt limit or tax reform or
entitlement reform--things this body knows it has to address--but it is
a step forward, and I think it would provide a model for how we can
move forward on other issues.
We have spent 2\1/2\ years working on this legislation. We have been
able to garner the support of over 260 businesses and trade
associations that believe this is good legislation for our country.
That is one reason we got a 19-to-3 vote out of committee. That is one
reason there is a lot of support on the floor for this underlying bill.
It is ultimately about having a smart energy strategy.
I believe we should produce more energy here in this country,
particularly in the ground, in America, right now. I think that is good
for our economy and our country. We should also use it more
efficiently. This is an opportunity to have a true ``all of the above''
strategy--in this case, energy efficiency, going along with production
and other important elements of an energy strategy that makes sense. I
hope we will be able to make progress on this today and move forward
and start to have some votes on these good amendments that actually
improve the legislation, in my view.
The jobs issue is also one that is paramount. Think about it. There
is a report out that my colleague from New Hampshire talked about that
says there will be 136,000 additional jobs created by this legislation
by 2030. I think that is a low-ball estimate because there will be jobs
created in energy efficiency. In other words, by encouraging--not
through mandates because there are no mandates in this legislation
except on the Federal Government to get them to practice what they
preach, as we talked about yesterday--by encouragement and incentives,
there will be more jobs created in the energy efficiency field. That is
good for our economy.
More significantly to me, there will be jobs created because American
businesses will be more competitive. They will be able to spend less on
energy and more on expanding plant and equipment and people, and they
will be hiring more people as they level the playing field, in essence,
on one of the essential costs of doing business, which is the cost of
energy. We need that right now. Our economy is weak. We have not had
the recovery all of us hoped for. They say it is the weakest economic
recovery we have lived through since the Great Depression. We simply
need to have that shot in the arm. This is one way to do it. It is not
the only way to do it, but it would certainly help.
Finally, it is going to help our economy in ways that are important.
Right now we have a trade deficit, and it is driven by a couple
factors. One is China and the other is energy. Taking those two out
would be almost an even balance of payments. That trade deficit is
driven in part by the fact that we still have this demand for a lot of
foreign energy. By making these relatively small important steps in
energy efficiency, it will actually reduce our dependency on foreign
sources of energy.
As I said earlier, I think we should produce more energy in this
country. That is part of the answer, but part of it is also using it
more efficiently, using it more wisely, which I believe is a
conservative value, and it also happens to help on the trade deficit
and therefore will help our underlying economy.
These are all positive aspects of this legislation that I would think
Members on both sides of the aisle acknowledge. If we cannot move
forward again on something that makes so much sense, that does have
that kind of support across the aisle, I worry about whether we can
deal with these bigger issues that we must deal with for the American
people.
It also, of course, leads to a cleaner environment. Why? Because of
having to build fewer powerplants. And through efficiency you are going
to have fewer emissions.
This is why you have groups from the chamber of commerce--which is
key voting this legislation, by the way--to groups on the environmental
side saying this is good legislation. It makes sense. Strange
bedfellows when you have the National Association of Manufacturers and
the chamber of commerce and other business groups with environmental
groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, saying this
makes sense. Let's move forward with it.
I am hopeful we can move forward not just on resolving these
differences on what amendments can be offered and voted on but also
move forward on this underlying bill, send it to the House, where there
is interest in this bill, where there is on both sides of the aisle an
interest in taking up efficiency legislation, and then send it to the
President for his signature and actually be able to go home and say:
You know what. We did something here to help create jobs, grow the
economy, have a cleaner environment, deal with our trade deficit, and
again create a model for how other issues can be resolved.
For Members who are listening and who have not come to the floor yet
to talk about their amendments, I hope they will do that because we may
have a relatively narrow window now because of the fact that we are
spending so much time trying to resolve these differences on which
amendments can get a vote. I am hopeful we will have the opportunity to
start voting today yet. If we do, we can move quickly and we can
dispose of these issues.
By the way, some of the issues are not directly related to energy
efficiency. If they do not come up on this bill, they are going to come
up on another bill, so it is better, in my estimation, for us to go
ahead and have some of these debates, have some of these discussions,
go ahead and see the votes. Again, they should be subject to time
limitations. We should have a reasonable list. We think we have a
reasonable list now, going back and forth, and I am hopeful we will be
able to resolve that. But in the meantime, if Members can come down and
talk about their amendments, that would be very helpful for us to
ensure we can get to the underlying bill and move forward.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member because they have been
working very closely with us not just for the last 2\1/2\ years to put
together legislation that has this broad support, but more recently
they have been helping Senator Shaheen and me to ensure that we do have
on both sides of the aisle good lines of communication and the ability
to move forward with an energy bill. They care about efficiency. I will
let them speak for themselves, and they have done that ably earlier
today. But they also care about an energy agenda for our country, and
they view this as one of the first major pieces of energy legislation
that can lead then to other bills.
For those who would like to discuss broader energy topics but would
not have the ability to do it on this legislation--or maybe they do not
have their amendments fully formed on that--the commitment from the
chairman and ranking member is that they are going to have additional
energy legislation. I serve on the committee. I can tell you, I have a
strong interest in moving forward on some of the fossil fuel
legislation, for instance. They have made a commitment to do that.
So there will be other opportunities where we will have broader
energy legislation that deals with the production side, deals with the
important part of our energy strategy--in addition to energy
efficiency--that lets us truly have an ``all of the above'' energy
strategy. I thank them for that commitment and for their strong work on
this legislation. Once we move this, it will be much easier then to see
us move forward on these other bills. Success begets success.
With that, I am hopeful that Members will come to the floor and talk
about their amendments--I see one of my colleagues coming to the floor
now--and we can move forward with a good discussion on energy issues
and move to these amendments as soon as possible and then move to final
passage.
[[Page 13743]]
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I wish to thank my two colleagues from
New Hampshire and Ohio and, of course, my colleagues from Alaska and
Oregon as well for their leadership on this very important piece of
legislation.
I have four amendments that I would love to be considered, that I
would love to be included in the legislation, and I hope we are able to
move these forward. But let me just talk about two of those. I do not
want to take the Senate's time. I understand other Senators may be on
their way over to the floor to speak.
Let me first start with the Quadrennial Energy Review. This is
something on which I have worked with the Senator from Alaska and many
others in this Chamber. In fact, it is a bipartisan amendment. It is
amendment No. 1881. Our cosponsors are Senators Alexander, Begich,
Boozman, Coons, Heinrich, Tester, Tom Udall, and Wyden. Again, it is a
bipartisan group of Senators.
Basically, one of the things we have learned from the Department of
Defense is every 4 years they do a Quadrennial Defense Review, and that
helps them determine what is going on within their agency as an agency.
It helps them determine the strengths and weaknesses, the needs that
need to be addressed. It helps them plan, and it also helps us make
decisions. We want to make good defense decisions. The only way you do
that is by knowing what you have on hand and what you need.
Well, this is the same for energy. We have a lot of very well-
intentioned energy programs and ideas that either float around this
Capitol Building or float around the various Departments or that are
law right now. A lot of these programs exist, but they are not
necessarily coordinated. There is no one there who is really making
sure all of the dots connect and we are able to have a smart energy
policy.
So I feel like a Quadrennial Energy Review, every 4 years we would
go--the Federal Government--top to bottom, look at all of our energy
needs, look at our capabilities, look at our shortcomings, look at
where we need to focus our resources. Should we be doing research in
one area and should we be focusing on manufacturing somewhere else? But
this will allow us to have a good, solid review every 4 years so we can
make good decisions, so the various Departments can make good
decisions. Also, it will help industry know kind of what is coming down
the pike. It will help bring us together and coordinate in a very
positive and constructive way.
So the Quadrennial Energy Review, from my standpoint, is a very
important piece and building block. It is laying the foundation for
having a smart energy policy for this country. That is one thing we
need to recognize, quite honestly, here in the Senate. Again, we have
good intentions, but we do not always have a good, cohesive, and smart
energy policy. So the QER is something I hope we would be able to get
through on this legislation and get this legislation moving through the
process.
Let me give you one example, Madam President, on the Quadrennial
Energy Review.
We have in our country now a lot more domestic energy than we have
had in years past, and it is very exciting. In my State we produce a
lot of natural gas through horizontal drilling and fracking, et cetera,
and that is common in many other States around the country. I see some
Senators here where they have the same thing. Sometimes it is oil,
sometimes it is gas, sometimes it is both.
Let's take natural gas for one moment. We have people come into my
office, and they will say: Hey, this is great that we have all of this
natural gas now. Why don't we liquefy it and export it? Okay. That is
an idea. We ought to talk about that and think about that.
Or another group will come in and say: Hey, we have all of this
natural gas. Why don't we actually turn it into diesel fuel? Okay,
apparently you can do that. The technology is there. Let's talk about
that.
Then we have other folks who come to us and they say: Why don't we
take this natural gas and let's convert our diesel fleet over to
natural gas? Here again, okay, that all sounds good. But I do not think
you can do all three of those things. We do not have any mechanism
right now to coordinate that and put all of that together and get
consistent with our energy policies.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. PRYOR. Absolutely.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, it strikes me that the Senator's idea is
practical right now. Because you look at the changes we have seen in
the last 4 or 5 years--particularly in areas such as natural gas. We
were talking about it with the Senators from North Dakota. This would
be the point of the Senator's amendment, to get the policies of the
government to start being reflective of what goes on in the
marketplace. Four or five years ago in our State we were having pitched
battles whether to develop import facilities for natural gas. They were
pretty spirited discussions. People were getting hauled out by the
gendarmes and all of that.
Now we are having the same kind of battles about whether we ought to
build export facilities. Is that the Senator's desire, to make sure the
government and the policies of the government sort of keep up with the
times? It strikes me the Senator from Arkansas is proposing an
amendment that is particularly timely right now.
Mr. PRYOR. That is exactly right. I thank the Senator from Oregon for
his good question, because that is exactly right. We need some
mechanism to make sure we are consistent and coherent and cohesive in
our energy policy in the country. Things change. That is why you want
to do this about every 4 years. You do not need to do it every year. It
is too much work and too much going on. But just as with the Department
of Defense, things change. What happens is you get a benchmark from 4
years ago that suddenly you have a good comparison. You have a baseline
that you can look back to 4 years ago and see if you are making
progress, if your policy is going in the right direction.
Maybe in this case we have a lot of energy programs that are not
working very well. This will help us identify those. Maybe we have some
that are working great, that we ought to be spending more money on.
This will help us identify those.
I do thank the Senator for his question.
I do see we have other Senators coming to the floor.
Let me talk very quickly about one other amendment I have. It is the
voluntary certification program, here again, bipartisan, working with
Senator Sessions. It is amendment No. 1879. This is a very specific
amendment for some very specific industries: heating, cooling,
commercial refrigeration and water-heating products. This is not
economywide. This is very specific to those industries. But right now
what they do is they self-certify. They self-certify. I think they
should be allowed to continue to do that, assuming their certification
meets certain credible and scientific standards, which I think they do
now. If they do not now, they should.
But what this will do is actually save the government money. There is
no reason why the Department of Energy and others should be reviewing
this and making them do extra certification and more testing, et
cetera, when it has already been done right now to the standards
everyone should accept.
I could talk more about this. I do see I have a couple of colleagues
here on the floor. It is my understanding they would like to speak.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I hope we are moving to votes on this
bill, to votes on our ``no Washington exemption'' language. I certainly
continue to encourage that and continue to support that.
The reason that is important, particularly on this ``no Washington
exemption'' language is because unless
[[Page 13744]]
we act on October 1, what I think is a completely illegal rule from the
Obama administration that does create a special Washington exemption
will go into effect.
First of all, I think it is very unfortunate, sure is frustrating,
that I and others have to be here on the floor blocking an illegal rule
in the first place. Because, you see, on this point ObamaCare is clear.
The actual statutory language of ObamaCare says clearly that all
Members of Congress and their congressional staff go to the exchange.
It is crystal clear about that. All of us. In another section, section
1512, it also says clearly any folks going to the exchange lose their
employer-based subsidy. That is crystal clear.
Chuck Grassley, our distinguished colleague, authored this provision.
He could not have been more clear about where he was coming from about
the intent. He said at the time, ``The more that Congress experiences
the laws it passes, the better.'' He is exactly right. That is what
this is all about. That is what that provision is all about. Legal
experts such as David Ermer, a lawyer who has represented insurers in
the Federal employee program for 30 years, said clearly, ``I do not
think members of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in
the exchanges under existing law.''
That is very clear, particularly from the precise language of the
ObamaCare statute. So it is pretty darn frustrating that my colleagues
and I who are pushing this ``no Washington exemption'' language have to
be here doing this to begin with. It is all because of an illegal rule
to bail out Congress, to create out of thin air a Washington exemption
that will go into effect, unless we act, October 1. So that is why we
must act. That is why we must vote in a timely way.
The first thing this illegal rule says is, we do not know what staff
are covered so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of
Congress to even decide which, if any, of their staff have to go to the
exchange. That is a ludicrous interpretation of the clear statutory
language. It is ludicrous on its face, because that language says ``all
official staff.''
Secondly, and even more outrageous in my opinion, this illegal rule
says: Whoever does go to the exchange from Congress, from staff, gets
this very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy transferred from the Federal
employees health benefits plan which we are leaving to the exchange.
Where did that come from? That is not in ObamaCare. In fact, section
1512 of ObamaCare says exactly the opposite with regard to all
employer-based contributions. So where did that come from? It came out
of thin air. It came from intense lobbying to have President Obama
create this special Washington exemption.
I urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing and say, you know
what, the first most basic rule of democracy is we should be treated
the same as America under the laws we pass. That should be true across
the board, certainly including ObamaCare.
That is why the Heritage Foundation recently said:
Obama's action to benefit the political class is the latest
example of this administration doing whatever it wants,
regardless of whether it has the authority to do so. The
Office of Personnel Management overstepped its authority when
it carried out the President's request to exempt Congress
from the requirements of the health care law. Changing laws
is the responsibility of the legislative branch, not the
executive.
They also said:
Millions of Americans are going to be losing their existing
coverage and paying more for health insurance. Under the
Vitter amendment, so would the Obama administration's
appointees, Congress and congressional staff. They baked that
cake, now they can eat it too.
Similarly, National Review said recently:
Most employment lawyers interpreted that--
Meaning the ObamaCare language
--to mean that the taxpayer-funded federal health insurance
subsidies dispensed to those on Congress's payroll--which now
range from $5,000 to $11,000 a year--would have to end.
A little later in the same opinion piece they wrote:
Under behind-the-scenes pressure from members of Congress
in both parties, President Obama used the quiet of the August
recess to personally order the Office of Personnel
Management, which supervises Federal employment issues, to
interpret the law so as to retain the generous Congressional
benefits.
The Wall Street Journal has also weighed in. I think they are right.
The issue is the White House's recent ObamaCare bailout for
members of Congress and their staffs. If Republicans want to
show that they stand for something, this is it. If they
really are willing to do whatever it takes to oppose this
law, there would be no more meaningful way to prove it.
As I said, the author of this original provision of ObamaCare made it
perfectly clear where he was coming from. That is our distinguished
colleague Chuck Grassley. ``The more that Congress experiences the laws
it passes, the better.'' The distinguished lawyer regarding this area
of law, David Ermer, also said, it is clear: ``I do not think members
of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in the exchanges
under existing law.''
That is why we have to act and have to vote before October 1.
Finally, in closing, let me say, I want to be very direct and ask
Members and the public to beware of another approach to defeating this
``no Washington exemption'' language. That approach is pretty clever
and it is pretty cynical. That approach is to say: Oh, this is a great
idea, but we actually need to expand this to all Federal employees.
There are Members promoting this approach, particularly on the
Republican side. That will have one effect and one effect only: It will
help ensure absolutely, no ifs, ands, or buts, that my language does
not pass or that language does not pass. In fact, one of the main
Republican proponents of that language said in a meeting which I
attended: This will be perfect because under that scenario, under that
language, all Republicans can vote yes, all Democrats can vote no, and
it will be killed and we will keep the subsidy.
That is the game. That is the point. That is what is going on. We
need a straight up-or-down vote on this ``no Washington exemption''
language which is filed as an amendment to this bill on the floor,
which is filed as a separate bill. I very much look forward to that
before October 1.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
(The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the introduction of S. 1518
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. HATCH. 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. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. I wish to commend Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman for
their hard work in bringing a bipartisan bill to the floor that will
boost energy efficiency in government, in industry, and in commercial
and residential buildings. This bill will help increase our economic
competitiveness, enhance our national security, and combat global
climate change.
Energy efficiency improvements are a smart, cost-effective way to
reduce pollution, increase the competitiveness of our manufacturers,
and put people back to work in the building trades.
We don't have an energy problem in this country; we have a waste
problem. Last October the Department of Energy and Lawrence Livermore
National Labs calculated that we waste 57 percent of all energy
produced--57 percent. We are becoming more energy efficient, but we
have a long way to go, which is why the Shaheen-Portman bill is so
important.
I wish to speak about two changes I would like to see in the Tax Code
that would help us achieve our goals of energy efficiency. I have
worked on two bills in this regard and I will be speaking about them as
we go through this
[[Page 13745]]
session of Congress. I have noted amendments, but as I think the
Presiding Officer is well aware, to try to put a tax provision on a
bill that originates in the Senate causes what is known as the blue
slip when the bill is taken to the House, since all tax bills must
originate in the House of Representatives. Therefore, I will be looking
for opportunities to advance these two energy-related bills but will
not have the opportunity on the legislation that is before us.
Energy efficiency is as important as renewables, nuclear, and fossil
fuels in an ``all of the above'' strategy to meet the Nation's energy
demands. In fact, the cheapest, cleanest ``energy'' we have is the
energy we don't need because of energy efficiency improvements.
Our Tax Code in turn can be an effective tool in promoting energy
efficiency. Consider that buildings account for more than 40 percent of
our energy consumption in the United States. So by encouraging
businesses to make energy-efficient upgrades in their buildings, we can
reach substantial energy savings. A recent study by McKinsey & Company
backs me up. The study concluded that maximizing energy efficiency for
homes and commercial buildings could help our country reduce energy
consumption by 23 percent by 2020 and cut greenhouse gas emissions by
1.1 gigatons annually. This is the equivalent of taking all passenger
cars and light trucks off the road for a year.
Making buildings more efficient is more cost-effective than
developing new energy sources. Current building codes are already
making new construction significantly more efficient, but a boost is
needed for older structures.
Up to 80 percent of the buildings standing today will still be here
in 2050, so encouraging the retrofitting of existing buildings needs to
be a priority. Even buildings that are fairly new can benefit from
retrofitting. For example, Busch Stadium, home of the St. Louis
Cardinals, was built in 2006, but energy improvements in 2011 reduced
energy consumption by 23 percent.
We could see more successful projects such as this proliferate across
the Nation, but our current tax policies have not yet proved to be
meaningful incentives for making energy-efficient upgrades to existing
buildings. For example, the landmark upgrade of the Empire State
Building, which is under contract to lower energy consumption by almost
40 percent, could not qualify for a 179D deduction under the law's
current structure. Senator Feinstein and I are working on legislation
that would make commonsense reforms to the existing section 179D tax
deduction.
Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code provides a tax deduction
that allows cost recovery of energy-efficient windows, roofs, lighting,
and heating and cooling systems that meet certain energy savings
targets. Section 179D allows for an accelerated depreciation that
encourages real estate owners to make the significant front-end
investments in energy-efficient upgrades. The deduction is scheduled to
expire at the end of this year. By extending, modifying, and
simplifying this important provision, we can encourage energy savings,
create thousands of retrofitting jobs in the construction industry, and
reduce energy bills for all consumers--a win-win-win situation. Our
legislation would make this critical incentive more accessible and
effective for existing buildings that are currently using inefficient
lighting systems, antiquated heating and cooling systems, and poor
insulation. Upgrading and improving the 179D deduction will make
thousands of businesses more competitive and create good-paying jobs
right here in the United States.
In addition to commercial properties, our bill will also help promote
energy efficiency in private residences. Homes consume more than 20
percent of our Nation's energy, so we need to give American homeowners
a helping hand to increase the energy efficiency of their properties.
Our legislation does this by establishing a section 25E tax credit for
homeowners. Homeowners would receive a 30-percent tax credit of up to
$5,000 for making an investment in energy efficiency and reducing
energy consumption and costs. Simply put, it is an incentive that
encourages homeowners to choose the most inexpensive option for saving
energy. At a time of Federal budget constraints, we must prioritize tax
policies so they promote the most cost-effective methods of bolstering
our energy security. Performance-based energy efficiency improvements
can transform America's homes and lower energy bills for the families
who live in them.
Finally, our legislation targets the sector with the largest
potential for increasing energy efficiency in our country--the
industrial sector. Our bill offers focused, short-term incentives in
four areas to help manufacturers make the efficiency investments
necessary to innovate and compete. These critical areas include water
reuse and replacing old chillers that harm the atmosphere.
I have a letter dated September 17, 2013, from a large coalition of
business, labor, and environmental groups supporting the Cardin-
Feinstein approach to the reform of section 179D. The Real Estate
Roundtable spearheaded the letter, but 50 different organizations have
signed on. I want to quote one part of that letter. This is a quote
from the letter that was sent in support of the legislation:
The Section 179D deduction is a key incentive to leverage
significant amounts of private sector investment capital in
buildings. It will help spur construction and manufacturing
jobs through retrofits, save businesses billions of dollars
in fuel bills as buildings become more energy efficient,
place lower demands on the power grid, help move our country
closer to energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions.
I think that is exactly what we should be doing. These are the types
of incentives we should be working for. If you look at the groups that
have signed on to this letter, these are groups that understand how to
create jobs and that Congress can help in that regard.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter
be printed in the Record following my remarks.
Senator Crapo and I will be introducing legislation that will fix a
problem that is keeping energy-efficient roofing materials from being
deployed. This is a separate bill that I think could help us create
jobs, save energy, and help our environment.
The current Tax Code acts as an obstacle to retrofitting old roofs
with energy-efficient ones because, generally speaking, commercial
roofs are depreciated over 39 years. Our bill would shorten the
depreciation schedule to 20 years for roofs that meet certain energy
efficiency standards and that are put in place over the next 2 years.
By shortening the depreciation schedule, we are lowering the amount of
tax businesses would otherwise have to pay. They get the advantage of
their savings in the early years.
This change will create more jobs by encouraging the construction of
new roofs and by putting more cash into the hands of businesses. It is
good tax policy because the average lifespan of a typical commercial
roof is only 17 years. So this legislation corrects an inequity in the
Tax Code by aligning the depreciation period closer to the lifespan of
commercial roofs.
Securing America's energy and economic future requires a renewed
focus on energy efficiency. I hope we can pass the legislation that is
before us and send it to the House. I hope the House will send us a tax
bill that can serve as the basis for using the Tax Code to promote
energy efficiency.
Energy efficiency gains are a win-win for families, businesses, job
seekers, taxpayers, our human health, and the environment. We can
create jobs, we can help our economy, we can become more competitive,
and we can have a cleaner environment if we do the right thing with the
legislation before us and are able to improve our Tax Code to help
achieve those goals.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page 13746]]
September 17, 2013.
Re: 179D Tax Deduction for Energy Efficient Buildings.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Ranking Member, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives.
Hon. Sander Levin,
Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives.
Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: Our organizations and
companies represent a broad spectrum of the U.S. economy and
include real estate, manufacturing, architecture,
contracting, building services firms, financing sources, and
environmental and energy efficiency advocates. Many of the
entities we represent are small businesses that drive and
sustain American job growth. We support the tax deduction at
section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code, which encourages
greater energy efficiency in our nation's commercial and
larger multifamily buildings. As Congress continues to assess
comprehensive tax reform, we support section 179D's extension
and necessary reforms to spur retrofit projects in existing
buildings.
The section 179D deduction is a key incentive to leverage
significant amounts of private sector investment capital in
buildings. It will help spur construction and manufacturing
jobs through retrofits, save businesses billions of dollars
in fuel bills as buildings become more energy efficient,
place lower demands on the power grid, help move our country
closer to energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions.
Section 179D provides a tax deduction (not a credit) that
allows for cost recovery of energy efficient windows, roofs,
lighting, and heating and cooling systems meeting certain
energy savings performance targets. Without section 179D, the
same building equipment would be depreciated over 39 years
(business property) or 27.5 years (residential property).
These horizons do not meaningfully encourage real estate
owners to bear the immediate and expensive front-end costs
associated with complex energy efficiency upgrades. Section
179D allows for accelerated depreciation of high performance
equipment that achieves significant energy savings.
Current law has the perverse effect of discouraging energy
improvements. Utility bills and the costs of energy
consumption are part of a business's ordinary and necessary
operating expenses, and are thus fully and immediately
deductible. Section 179D is a critical provision because, by
encouraging greater building efficiency, it aligns the code
to properly incentivize energy savings. Moreover, relative to
the code's incentives for energy creation, taxpayers get more
``bang for the buck'' through efficiency incentives like the
section 179D deduction. Dollar for dollar, it is much cheaper
to avoid using a kilowatt of energy than to create a new one
(such as through deployment of fossil fuel or renewable
technologies). As a matter of tax, budget, and an ``all of
the above'' energy policy, section 179D checks all of the
right boxes.
Regardless of the ultimate result of comprehensive tax
reform, the section 179D deduction is scheduled to expire at
the end of this year. While the provision should be carefully
considered as part of the code's possible overhaul, Congress
should also extend this important incentive with reasonable
improvements that better facilitate ``deep'' energy retrofit
improvements in buildings. In this regard, the Commercial
Building Modernization Act (S. 3591) from last Congress--
introduced by Senators Cardin and Feinstein, and former
Senators Bingaman and Snowe--is a step in the right direction
of a ``performance based'' and ``technology neutral''
deduction that both of your committees have emphasized must
be the hallmarks of any energy tax incentive. Revisions of
the sort proposed by S. 3591 would improve the section 179D
deduction by providing a sliding scale of incentives that
correlate to actual and verifiable improvements in a
retrofitted building's energy performance. S. 3591 does not
select technology ``winners or losers'' but respects the
underlying contractual arrangements of building owners and
their retrofit project design teams, who are best suited to
decide which equipment options in a given structure may
achieve high levels of cost-effective energy savings.
Furthermore, any 179D reform proposal should ensure that
building owners have their own ``skin in the game'' of a
retrofit project--such as S. 3591's specification that the
financial benefits of the tax deduction cannot exceed more
than half of project costs.
Congress should extend and improve the section 179D tax
deduction before it expires at the end of 2013. We urge you
to look to S. 3591 from last Congress as the starting point
for further deliberations and refinements this fall.
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
ABM Industries; Air Conditioning Contractors of America;
Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute;
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; American
Gas Association; American Hotel & Lodging Association;
American Institute of Architects; American Public Gas
Association; American Society of Interior Designers; ASHRAE;
Bayer MaterialScience LLC; Building Owners and Managers
Association (BOMA) International; CCIM Institute; Concord
Energy Strategies, LLC; Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc.;
Council of North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association.
Danfoss; Empire State Building Company/Malkin Holdings;
Energy Systems Group; First Potomac Realty Trust; Independent
Electrical Contractors; Institute for Market Transformation;
Institute of Real Estate Management; International Council of
Shopping Centers; International Union of Painters & Allied
Trades (IUPAT); Johnson Controls, Inc.; Mechanical
Contractors Association of America (MCAA); Metrus Energy,
Inc.; NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development
Association; National Apartment Association; National
Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO); National
Association of Home Builders; National Association of
REALTORS'; National Association of Real Estate
Investment Trusts.
National Association of State Energy Officials; National
Electrical Contractors Association; National Electrical
Manufacturers Association; National Lumber and Building
Material Dealers Association; National Multi Housing Council;
National Roofing Contractors Association; Natural Resources
Defense Council; Owens Corning; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling
Contractors--National Association; Polyisocyanurate
Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA); Real Estate
Board of New York; The Real Estate Roundtable; The Sheet
Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation International
Association; Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors'
National Association; U.S. Green Building Council; Window and
Door Manufacturers Association.
Mr. CARDIN. 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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Economy
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, 5 years ago, as a result of the greed and
the recklessness and the illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country
was plunged into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression
of the 1930s. As a result, millions of people lost their homes, lost
their jobs, and lost their life savings. And about 5 years ago we were
looking at a situation where some 700,000 Americans a month were losing
their jobs--an unbelievable number. The stock market plummeted. There
was panic in the financial sector.
The good news is that to a significant degree we have stabilized that
situation. We are not losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. The
stock market is, in fact, doing very well. But what is important to
understand is that it is imperative we not accept the ``new normal''
for the economy as it is today because the reality is that today, while
the situation is better than it was 5 years ago, for the middle class
and for the working families of this country the economy is still in
very bad shape. And I am not just talking about a 5-year period; I am
talking about a generational situation.
Mr. President, you may have seen that just yesterday the Census
Bureau came out with some new and extremely disturbing statistics, and
it tells us why so many Americans are frustrated and angry with what is
going on in Washington and why so many people respond to pollsters and
say: Yes, we believe the country is going in the wrong direction.
What they are saying is true. They have every reason to be angry,
every reason to be frustrated. Of course, economically this country is
moving, in a very significant way, in the wrong direction.
This is what the Census Bureau reported yesterday: They said the
typical middle-class family, the family right in the middle of American
society, that median family income today is less than it was 24 years
ago. Median family income today for that typical American family is
less than it was 24 years ago.
In 2002, typical middle-class families, that family right in the
middle, made $51,017. Back in 1989, that family made $51,681. What does
that mean? It means
[[Page 13747]]
that 24 years later, after all of the effort and the hard work of
people, today they are worse off than they were 24 years ago.
Let's think about what that means. It means that despite the
explosion of technology and all of the robotics, all of the cell phones
and everything else that has made this economy more productive, the
median family income today is worse than it was 24 years ago.
I will give you an example of what that means. If during the period
from 1989 through 2012 that typical American family had received just a
2-percent increase in their income--just 2 percent, a very modest
increase--that family today, instead of making $51,000 a year, would be
making $81,000 a year. That is a $30,000 gap.
If over that 24-year period people had seen a modest--I am not taking
about a huge increase--a modest increase in their income of 2 percent,
which people certainly deserve, that family would make $81,000 a year.
Today that family is making $51,000 a year--less than that family was
making 24 years ago.
This is what the Census Bureau also reported. They said the typical
middle-class family has seen its income go down by more than $5,000
since 1999, after adjusting for inflation--$5,000.
They told us the average male worker made $283 less last year than
that same worker made 44 years ago. Do you want to know why people are
angry? They see an explosion of technology, they see an explosion of
productivity, and yet a male worker today is making less than a male
worker--the average male worker--made 44 years ago.
The average female worker earned $1,775 less than they did in 2007. A
recordbreaking 46.5 million Americans lived in poverty last year. That
is more people living in poverty than at any time in American history.
Sixteen million children live in poverty. That is almost 22 percent of
all kids in America. That is the highest rate of childhood poverty in
the industrialized world. That is the future of America. Over one out
of five kids in the country is living in poverty.
A higher percentage of African Americans lived in poverty last year
than was the case 15 years ago, and 9.1 percent of seniors lived in
poverty last year, higher than in 2009. More American seniors were
living in poverty last year than in 1972. Today, 48 million Americans
are uninsured, no health insurance. That will change as a result of
ObamaCare. But as of today, 48 million Americans are uninsured, 3
million more than in 2008.
So when people call the Presiding Officer's office in Delaware or my
office in Vermont and they say: You know what: we are hurting, they are
telling the truth. What they are saying is Congress seems to deal with
everything except the reality facing the middle class and working
families of this country.
People worry desperately not only for themselves, they worry more for
their kids. What kind of education will their kids have? Will there be
enough teachers in the classroom? Will their kids be able to afford to
go to college or will young working families be able to find quality,
affordable child care? What kind of job will their kids have when they
get out of high school or they get out of college?
Those are the questions that tens of millions of Americans are asking
all over this country. Here in Washington, we are not giving them clear
and straightforward answers. What makes this moment in American history
unique is that while the great American middle class is disappearing
and while the number of Americans living in poverty is at an alltime
high, something else is going on in this society; that is, that the
people on top, the top 1 percent, have never, ever had it so good. Last
week we learned an astounding fact I want everybody to hear clearly;
that is, between 2009 and 2012, the last years we have information on,
95 percent of all new income created in this country went to the top 1
percent--95 percent of all of the new income created in America went to
the top 1 percent.
The bottom 99 percent shared in 4 percent of the new income. So what
we are seeing as a nation is the disappearance of the middle class,
millions of families leaving the middle class and descending into
poverty, struggling desperately to feed their families, to put gas in
their car, to get to work, to survive on an $8-an-hour wage.
You have that reality over here, and then you have another reality;
that is, the people on top are doing better than at any time since
before the Great Depression.
Today, the top 1 percent own 38 percent of the Nation's financial
wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 60 percent, the majority of the American
people together, own only 2.3 percent of the wealth in this country.
When I was in school we used to--and I am sure all over this country--
study what we called an oligarchy. An oligarchy is a nation in which a
handful of very wealthy people control the economy, control the
politics of the nation. It does not matter about political parties
because they own those parties as well.
Guess what. What we used to look at in Latin America and laugh about
or worry about has now come home to this country. In America today, we
have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major
country on Earth. That gap between the very rich and everybody else is
growing wider.
I do not believe the American people feel that is what this great
country should be about; that the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the
wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns barely 2 percent of the
wealth. That is not the dream of what this great country is about.
Earlier this week Forbes magazine reported that the wealthiest 400
Americans in this country--400 people--are now worth a recordbreaking
$2 trillion--400 people worth $2 trillion; in other words, the
concentration of wealth is getting greater and greater and greater. The
wealthiest 400 Americans now own more wealth than the bottom half of
Americans, over 150 million Americans.
We could probably squeeze 400 people into this room. If we did and
they were the wealthiest people in this country, 400 people in this
room would own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of the American
people.
Just one family, one family in America, the Walton family, the owners
of Walmart, are worth over $100 billion and own more wealth than the
bottom 40 percent of the American people. One family owns more wealth
than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
While the middle class disappears, while children in this country go
hungry, while veterans sleep out on the streets, corporate profits are
now at an alltime high, while wages, as a share of the economy, are at
a record low.
Wall Street--the major financial institutions in this country whose
greed and recklessness drove us into this economic downturn and the
group of people the American middle class bailed out 5 years ago--is
now doing phenomenally well. So Wall Street drives the country into a
severe economic downturn. Wall Street is bailed out by the American
middle class. Wall Street now is doing phenomenally well while the
middle class is disappearing.
You want to know why the American people are angry and disgusted and
frustrated? That is why. In fact, the CEOs on Wall Street, the
executives there, are on track to make more money this year than they
did in 2009. That is the time in which Wall Street greed destroyed our
economy.
The American middle class is disappearing. Poverty is increasing. The
gap between the rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider. That
is the economic reality facing this country. The time is long overdue
for this Congress and this President to start, in a very forceful,
aggressive way, to address that issue.
But where are we today? Are we having a major debate on the floor of
the Senate as to how we are going to rebuild our crumbling
infrastructure and create millions of jobs? I do not hear that debate.
Are we having a debate on the floor of the Senate that says it is an
outrage that working people throughout the country are trying to
survive on a minimum wage of $7.25 and we need to raise that
substantially so that when people work 40 hours a week they can
actually take care of
[[Page 13748]]
themselves and their families and not go deeper into debt? Are we
having that debate? I do not hear that.
Are we having a debate which says that not only should we not cut
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but we should join the rest of
the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all of our people
as a right of citizenship? I do not hear that debate; quite the
contrary, this is the debate I hear. This is what I am hearing from my
colleagues over in the House and the Republican leadership over there.
What I am hearing them say is that while poverty is at an alltime high,
while our childcare system, early childhood education is a disaster,
what they want to do is continue sequestration and push for more
across-the-board spending cuts to Head Start, while elderly people
throughout the country who are fragile and hurting are dependent on the
Meals On Wheels Program, they want to continue cuts in that program.
They want to continue cuts in that program. While millions of
families are wondering how they are going to send kids to college, they
want to continue sequestration, making it harder for families to send
their kids to college. They want to continue cuts to unemployment
insurance and a number of other vital programs; in other words, instead
of addressing the very serious problems facing the middle class and the
working class of this country, what I am hearing from my Republican
colleagues is let's make a bad situation even worse.
Let me conclude by saying, instead of cutting the Head Start Program,
we should be expanding the Head Start Program. Study after study makes
it clear that the most important years of a human being's life are 0 to
3. Giving those little kids the intellectual and emotional nourishment
they need so they will do well in school is perhaps the most important
work we can do.
We have to increase funding for Head Start, not cut funding for Head
Start.
It is a moral outrage in this country that anybody here talks about
cutting back on the Meals On Wheels Program, which provides at least
one nutritious meal per day to fragile and vulnerable citizens. We
should not be cutting back on that program; we should be significantly
expanding that program.
I can tell you that in Vermont, if you talk to the people in my
State, they will tell you we have significant problems with our
bridges, significant problems with our roads, significant problems with
rail, significant problems with wastewater and water plants. People
want to invest in our crumbling infrastructure and make us a productive
nation. When we do that, we can create jobs.
Right now on the floor--I don't know if we are going to get to vote
on it--there is a very modest bill brought forth by Senators Shaheen
and Portman which talks about energy efficiency. In Vermont and
throughout this country, people are paying higher fuel bills than they
should, wasting enormous amounts of energy, and contributing to global
warming through greenhouse gas emissions because we are not aggressive
on energy efficiency, making our homes more efficient. We should be
investing in energy efficiency and creating jobs doing this.
The bottom line is we are in a pivotal moment in American history.
The rich are getting richer, the middle class is disappearing, and
poverty is at an alltime high. People are demanding that we create jobs
and address the problems facing this country. Yet we have folks who
want to make a bad situation worse by protecting the tax breaks that
have been given to the wealthy and large corporations and then cut back
on the needs of ordinary Americans.
I hope the American people will stand and say enough is enough and
that they will demand that, finally, Congress stands with the middle
class of this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. I rise to talk about the relentless assault on the poor
and hungry in this country that is being waged right now in the House
of Representatives and too often on the Senate floor.
The meltdown on Wall Street caused a recession in this country, as we
know, that was worse than anything we have experienced since the Great
Depression. Eight million people, eight million Americans lost their
jobs. Trillions of dollars in the stock market were wiped out. With
that money went the life savings of many middle-class families.
Many families lost their homes. Small businesses closed up shop. This
was an economic disaster that hit communities across this country as
hard as any natural disaster we have seen.
While Wall Street is doing well again these days, millions of
families on Main Street are still waiting for their situation to
improve. We are seeing new job creation, but millions of Americans are
still out of work. In fact, when we look at the chart on employment
rates, we see what happened in 2008 and 2009, the numbers of people who
lost their jobs. While based on the population we are holding our own,
we are just barely at this point keeping up with the population and
beginning to grow again.
What the House Republicans are saying is get a good-paying job or
your family will just have to go hungry. But there aren't enough good-
paying jobs, as we all know. To add insult to injury, they are slashing
job-training money, which makes absolutely no sense, job-training money
that States get to help Americans find work.
Economists point also to the irresponsible sequestration cuts as a
cause for this sluggish job growth.
In the Senate we have passed a budget that will replace the sequester
with a balanced solution to reduce the debt and balance the budget, but
a handful of Senators on the other side of the aisle are blocking us
from even being able to send negotiators to the House to finalize the
budget. We are now stuck with a policy that makes absolutely no sense,
that economists say is slowing down our economy and costing us jobs
because of political games, pure and simple, in Washington.
This is having a very serious effect on the wallets of Americans who
continue to find it difficult to put food on the table for their
families. This is very real. It is not a political game for American
families all across the country and certainly in my great State of
Michigan. Even those people who are able to find work are working for
less. In fact, wages as a percent of the economy are at 30-year lows.
When we look back, what has happened is not only is job growth not
coming back as fast as it should, we are seeing people who have been in
the middle class struggling by their fingertips trying to hold on or,
most of the time, much of the time, losing ground because we are seeing
wages going down, down, and down, even for the jobs that are available.
This is a situation that millions of Americans find themselves in
today. They are struggling to find work. When they do find work, the
salary isn't even close to what it was before the recession.
Many people have taken pay cuts to keep their jobs or they have had
their pay and benefits frozen for 4 or 5 years. Families who only 5 or
10 years ago were doing fine are now in dire straits.
Now the same Republicans who refuse to fix the sequester, who refuse
to work with us to get the economy moving again for millions of middle-
class families, again are trying to take temporary food assistance away
from the children and families who are out of work or who are working
one, two or three part-time jobs trying to make ends meet.
Let me stress as we debate the question of hunger and food assistance
in America, we know that many families receiving SNAP, the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, are working. They are working.
About half of those families receiving food help are working. They
are people with children and whose wages are falling behind so they are
no longer able to feed their families.
For those who have lost their jobs, SNAP is a short-term lifeline to
keep food on the table while they search for work. We know the average
new SNAP recipient only receives help for 10
[[Page 13749]]
months or less. Let me repeat that. A person who is coming onto this
program during this recession worked before they needed help. They are
getting an average of 10 months' worth of help so their family doesn't
starve while they are looking for work and trying to put the pieces
back together. Then after that they are going back to work.
What we also know is men, women, families on supplemental nutrition
assistance are using that money to feed their children. Nearly half of
the people who are getting food assistance help in this country are
children. We are looking now at nearly half being children, children
who are going to bed hungry at night while their parents are doing the
best they can to get back on their feet.
We see senior citizens who find themselves in a situation where their
only income is Social Security. That little bit of food help makes a
difference of whether they can go to the grocery store and put food in
the cupboard or not.
The real faces of food assistance are veterans who went to war for
this country, many of whom were injured and returned home only to find
they couldn't get a job or their disabilities made it impossible to
work. People with disabilities are the faces of food assistance.
Instead of honoring these men and women for their service, House
Republicans want to take away the little bit of help they get each
month to buy food.
If we add all of this, 85 percent of the faces of food assistance, of
SNAP, are children with their parents, people with disabilities,
including our veterans, and senior citizens--85 percent. The bill being
considered in the House of Representatives would kick millions of
children and their families off food assistance.
This is how majority leader Eric Cantor and House Republicans will
cut $40 billion in food assistance. That is what they will be voting
on, probably tomorrow. They do it by cutting off individuals and
families who need the assistance the most.
Under the Republican plan, which Eric Cantor says encourages people
to get back to work, benefits for a jobless adult without children
would be limited to 3 months every 3 years. They better eat a lot
during those 3 months.
That means if you lose your job and you are unemployed for 6 months,
half of the time you will be able to have help in order to be able to
put food on your table. Once you find a new job, you had better make
sure your company doesn't close and doesn't go overseas within the next
2\1/2\ years or you will not be able to have any help to put food on
the table as well.
It is important to note that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office has said that 14 million people will stop receiving food
assistance over the next 10 years the right way. As the economy
improves, they will get back on their feet financially and be able to
find a good-paying job. We built into our farm bill reduced costs in
SNAP because the economy is beginning to improve. But the House of
Representatives, the House Republican majority leader's bill,
eliminates families from food assistance the wrong way--by eliminating
food help to those who most need it: 1.7 million poor, unemployed
adults next year, whose average income is about $2,500 a year--$2,500 a
year; those are the folks who would lose help with food--2.1 million
low-income working families and seniors next year alone, 210,000
children who would receive cuts and would lose their school lunches
under the House Republican plan, and other unemployed parents and their
children--parents who want to work but can't find a job or a training
program to join--will be eliminated from help.
The Republicans say it is about getting people back to work. But this
bill cuts worker training and job placement for people who are trying
to get back to work, who are mortified that, probably for the first
time in their lives, they have needed help with food. They are people
who have paid taxes their whole lives and who got caught up in this
great recession and are trying to climb out but need a little help with
one of the things I think we would all consider pretty basic--the
ability to eat and provide food for their families.
People on SNAP want to work. They are like any American wanting to
work, but there currently are not enough jobs, which is why we should
be focusing on jobs and growing the economy. Right now we have three
unemployed workers for every job opening. It is better. I can remember
standing on the floor a few years ago saying the number was six
unemployed workers for every job, and then five, and now it is three.
But it is still three for every job opening.
Does the Republican plan do anything to help people find jobs or the
job training skills they need to get a good-paying job so they can care
for their families? No, absolutely not. In fact, the Republican plan
would offer cash-strapped States a truly perverse incentive. I had to
read this several times to see whether this was actually written down
this way. They are allowing States to keep half of the Federal money
that would be spent on food whenever they cut somebody off the program.
So the incentive is to eliminate help for people so the State can keep
half the money and use it for something else. That is in the House
bill.
Let me be clear: We have seen occasions of fraud and abuse in the
food assistance program, and that is why the Senate farm bill includes
major reforms to crack down on misuse and to make sure only people who
truly need help are getting help. We heard reports of people winning
the lottery, two in my home State, but who are still getting SNAP
benefits. That will not happen again under our bill. We have seen
liquor stores accepting food stamps when they do not sell much food. We
have reformed that to make sure that cannot happen again, as well as a
number of other areas where we can bring more accountability and
tighten up the program.
We want every dollar to go to the people I am talking about today--
who work hard all their lives, find themselves in a bad situation and
are trying to climb out but they need a little bit of help because
their children are hungry, because they are hungry. Maybe they are a
veteran or maybe they are a senior or maybe they are somebody with a
disability who needs a little bit of help. So we have passed real
reforms to crack down on abuses we have found, and we did it in a
bipartisan way in the Senate. I am very proud of that.
What House Republicans are voting on is nothing more than an
extremely divisive, extremely partisan political exercise that is, by
the way, going nowhere, and it is jeopardizing the passage of a 5-year
farm bill. We have never seen this kind of partisanship injected into
agricultural policy in our country before. It is shocking what has
happened in the last 2 years in the House of Representatives. And shame
on the majority floor leader and his allies for doing it now.
Our farmers, our ranchers, our small towns and rural communities and
our children and families do not deserve this. The 16 million people
who work in this country because of agriculture do not deserve this.
What is happening this week in the House of Representatives is not
about reality, it is about some fiction they have made up--an idea if
the stock market is doing well, if wealthy Members of Congress and
others are doing well, then surely everyone in America must be doing
well too. And anyone who isn't must be lazy or not trying hard enough.
The reality is most people in America are still struggling to get
back on their feet from the recession. There still aren't enough jobs
for every person who needs and wants one. The jobs that are there pay
less than they did 5 years ago, and families getting food help are
making about $500 a week. They do not have money in the stock market.
They do not have investment income. In fact, the average SNAP family
doesn't have more than $300 in assets--things they own. What they do
have, though, because of our policy of supporting those families, is
$4.45 a day to eat. That is right, $4.45 a day to eat--less than the
cost of one specialty coffee at our favorite stores.
But some Members of the House of Representatives have decided that is
[[Page 13750]]
too much, that $4.45 a day is too much for our disabled veterans, too
much for our senior citizens living on Social Security, too much for
our children, for families working multiple part-time jobs and trying
to figure out how to get out of the hole that was created not by them
but by others in the great recession.
We all want to spend less on food assistance, and the good news is,
under the Senate farm bill we all voted on, we do spend less. The
baseline for food assistance is going down. Why? Because the economy is
improving. There is $11.5 billion in reduced spending built into our
farm bill because people are finding jobs, and that is added to the $4
billion in fraud and misuse we have included.
Again, the Congressional Budget Office projects that 14 million
people will leave the supplemental nutrition program as the economy
improves because they will no longer need temporary help. Costs are
going down the right way, because the economy is beginning to improve.
And as it improves more aggressively, which is what we should be
working on together, we will see those costs go down.
I should also add that SNAP recipients are already going to see an
arbitrary cut, unfortunately, to their benefits on November 1 because
of the expiration of the Recovery Act help that temporarily boosted
assistance to families in need, which we did in 2009. So they are
already going to see less available for food.
If we want to continue to cut spending the right way, we should be
working together to invest in our economy, to support our businesses,
large and small, to outinnovate the global competition, to get rid of
the sequester and to help people get the training they need to find
good-paying jobs.
The Republican approach is like saying: You know, we are so tired of
spending money on wildfires--forest fires--so we will cut the budget
for the fire service. That isn't going to work. The fires will rage on
and they will only get worse. If we want fewer fires we have to find
ways to prevent fires and contain the fires in order to reduce the
cost.
The Republican approach is also like saying: We are tired of paying
for the cost of drought, flooding, and other crop disasters so we will
cut crop insurance. The government's cost of crop insurance went up
over $5 billion--50 percent--last year because of droughts and flooding
and so on. It went up 50 percent. And while we are seeing increases in
crop insurance, it is projected that food assistance is actually going
down $11.5 billion over the next 10 years.
Are the House Republicans proposing we eliminate help for farmers in
a disaster or just low-income families--children, seniors, disabled
veterans--when they have a disaster?
What is happening in the House right now is a complete reversal of 50
years of great American values. Today, in the United States of America,
one in six people say they do not know where their next meal will come
from--one in six Americans in the greatest, the wealthiest country in
the world. We have a long history in this country of making sure that
poverty and hunger are kept in check. In fact, Presidents on both sides
have understood this. President Ronald Reagan said:
As long as there is one person in this country who is
hungry, that's one person too many.
That is one person too many. I wish our House Republicans could hear
that and understand what he was saying. What would he have to say about
this effort now in the House of Representatives to blame the victims of
poverty and unemployment, to blame the children, to blame the seniors,
to blame the veterans, who only want enough food to be able to eat and,
for those who are able, to work and to get back on their feet and get a
job?
The House Republicans who are proposing these drastic cuts all have
enough to eat. We in the Senate are not living on $4.45 a day for food.
We have enough to eat. None of us wonder where our next meal is going
to come from, like the one out of six Americans. None of us have to
worry about whether our children will go to bed hungry tonight. None of
us have to skip meals so our children don't have to.
We in America are better than the debate that is being waged in the
House of Representatives. The good news for children, families,
seniors, the disabled and veterans across America is that the House
bill will never see the light of day in the Senate. It is time to stop
the political games around hunger in America. It is time to work
together and pass a 5-year farm and food bill, to grow the economy and
reduce the need for food assistance the right way--by making sure every
American has the ability to have a good-paying job so they can feed
their families and achieve their part of the American dream.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. A parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Just to make sure, because Senator Roberts--I had a
question. He has gotten some time from Senator Cruz; is that correct?
Senator Heitkamp wanted to make comments for a couple of minutes
following Senator Stabenow.
So this is what I would ask: After Senator Heitkamp is recognized, I
would be recognized. If Senator Cruz comes, I will stop at that time
and yield the time to Senator Cruz and then continue after he has
finished. That would be a consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROBERTS. Reserving the right to object, my remarks will only take
4 minutes to identify myself with Senator Cruz's effort on Benghazi. I
know Senator Inhofe would like to say a few words.
So perhaps I could start?
Mrs. BOXER. Well, if I could just say that I am happy to allow that
to go forward, but there needs to be a definite time. How much time
will all three Senators--my understanding was that Senator Cruz--for
how many minutes?
Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was 15 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. So if the Senator is asking that he take Senator Cruz's
15 minutes, I have no objection.
Mr. ROBERTS. I am not going to take all of the 15 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Well, if the Senator is asking that he take part of the
Senator's 15 minutes and count against Senator Cruz's time, I have no
problem with that whatsoever. So I would revise that to say that
Senator Heitkamp would be going for 3 minutes, Senator Roberts would be
going for 5 minutes, and then I would be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROBERTS. Reserving the right to object, it is a 15-minute slot
that we had intended, and I am sure the Senators will arrive.
Mrs. BOXER. When Senator Cruz arrives to take the additional 15
minutes, that is fine. So in other words, the Senator takes 5 minutes,
Senator Cruz comes, and I would yield to him for the rest of the 15
minutes. He is not here.
Mr. ROBERTS. I withdraw any objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I will be very brief, recognizing the
other urgent business the Senate needs to address, but I did want to
associate myself with the remarks of the very able and capable
chairwoman of the agriculture committee, Senator Stabenow.
We have a disaster in the making. It is called the farm bill. Months
ago this body passed a comprehensive farm bill recognizing a 50-year
compromise, a 50-year association of nutrition assistance with the
ability to provide disaster assistance to our farmers in this country.
For 50 years that effort has served us very well.
Today and this week in the House of Representatives, they will do
something that is unprecedented in 50 years: They will segregate, pass
separate bills, and do a disservice to struggling, unemployed,
underemployed American families; that is, dramatically reduce the food
stamp allocation.
Food stamps are there when people need them in the same way that farm
disaster payments are there when
[[Page 13751]]
farmers need them. Anyone who thinks someone is living high on the hog,
so to speak, on food stamps needs to spend time with people who are
trying to make it work and feed their families on $1.40 per meal.
We know that with a recovering economy we are going to see a
dwindling number of those folks move on. Yet we see this move almost in
a way that is going to challenge this long-term relationship that has
basically enabled a great partnership between many of our urban and
rural legislators, Senators, and Members of the House of
Representatives, but also something that speaks to a very important
value we have, which is that kids ought not to go hungry in this
country. That is not who we are. We are not a country that allows
children and families who are working, in many cases, to go hungry. And
when they need that help, that temporary help they have been receiving,
they ought to get it because it makes sense. It makes them better
citizens, and it makes them better students. It tells us that, yes,
when times are very tough--as they have been for so many American
families--we will be there.
Let's not let this happen. Let's fight back. Let's continue to have
this conversation, and let's pass a comprehensive farm bill that
recognizes the need to feed people as well as provide disaster
assistance for farmers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Senator Cruz is now on the floor, and he
will be speaking right after me.
I thank Senator Cruz for his efforts to keep the focus on the
Benghazi terrorist attacks.
It seems to me to be a great shame that 1 year after the heinous
attacks on our consulate in Benghazi and four Americans being murdered
and--this is tremendously important--shaking the confidence of our men
and women deployed in service to this Nation that the United States
would never leave one of their own behind--I was told that when I
joined the Marine Corps a long time ago--it is a great shame that we
are still in the same place.
Justice has yet to be seen or done. The families of those killed at
the consulate in Benghazi are waiting for answers about what happened
that night, and they simply want to know that this President and this
administration are working to seek justice for what actually happened.
Yet it appears that what is happening is that the administration is
doing everything but seek justice. Quite frankly, I think Americans--
and I share their concern and frustration and anger--are sick and tired
of hearing excuses, delays, and even silence. The President and his
administration have stonewalled us on this case, in my personal view.
This should have been called a terrorist attack a long time ago. The
Intelligence Committee should be handling this, but that is not the
case. Today the FBI continues to seek tips from Libyans. The FBI has
even posted an entire page on their Web site dedicated to finding
suspects. There are photos of 29 suspects on that page. Twenty-nine. No
arrests have been made. CNN and The New York Times have even had access
to one of the chief suspects, Ahmed Abu Khattala, to interview him
while he mocks the U.S. investigation. This is unbelievable.
The administration refuses to answer simple questions:
Who told the military to stand down?
Who is responsible for misleading the American public and the
victims' families?
What actionable intelligence did our government have?
I know that there was actionable intelligence. People asked for that
security. Why was it ignored? This is why we need a joint select
committee.
At the very least, this deserves a vote. So I urge my colleagues,
please drop your hold. Let us at least have a vote. If you want to
defeat it, defeat it. But at least allow the Senator from Texas to have
an opportunity to debate this bill.
I thank Senator Cruz for introducing this legislation. I believe this
should be a top priority for our government.
I yield back any remaining time I have to the distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas for his
leadership and for his reasonable call that we ascertain the truth on
this very important matter.
As we do every year, last week as a nation we marked the somber
anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For the
first time this year we also remembered the victims of Benghazi:
Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and
Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was our first
Ambassador murdered while serving since Adolph Dubs in 1979.
The anniversary of the Benghazi attacks, however, should not simply
be an act of remembrance; it should serve as a wake-up call. An entire
year has gone by since these American heroes lost their lives in the
service of our Nation, and we still have far too many unanswered
questions:
Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level
of security in Benghazi?
Why were no military assets mobilized while the attacks were going on
even if they might not arrive before the attacks were over?
If then-Secretary Panetta had ``no question'' in his mind that this
was a coordinated terrorist attack while it was going on, why did
Ambassador Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the
American people that the cause was a spontaneous demonstration about an
Internet video in the days after September 11, 2012?
Why did the State Department edit the intelligence talking points to
delete the references to ``Islamic extremists'' and ``Al Qaeda''?
Why did the FBI not release pictures of militants taken the day of
the attack and released them only 8 months after the fact? Why not
immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing last April?
What role, if any, did the State Department's own counterterrorism
office play during the attack and in its immediate aftermath?
Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress?
Why do the Benghazi whistleblowers still fear retaliation and
retribution?
To get the answers to these questions, we need to hear from the
survivors of the attack to gain firsthand understanding of what
happened that night. We need to ensure that the whistleblowers on
Benghazi can tell their stories without fear of reprisal. We need the
President to make good on his promise of September 12, 2012, ``to bring
justice to the killers who attacked our people.'' That still has yet to
happen.
Over the past year it has become evident that we need a joint select
committee to get these answers because we have an administration that
is actively trying to avoid learning more about Benghazi. We have a
former Secretary of State who responds to congressional inquiries about
why we were attacked in Benghazi with ``what difference at this point
does it make?'' We have a current Secretary of State who responds to
congressional inquiries about why the administration deliberately
misidentified the nature of the attack by saying that he does not want
to spend a whole year ``coming up here talking about Benghazi'' to
Congress. We have a White House Press Secretary who responds to press
inquiries about difficulties in interviewing the survivors by simply
dismissing Benghazi as something that ``happened a long time ago.'' And
we have a President who complains that ``phony scandals'' are
distracting him from his domestic agenda, by which, his Press Secretary
clarified the next day, he meant the IRS targeting and Benghazi.
In addition, we have seen in recent weeks an escalating pattern of
obstruction by the administration into any investigation into Benghazi
and a reluctance to take any action to retaliate against the attack or
to prevent a future episode.
On August 14 there were press reports that the team of special
operators who were in Libya to track down those responsible for the
Benghazi attack were
[[Page 13752]]
being pulled out despite repeated recommendations for action, some as
recent as August 7.
On August 20 we learned that the only disciplinary action taken after
Benghazi would be reversed as the four State Department employees who
had been placed on administrative leave after the attacks were
reinstated.
On August 23 the State Department said it was ``not prepared'' to
allow the Benghazi survivors to testify to Congress--a denial that was
reportedly reiterated by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 10.
On September 11 we learned from the State Department's own internal
review that the Department is ``lagging behind'' in implementing the
new security measures recommended after the Benghazi attack, with, for
example, only 100 of the recommended 1,000 marines being deployed for
potential hotspots.
On September 15 we learned of serious allegations in a draft House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report that the
Accountability Review Board report requested by Secretary Clinton
whitewashed the responsibility of senior State Department officials for
the decisions that resulted in the lack of proper security at the
Benghazi facilities.
Just today at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Under
Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy admitted that the FBI
investigation in Benghazi has ground to an indefinite halt because of
the security situation in Libya. Mr. Kennedy also asserted in this
hearing that the reassignment of four State Department employees
represented ``serious accountability'' for the four Americans who died
in Benghazi.
This state of affairs is, in a word, unacceptable. Truth is not
partisan, and every Member of this body should want to ascertain what
happened. Given the yearlong collective failure of our government
either to gain clarity on what happened in Benghazi on September 11 or
to extract any retribution for the terrorist attacks, Congress should
now form a joint select committee to launch a proper investigation.
The attacks on our diplomatic facilities in Benghazi are part of a
larger threat we have faced for the last 12 years from radical Islamic
terrorists. We cannot let this anniversary pass with just ``a thought,
a hope, a prayer or a wish'' as Secretary Kerry recommended in an all-
staff e-mail to the State Department regarding the Benghazi attack. We
need a chief counsel who can systematically ascertain the truth and can
follow the actual facts of what happened that night to their full and
logical conclusion, wherever that may lie, so that we can honor these
American heroes and we can ensure that we are doing everything we can
to prevent this sort of attack from ever happening again. If we refuse
to seek the answers to these questions, then we are inviting future
tragedies.
We have four dead Americans. It has been a full year. My cosponsors
on this resolution and I have had enough without answers and without
the truth.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 225
I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be
discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 225, that the Senate
proceed to its consideration, that the resolution be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the
table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. I object and I would like to explain why, if that would
be appropriate for the next 2 minutes--if I could?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator may proceed.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud be a longtime member of the
Foreign Relations Committee for many years. When this Benghazi tragedy
occurred, the Foreign Relations Committee held hours of hearings. I sat
through those hearings.
I want to say to my friends, I share their dismay that we have not
caught the perpetrators. But I want to remind them that the President
who caught Osama bin Laden--who killed so many of our people--was
President Obama, and when he says he is going to do something he will
not rest until he does it.
Secretary Clinton immediately called for an Accountability Review
Board. That Accountability Review Board was not partisan. What my
colleague wants to do is set up some kind of committee filled with
politicians--of which I happen to be proud that I am one--but I put
more faith, frankly, in the professionalism and the nonpartisanship of
the Accountability Review Board.
Who headed that Accountability Review Board? Ambassador Thomas
Pickering, who was first picked for public service by George H.W. Bush;
and Admiral Michael Mullen, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
There are many other reasons why I oppose this. Secretary Kerry has
addressed this and continues to address it. We had two classified
briefings. The Select Committee on Intelligence is preparing to release
a bipartisan report on the events that occurred in Benghazi and, last
December, the Senate Homeland Security Committee released a bipartisan
report on the security deficiencies, and the good news is: Of course as
a result of this tragedy, changes have been made all over the world.
I sense there is politics here. I sense there is politics here. I do
not think it is right to inject politics into such a tragedy.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I can't disagree there is politics here.
This is the Senate. But let me say one thing. I strongly support this
amendment. Let me ask in the order of things right now, does the
Senator from Texas still have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Very good. I appreciate that.
One thing, as I read this resolution that my good friend Senator Cruz
has, I thought it really does not go far enough. I think all that
people are talking about now is how can we preclude this from happening
again, what happened and all that. To me that is not even the issue.
The issue is the coverup.
I sat there as the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services
Committee. I watched the day that this happened, 9/11, then of course
the annex came after that, 9/12, the next day. When that happened there
was never any doubt but that it was an organized terrorist attack--
never any doubt.
I happened to know Chris Stevens. He happened to be in my office
right before he was deployed there. He was telling me in my office how
dangerous it was over there. He said, you know, there are threats,
there are terrorist threats. Al Qaeda has a presence over there and we
do not have a lot of security, and he started requesting security. This
is a long time before this happened. I have all the dates. I did not
bring them down with me because it would be redundant. It has been in
the Record so many times, that he knew this was happening. We knew
there was this kind of activity in that part of the world and he wanted
to do something about it, offer more security.
He is dead now, and he knew what he was getting into at that time.
When the threats came for what happened on 9/11, people were aware of
that. Remember the Brits, they left and several others just up and left
because they knew what kind of threat was out there.
Anyway, what we did right after
9/11--and it is just a matter of hours after that they attacked the
annex. They cannot say for certain that the original attack was
organized. I think it was; it was an organized terrorist attack. But
they can say with certainty, and I will not use my words, I will use
their words, it was ``unequivocal,'' unequivocal that we knew at that
time it was an organized terrorist attack.
I remember when Secretary Panetta came forward and he used the same
word ``unequivocal.'' Then the CIA Chief Brennan, at that time--that
was his job--said, sitting in my office and
[[Page 13753]]
then again before a hearing, it was unequivocal that we knew it was an
organized terrorist, Al Qaeda-related attack. We knew it.
The coverup is this. I have studied coverups for a long time. Iran-
Contra, I went all the way through that. I remember that well. The
Pentagon Papers, Watergate, all of these things were coverups. But this
one, where 5 days after all of our people and the top security people
knew it was an organized attack, to send Ambassador Rice to the talk
shows to say, for purely political reasons and cover up the reality of
it, that this was due to some video--I will only say this. I would like
to pursue this in terms of the coverup, which is not covered in the
resolution we are discussing right now. I think it should be--it should
have been. I was not part of drafting it. I strongly support it. I know
where we are coming from, and I think we need to get to the bottom of
it. All the questions need to be answered. But the big issue that needs
to be discussed, that nobody likes to talk about, is the coverup.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from the
Foreign Relations Committee having already objected, but I wish to make
a few remarks because there are those--regardless of what is reviewed,
regardless of who comes forth, regardless of all the information--who
want to keep this alive for what are ultimately election purposes. I
know the next Presidential election is a few years away, but it seems
it is very alive in the Senate.
Look, I am always for getting to the truth, particularly when the
lives of American diplomats have been lost. That is an honorable
pursuit. But by the same token, from my perspective--and let me say why
I am going to have this perspective. My perspective is we have two of
the most outstanding individuals in Ambassador Pickering and Admiral
Mullen. Certainly, no one questions their integrity. At least I have
not heard their integrity questioned on the Senate floor. They
conducted the Accountability Review Board. In the process, they yielded
29 recommendations that are, in fact, being implemented, that our
committee has continued to pursue oversight in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. We have held two hearings. We have had multiple
level--high-level briefings, including intelligence briefings, bringing
all the respective parties who are responsible together.
In fact, we had the former Secretary of State before the committee at
a hearing I chaired at the time who addressed all of these issues. We
had before that, former Chairman Kerry, now Secretary Kerry. He held a
hearing of the committee on the events that transpired with Deputy
Secretary Burns and Deputy Under Secretary Nyes. We had two classified
briefings on December 13 and 19, specifically on the circumstances
surrounding the attack.
In those classified briefings, we had the key individuals who could
get us to the truth. I understand the Select Committee on Intelligence
is presenting a bipartisan report on the events that occurred in
Benghazi. Last December, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs chairman at the time, Senator Lieberman, and Ranking Member
Collins released a bipartisan report on the security deficiencies at
the temporary U.S. mission in Benghazi that led to the deaths of those
four Americans, including our Ambassador Chris Stevens. The House has
conducted its own hearings and investigations. Yet we have those who
want to continue to pursue this, despite all of these different
efforts, independent of the Senate, between the House, the
Accountability Review Board.
There is a lot of culpability, and maybe there is coverup in a
different sense. The coverup is a Congress that doesn't want to put the
money where it is necessary, to ultimately take the high-risk, high-
threat posts of this country and ultimately protect them. It is nice to
talk about who is responsible. Let's talk about who is also responsible
in terms of obligations. We have over 30 high-risk, high-threat posts
in the world right now--right now as we speak on the Senate floor--that
are at risk and that do not meet the present security standards. Yet
Congress seems to move ever so slowly toward getting to the resources
that would accelerate the pace on which we create the physical and
other protections for those high-threat, high-risk posts.
Those, of course, are the 30 that exist today. We know from history
that in fact what exists today as a high-risk, high-threat post,
tomorrow there could be another one on the list. So we have diplomats
who are at institutions that do not meet the present standards. Yet at
the pace we are going, based upon the appropriations of this Senate, we
would find ourselves a decade from now dealing with just those 30
posts. I would like to see the Members who do not seem to be willing to
vote for the security of diplomats abroad, before the next attack
comes--and inevitability, unfortunately, in the world in which we live
that is very possible--put their resources to work to accelerate the
pace to where we would succeed in preventing injuries or death.
Let's be honest about this process. Yes, there was a process that
ultimately led to a series of recommendations. The legislation that the
committee has ultimately reported out in a bipartisan basis--working
with Senator Corker, the ranking Republican on the committee--would
deal with these challenges. It would deal with language issues. It
would deal with the funding issue. It would deal with diplomatic
security preparation, which we have scattered across a whole bunch of
institutions that do not meet the goal. It would deal with all of these
elements. It would create greater accountability.
Do you know what else it would do? It would let the Secretary of
State have the ability to ultimately fire those individuals who might
be found derelict in their duty, which is not presently in the law--the
ability for the Secretary to pursue that.
So let's move that legislation. I hope my colleagues are going to
support that as we move forward, to try to find the success that we
want in making sure that our diplomats across the globe are as safe as
humanly possible as they advocate America's national economic
interests, its national interests, its national security interests,
still always facing a risk but minimizing those risks to the greatest
extent. If not, then I certainly believe the garish light of attention
should be placed upon the institution of the Congress, which is not
meeting its responsibility as it relates to our diplomats abroad.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be acknowledged
as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have had a carefully constructed list
of who would speak. I wonder how long the Senator wishes to speak.
Mr. INHOFE. I do want to accommodate the Senator from California. I
have three different subjects I want to talk about----
Mrs. BOXER. How much time does my friend need to talk about his first
subject?
Mr. INHOFE. I need 9\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. What was supposed to happen was that I was going to speak
next. I will give up my place so Senator Murray can speak, followed by
Senator Coons, followed by Senator Inhofe for 9\1/2\ minutes.
I don't know how many minutes my friend needs--5 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will need about 12 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I would follow Senator Inhofe's 9\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Is that a unanimous consent request?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. The Senator from California would follow the Senator from
Washington?
[[Page 13754]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the consent I made was that we would go to
Senator Murray for 12 minutes, followed by Senator Coons for 5 minutes,
Senator Inhofe would be next for 9\1/2\ minutes, and then I would get
to go for about 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, point of inquiry: Is this after I speak
now or is that starting now? In other words, we would have four
Democrats before I speak?
Mrs. BOXER. No, two.
Mr. INHOFE. The Senator already had one and then Senator Coons.
Mrs. BOXER. The Republicans had quite a few on their side speak. The
Republicans had three speakers--one right after the other--so now we
are going to have three speakers, and then it goes back to Senator
Inhofe.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if two of
them speak now and then let me speak and then the Senator can speak
after that, that is still 2 to 1.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, that is what I said. I said Senator
Murray, Senator Coons, Senator Inhofe, and then Senator Boxer. That is
what I said. Is that all right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for
accommodating all of us.
I wish to join my colleagues who have spoken on the floor and express
my deepest condolences to the families of those who lost someone in
Monday's tragic shooting. I know the thoughts and prayers of the Nation
are with those who are still recovering.
I know I speak for my constituents in Washington State in thanking
the law enforcement community here in Washington, DC. They put their
lives on the line every day to protect our families and workers in the
Nation's Capital. We don't have all the answers to the many questions a
tragedy such as this raises, but those questions will continue to be
asked, and I am hopeful the answers will help our Nation heal and guide
our continued work to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future.
I am here today because, like many of my colleagues, I spent this
past August traveling around my home State and meeting with my
constituents. I heard from Washington State families about a wide range
of issues facing our Nation, but the one sentiment I heard over and
over from every part of my State was they were sick and tired of the
constant lurching from crisis to crisis.
They told me how disappointed and disgusted they were that every time
they turned on their televisions over the past few years they would see
another story about Congress hurtling toward another official deadline,
hurting our economy and causing more uncertainty for our businesses.
They told me they want Congress to work together; they want us to focus
on the economy; they want us to put our country and the families we
represent before partisanship and political gains.
I couldn't agree more. Like them, I am frustrated that we seem to be
once again headed toward another completely avoidable, completely
unnecessary, self-inflicted crisis.
It has now been 179 days since this Senate and the House passed our
budgets. When the Senate budget passed, I was optimistic that because
both Republicans and Democrats said they wanted to return to regular
order, we might be able to get back to a responsible process. At that
time we had 192 days to reach a bipartisan budget agreement and I
thought the next step would be a budget conference where the two sides
would get in a room, hash out our differences, and work together toward
a deal. But as we all know, some of our Republican colleagues had other
ideas. They immediately seemed to regret their push for a Senate budget
and started running away from a debate as quickly as they could.
I came to the Senate floor with my colleagues a total of 18 times to
ask for consent to start a budget conference with the House, but every
time we tried a member of the tea party here in the Senate, backed by
Republican leaders, stood up and blocked us. Instead of using the
months we had to work out a compromise, Republicans seemed to think it
was in their best interest somehow to stall as long as possible under
some misguided theory that a crisis would give them more leverage.
I had hoped my Republican colleagues spent their time back home
talking to their constituents and would be ready to come back to DC so
we could get to work on a balanced and bipartisan budget deal, but,
sadly, the opposite has happened. While I believe the majority of
Republicans are interested in working with us as Democrats to get to a
fair budget deal, a few of my Republican colleagues spent the summer
riling up the tea party and making them promises they could not keep.
Since Republican leaders know they need to find a way to avoid
another crisis that would be blamed on them, a full-scale civil war has
broken out within the Republican Party. They are in disarray. They are
having trouble figuring out how to pull themselves out of the hole they
have climbed into. And while we wait for Republicans to join us at the
table, the tea party is pushing our country closer and closer to a
government shutdown and closer to what would be a catastrophic default
on our laws.
Why are they doing this? It is not because they are concerned about
the budget, not because they are interested in jobs or economic growth.
To them it seems it is all about ObamaCare. Everything they are doing
now they are doing in order to cut off health care coverage for 25
million people, to end access to free preventive health care, to cause
seniors to pay more for their prescriptions, to cut off young adults
from their coverage, to bring back lifetime coverage caps and let
patients with preexisting conditions be denied care, put the insurance
companies back in charge of our health care system, and so much more.
These political games might play well with the tea party base, but
here is the reality: ObamaCare is the law of the land. It passed
through this Senate with a supermajority. It passed through the House.
The President signed it into law. This Supreme Court upheld it. It is
already helping millions of Americans stay healthy and financially
secure, and it is on track to help millions more.
When I see some of my colleagues working so hard to defund ObamaCare,
I have to wonder whether they have taken the time to meet some of their
own constituents who are already benefiting from this law.
This last month I was home in Washington State, and I met an
incredible woman named Nikki Mackey who lives in Seattle. On September
16 of 2010, Nikki was diagnosed with an extremely aggressive form of
breast cancer. She was 36 years old and terrified of what this disease
would do to her. To make matters worse, instead of focusing on her
treatment, she had to worry about her coverage, and that is because a
few months before her diagnosis, in the midst of the recession, Nikki
had been laid off from her job. So there she was, with her coverage at
risk and years of treatment ahead of her. But thanks to ObamaCare, a
law some of my colleagues want to undermine at any cost, Nikki will
never have to worry about reaching a lifetime cap. She will never have
to worry about not getting coverage due to her now preexisting
condition. That is why we have worked so hard to pass this law because
it says now in America: You shouldn't go broke because you get sick,
and you shouldn't be denied care simply because you cannot afford it.
Let's be clear about what is happening here and the political
calculation some of my colleagues have made. They have decided they are
willing to play politics with Americans' health care, they have decided
it is better for them to sabotage this law rather than improve it, and
they have decided that beyond all that, they are also willing to
devastate our Nation's economy to kill this law. Well, we are not going
to let that happen.
Nikki told me when she turns on her TV and sees Members of Congress
using
[[Page 13755]]
every trick in the book to kill this law, she feels her ``own well-
being is under attack.''
I want to be clear: Democrats are not going to defund or delay health
care reform. It is not going to happen. We should all be working
together right now to make sure it is implemented in the best possible
way for our families, our businesses, and our communities. We are
certainly very interested in hearing from anyone, Democrat or
Republican, who has good ideas about how the law could be improved. We
are not going to allow the health care of Nikki or millions of other
Americans to be used as a pawn in a political game. We are not going to
let this law get sabotaged as it continues to benefit millions of
families and small business owners. The sooner Republicans realize
this, the sooner we can get to work diffusing this latest artificial
crisis.
We know the families we represent don't support the Republicans'
sabotage tactics. Recent polls show that fewer than 1 in 4 people
supports efforts to make health care reform fail. A majority of people
believe we in Congress should be trying to make the law work. It is
also clear that Americans would rightly blame Republicans if the law
shuts down--especially over an issue such as this--and a lot of
Republicans know that.
My colleague Senator Johanns said these defunding and delaying
efforts have ``zero chance of being successful.'' Senator Burr said
``the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.'' House Republicans know this
too. That is why they introduced a bill last week that would allow a
government funding bill to pass while giving House Republicans a vote
to defund health care that has no chance of becoming law. As we now
know, the tea party is not interested in that. They don't want a
showboat, they want a shutdown, and they are going to keep fighting
until they get it.
We now have less than 2 weeks before the end of this fiscal year and
a potential government shutdown. It is a shame that we have gotten to
this point, but we are here. We owe it to the American people to come
together and find a solution and a path forward that is good for our
economy and fair for our middle class.
My goal has been and will continue to be a long-term budget agreement
that replaces sequestration, tackles our debt and deficit responsibly,
and invests in our workers and our economy. But since it seems clear
that the House won't be able to get its act together in the next few
weeks, the least they should be able to do is send us a clean, short-
term extension of the current budget levels so the government doesn't
shut down while we continue to negotiate on this longer term budget
deal.
I want to be clear: Democrats are not going to negotiate over whether
Congress should allow the Federal Government to pay its bills. As
Speaker Boehner said in the past, default would be ``a financial
disaster, not just for us, but for the worldwide economy.'' Republicans
need to take those words to heart and stop threatening the economic
recovery with their saber rattling and brinkmanship.
We went through this earlier in the year. Back then--after spending
months saying they wouldn't raise the debt limit unless they got
dollar-for-dollar spending cuts, Republicans dropped their demands,
dropped the so-called Boehner rule, and allowed the debt ceiling to be
increased. Going back now to that reckless approach of 2011 and
drumming up this uncertainty again is nothing but a huge and harmful
waste of time.
It is ridiculous that we find ourselves on the brink of an artificial
crisis again. We should be doing everything possible to support the
economic recovery and help our workers get back on the job. We should
be spending time finding common ground to tackle our long-term fiscal
challenges responsibly, and we should be working together to build on
the Affordable Care Act to continue improving our health care system
for all of our families and small business owners. As we know, we are
now mired in the muck of perpetual partisanship and constant crises.
The American people deserve better. Nikki and the millions of families
such as hers deserve better.
I am hopeful that the Republican leadership stops focusing so much on
their extreme party minority and comes to the table with us to work on
a balanced and bipartisan deal the vast majority of Americans want. I
hope they don't make us reach a crisis to get to that point.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks
of the Budget Committee chair. As a member of the Budget Committee, I
join her in expressing her strong view that this country does not need
another shutdown or another pointless fiscal cliff but needs us to
listen and to work together in this Chamber and with the House of
Representatives and move forward on the agenda on which all of our
constituents want us to proceed.
I rise today specifically to speak to the bill that is on the floor
that has been the subject of debate and discussion, S. 1392, the Energy
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013.
This is a broadly bipartisan bill. Its two primary authors, my
colleagues from New Hampshire and Ohio, Senators Shaheen and Portman,
have worked tirelessly to make sure it respects the priorities of
Members of both parties. Its passage by a vote of 19 to 3 out of the
energy committee on which I serve speaks to its support across partisan
lines. Yet, sadly, now that it is on the floor, a few Republicans have
decided they want to use it to carry out their own narrow or partisan
political agenda rather than showing our constituents and the American
people that we can come together across our differences of region and
party to pass this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. They would
rather confirm the frustration and even disgust so many of our
constituents feel about this body.
We were all home last month. We all heard from our constituents. I
don't know about my colleagues but what I heard from Delawareans about
what they want and deserve is not more displays of selfish partisanship
that frustrates them but, rather, that we can listen to each other and
work together on bipartisan bills that move this country forward.
Energy efficiency--the topic of this bill and the topic we should be
moving forward on today--its only agenda is creating a stable, dynamic,
and prosperous future. The Shaheen-Portman bill has been written with
only that goal as its north star. It is not about who is right or who
is wrong, about whether climate change is real, about whose science we
are going to choose to believe today; energy efficiency is
fundamentally something that makes sense. It allows us to bridge
competing interests and concerns because it promotes energy
independence, it helps our environment, and it promotes American jobs--
jobs today and jobs tomorrow.
When we need to purchase new equipment to promote the efficiency of
our buildings, whether it is DuPont's Tyvek wrapping or Dow's foam
spray insulation--both made here in America--we create good
manufacturing jobs in our country. When we install new energy-efficient
equipment in homes and buildings, we hire Americans to do that work--
sheet metal workers, electricians, laborers. And when we set voluntary
new goals for efficiency, as this bill does, we incentivize the kind of
research and innovation that will create jobs well into the future. It
is simple. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to get this done.
I come to this debate today as someone who has seen the power of
energy efficiency up close in the private sector and public sector in
my work in Delaware. When I was in the private sector more than 15
years ago, I came to understand that power when our then-Governor Ruth
Ann Minner appointed me to chair the Conservation and Efficiency
Working Group of her Energy Task Force. In over 2 years of meetings I
grew to appreciate how powerful energy efficiency can be for the
commercial and industrial balance sheet of our
[[Page 13756]]
country. It later translated into my work as county executive of New
Castle County, DE, where I led a countywide effort to make our
buildings more energy efficient. We had old and energy wasteful
buildings and we knew that by investing in energy efficiency upgrades,
we could save taxpayer money and put Delawareans to work.
We started with our old City/County Headquarters, a building
constructed in the 1970s, almost designed to be monumentally energy
inefficient. As we audited it, the auditor was stunned at how energy
inefficient it was--high ceilings, bad insulation, poorly sealed
windows--so we overhauled. We upgraded the lights and put in new
management energy systems, replaced the boilers and chillers and
cooling towers and got that building up to ENERGY STAR standards. We
did a host of other things on a constrained budget and it was a
resounding and lasting success. With the improvements just to that one
small building, the county saved $350,000 a year, and it will pay for
itself over 15 years. Because of that success, the county has gone on
to do retrofits to 20 more buildings in total, providing work for more
than 150 Delawareans and reducing emissions by 12 million pounds of
carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent of taking 1,000 cars off the
road. Those jobs can't be offshored. These are jobs for electricians,
laborers, and sheet metal workers. These are good-quality building
trades jobs. They are also sustainable because as each contractor
learns how to do an energy efficiency retrofit in one building, they
can go on and do it for more.
What I found is that once folks understood the impact, once they saw
the difference we could make in that county, it became an issue that
transcended partisanship or political loyalties. That should be the
case here, if we had a healthy and functioning Senate, because this
issue is no more partisan across the United States than it was in our
county. It saved us money, it helped our environment, it put
Delawareans to work, and the same is true for the Shaheen-Portman bill
that should be moving forward today.
Earlier this year I had the chance to visit Dover Air Force Base, our
largest military facility in Delaware, and see what the U.S. military
is doing to use less energy and employ alternative energy solutions.
They are making dramatic progress, looking across every corner of that
base to reduce their energy use and to be more efficient in how they
transport materiel in the U.S. Air Force.
These are real ideas and technology-based solutions that could be
applied nationally. There are companies up and down our State in the
private sector which have applied the same approach, the same
initiative this bill would take and seen real savings. Businesses such
as Hirsh Industries, PPG, Kraft, and AstraZeneca all have realized
savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars that add to their balance
sheet and their bottom line.
This bill has been scored as creating 136,000 new jobs by 2025,
saving consumers $13 billion and nearly 3 billion megawatt hours by
2030. In total, this is exactly the sort of bill we should be coming
together to pass. Instead, sadly, what I am hearing is that it is
likely the partisanship of this Chamber is going to defeat our
opportunity to take up and consider this important balanced and
bipartisan bill.
Americans are looking to us to take action to create jobs, save them
money, and build a better future for our country. This bill genuinely
gives us a chance to do all of those things. I am a proud cosponsor of
this bill. I had hoped to have a chance to debate, discuss, and vote on
many amendments directly relevant to this bill that deal with energy
efficiency and would strengthen it. Instead it seems we are again mired
in partisanship as folks here seek to add to this bill amendments
utterly irrelevant to the core of what should be the focus today:
helping to create high-quality jobs for Americans, improving our
environment, and adding to our Nation's bottom line on this commonsense
matter.
It is my hope we can get past the partisanship and back to the real
work our constituents expect and demand of us in the weeks ahead.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when we were establishing our time, I
would say to my good friend and colleague from California, I was joking
around a little bit about using 9\1/2\ minutes. Is it all right if I
make that 19\1/2\ minutes, maximum?
Mrs. BOXER. No. I say to my friend, I was promised to be able to
speak at 3:30 so I am already giving up so much time, so if the Senator
from Oklahoma could just take 9\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. OK. I will do that. I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from California I be
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. All right. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for
15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I wasn't going to do this,
but since my good friend from California is on the floor and it is our
favorite subject to talk about, I thought I would. I wish to take the
opportunity to talk about the first round of the major global warming
regulations the President is set to release this week. These rules will
govern the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from
powerplants and they are the first round of rules following the
President's major speech on global warming in June.
The rules represent the most aggressive representation of the war on
fossil fuels we have seen in this administration, and we have seen a
lot of them. We know the rules will require any coal-fired plant to
have carbon-capture and sequestration technology; that is, CSS
technology. While the Clean Air Act only allows feasible technology to
be mandated, the CSS technology is not feasible. It is really not there
yet. No powerplant has ever been built with the technology unless it
has been supported by massive taxpayer subsidies. The rule would kill
the coal powerplant industry.
While the rules may be constructed in a way that allows natural gas-
fired powerplants to meet the mandate, we have to know that is coming
next. After all, natural gas is a fossil fuel as well. There have been
several statements of people saying, Well, wait around until fossil
fuel, which is going to be next. The only thing these new rules will do
is cause energy prices to skyrocket. I expect the rules to be one of
the key issues covered by the media this week.
While the exact details of the rule will not be known until it is
published later this week, there are a few things that we know right
now. First, the science behind global warming is now more uncertain
than ever. I spoke about this this morning in our hearing. Just last
week it was reported all over the media--the Telegraph--this is in
London, one of their largest publications--the Guardian, also in
London, the Wall Street Journal, and others, that this year there has
been 60 percent more ice coverage in the Arctic than there was this
time last year.
My colleagues might remember the hysterical people were saying at one
time that there would be no more icecaps by 2013. Instead, we find out
it has actually increased by 60 percent. This is the equivalent of
almost 1 million square miles, and this is being observed before the
winter refreeze has even set in.
What makes it more interesting is that in 2007, the BBC reported that
global warming would leave the entire Arctic ice-free in the summers by
2013. The scientist who made this claim, Professor Wineslaw Maslowski,
said, in the typical bravado we have come to expect from climate
scientists, that ``This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the
end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.'' That is in 2013.
Well, here we are in 2013 and guess what. They are wrong again. There
is 60 percent more ice than there was at this time last year. A lot of
the yachts and the ships that expected to use the Northwest Passage
can't use the Northwest Passage; it is closed, closed because the ice
is there.
[[Page 13757]]
This follows reports earlier this year, notably from The Economist,
showing that global warming has been on a pause for the last 15 years.
The Economist wrote: ``Over the past 15 years, air temperatures and the
Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have
continued to soar.''
The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not expect
this development to occur, nor did its models predict that there would
be a 15-year stall in global warming.
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, at the University of Wisconsin, recently
concluded that:
We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will
continue for the next fifteen years at least. There is no
doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.
This reminds me of all the hysteria in the 1970s that a global
warming trend is coming. I can't tell my colleagues how many times on
the Senate floor I have talked about how these cycles come and go about
every 25 years, and here it is, right on schedule, going into a cooling
period. Starting back in 1895, every 15 to 20 years, they start out
with the new Ice Age is coming, everyone is hysterical, and then in
2007--1970--1919, they went into a period of warming, and then in
1995--or 1945--they went into another cooling spell and that happened
to coincide with the year they had the greatest surge in CO2
on our planet.
I only want to say this finally has come to our attention that we are
looking at a situation that is quite different than we have seen in the
past. I mentioned that later in this month the long-awaited event is
going to happen. It comes up every 5, 6, or 7 years. That is when the
IPCC comes out with its assessment. This just came up--I saw that it is
dated today in the Wall Street Journal, and I will read this:
Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened
in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken
to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment
report.
That is what we are talking about. They go on to say they have
learned from some leaks what is in that assessment. ``There have
already been leaks''--I am reading now--``from this 31-page document,
which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a
senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at
the heart of the document.''
Keep in mind, this is IPCC, United Nations. ``The big news is that,
for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the
new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we
can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower
than the IPCC'' expected.
This is something we did not anticipate would happen just as recently
as a few days ago.
Real quickly, it is my hope we get to some of these amendments, and I
am going to mention one that is a very significant amendment.
A few months ago, when we were debating the continuing resolution,
the Senate adopted amendment No. 29, which prohibited the EPA from
enforcing this Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Rule.
That is the SPCC rule.
As we all remember, they were going to enforce this against farmers.
The reason we did this is clear: EPA first threatened to enforce this
rule against farmers at the beginning of the Obama administration, but
they did very little outreach. Most farmers do not even know today
about this rule or what they would have to do to comply. The only
reason other Members know about this rule is because of the work
Senator Pryor and I have done to highlight the problem for what it is.
This rule was originally drafted for compliance by major handlers of
oil--refineries, pipelines--players such as the ones that are shown on
this chart I have in the Chamber.
This chart actually shows part of Cushing, OK, which is a major hub
of oil pipelines. Millions of barrels of oil are transported through
and stored in this small town each day, and it is incredibly important
that the handlers of the oil follow appropriate regulations to make
sure accidents do not cause significant environmental damage. They
understand why the regulations are in place, and they follow the rules
with precision. And we are talking about the people in the adjoining
towns.
These refineries and tank operators are who the rule was designed for
in the first place, and that makes sense. But now EPA wants to enforce
that rule against farmers.
What would it look like if we did this?
First, take a look at this second chart. This is a diesel fuel
container on a farm. It is small. It does not hold that much fuel. But
right now it is subject to the same regulations you would have for oil
companies and refineries.
I asked a friend of mine, Keith Kisling, a wheat farmer in western
Oklahoma, what it would take for him to comply with this rule that was
designed for refiners.
He said: First I have to purchase a new double-wall container that
would cost thousands of dollars. EPA justifies this by saying it would
prevent leaks. Keith, like all other farmers I know in Oklahoma, thinks
diesel is expensive. So Keith is not going to let his tanks leak,
whatever kind it is. You would sit on a farm and realize that is
leaking money. Obviously, they do not want to do that.
The next thing he would have to do is build a berm all the way around
his tank to contain a spill if all of the diesel fuel came out of it.
This would be expensive and difficult to operate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 3 more
minutes and conclude.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Keith would have to hire and pay a professional
engineer to certify his spill plan, if he can find one. In Oklahoma,
farmers cannot find professional engineers because they are all working
for oil and gas companies, which makes compliance with this particular
requirement virtually impossible. All told, Keith would have to pay
somewhere between $10 and $30,000 to comply with the rule, and the
environment is not any better for it.
After we secured the amendment prohibiting the EPA from enforcing the
rule back in March, Senator Pryor and I worked to secure a permanent
exemption, and we did this. We put it in, as the Senator from
California will remember, the WRDA bill, and, of course, it is not
final law yet. This is the amendment that we have right now.
Last month, during the August recess, I received word from the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association that producers in Kansas and
other areas out West were hearing from EPA enforcement officers that
they were at risk of having the SPCC rule retroactively enforced
against them once the prohibition on enforcement expires on September
23. This comes despite the clear actions Congress has been taking to
provide relief to farmers. I honestly do not know of anyone who wants
to subject our farmers in the United States of America to the same
requirements that refineries and oil companies and these operations
have.
So I do have an amendment that would go on. It is my hope we will be
able to get to the amendments on the bill, the underlying bill that is
under consideration today, and I think this is one of two amendments I
have that should be accepted unanimously.
With that, I thank the Senator from California for giving me that
additional time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first I want to add my voice of condolence
to that of Senator Murray's and say to the Navy family how heavy our
hearts are and that I stand ready, any minute, any hour, any second, to
work with my colleagues to make sure mentally ill people do not get
their hands on weapons. As soon as we can get a breakthrough on that--
and maybe on background checks--maybe we can finally do something for
90 percent of the American people who want us to.
I also want to note that Senator Inhofe and I have an ongoing
dispute,
[[Page 13758]]
though it is quite friendly, on climate change. We went through this
this morning. He sees evidence that climate change is probably still a
hoax, and he talks about the great news that we do not have climate
change. I think you should tell that to the people in Colorado. But
notwithstanding that--forget that--I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record four articles that appeared in the recent days
about how the consensus on climate change is growing, and there is 95-
percent certainty that the cause is human activity.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Reuters, Aug. 16, 2013]
Experts Surer of Manmade Global Warming but Local Predictions Elusive
(By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle)
Oslo (Reuters).--Climate scientists are surer than ever
that human activity is causing global warming, according to
leaked drafts of a major U.N. report, but they are finding it
harder than expected to predict the impact in specific
regions in coming decades.
The uncertainty is frustrating for government planners: the
report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) is the main guide for states weighing multi-billion-
dollar shifts to renewable energy from fossil fuels, for
coastal regions considering extra sea defenses or crop
breeders developing heat-resistant strains.
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of
experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least
95 percent likely that human activities--chiefly the burning
of fossil fuels--are the main cause of warming since the
1950s.
That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in
2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily
squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists
that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.
That shifts the debate onto the extent of temperature rises
and the likely impacts, from manageable to catastrophic.
Governments have agreed to work out an international deal by
the end of 2015 to rein in rising emissions.
``We have got quite a bit more certain that climate change
. . . is largely manmade,'' said Reto Knutti, a professor at
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. ``We're
less certain than many would hope about the local impacts.''
And gauging how warming would affect nature, from crops to
fish stocks, was also proving hard since it goes far beyond
physics. ``You can't write an equation for a tree,'' he said.
The IPCC report, the first of three to be released in 2013
and 2014, will face intense scrutiny, particularly after the
panel admitted a mistake in the 2007 study which wrongly
predicted that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
Experts say the error far overestimated the melt and might
have been based on a misreading of 2350.
The new study will state with greater confidence than in
2007 that rising manmade greenhouse gas emissions have
already meant more heatwaves. But it is likely to play down
some tentative findings from 2007, such as that human
activities have contributed to more droughts.
Almost 200 governments have agreed to try to limit global
warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above
pre-industrial times, seen as a threshold for dangerous
changes including more droughts, extinctions, floods and
rising seas that could swamp coastal regions and entire
island nations.
The report will flag a high risk that global temperatures
will increase this century by more than that level, and will
say that evidence of rising sea levels is now
``unequivocal''.
For all that, scientists say it is proving harder to
pinpoint local impacts in coming decades in a way that would
help planners.
Drew Shindell, a NASA climate scientist, said the relative
lack of progress in regional predictions was the main
disappointment of climate science since 2007.
``I talk to people in regional power planning. They ask:
`What's the temperature going to be in this region in the
next 20-30 years, because that's where our power grid is?'''
he said.
``We can't really tell. It's a shame,'' said Shindell. Like
the other scientists interviewed, he was speaking about
climate science in general since the last IPCC report, not
about the details of the latest drafts.
WARMING SLOWING
The panel will try to explain why global temperatures,
while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about
1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit
repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial
emissions by China and other emerging nations.
An IPCC draft says there is ``medium confidence'' that the
slowing of the rise is ``due in roughly equal measure'' to
natural variations in the weather and to other factors
affecting energy reaching the Earth's surface.
Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-
expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims
sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-
year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep
oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less
sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.
``It might be down to minor contributions that all add
up,'' said Gabriele Hegerl, a professor at Edinburgh
University. Or maybe, scientists say, the latest decade is
just a blip.
The main scenarios in the draft, using more complex
computer models than in 2007 and taking account of more
factors, show that temperatures could rise anywhere from a
fraction of 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) to almost 5C
(9F) this century, a wider range at both ends than in 2007.
The low end, however, is because the IPCC has added what
diplomats say is an improbable scenario for radical
government action--not considered in 2007--that would require
cuts in global greenhouse gases to zero by about 2070.
Temperatures have already risen by 0.8C (1.4F) since the
Industrial Revolution in the 19th century.
Experts say that the big advance in the report, due for a
final edit by governments and scientists in Stockholm from
September 23-26, is simply greater confidence about the
science of global warming, rather than revolutionary new
findings.
SEA LEVELS
``Overall our understanding has strengthened,'' said
Michael Oppenheimer, a professor at Princeton University,
pointing to areas including sea level rise.
An IPCC draft projects seas will rise by between 29 and 82
cm (11.4 to 32.3 inches) by the late 21st century--above the
estimates of 18 to 59 cm in the last report, which did not
fully account for changes in Antarctica and Greenland.
The report slightly tones down past tentative findings that
more intense tropical cyclones are linked to human
activities. Warmer air can contain more moisture, however,
making downpours more likely in the future.
``There is widespread agreement among hurricane scientists
that rainfall associated with hurricanes will increase
noticeably with global warming,'' said Kerry Emanuel, of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
``But measuring rainfall is very tricky,'' he said.
____
[From the Guardian, July 22, 2013]
Climate Change Slowdown Is Due to Warming of Deep Oceans, Say
Scientists
Climate sceptics have seized on a pause in warming over the
past five years, but the long-term trend is still upwards.
(By Fiona Harvey)
A recent slowdown in the upward march of global
temperatures is likely to be the result of the slow warming
of the deep oceans, British scientists said on Monday.
Oceans are some of the Earth's biggest absorbers of heat,
which can be seen in effects such as sea level rises, caused
by the expansion of large bodies of water as they warm. The
absorption goes on over long periods, as heat from the
surface is gradually circulated to the lower reaches of the
seas.
Temperatures around the world have been broadly static over
the past five years, though they were still significantly
above historic norms, and the years from 2000 to 2012
comprise most of the 14 hottest years ever recorded. The
scientists said the evidence still clearly pointed to a
continuation of global warming in the coming decades as
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contribute to climate
change.
This summer's heatwave, the most prolonged period of hot
weather in the UK for years, has not yet been taken into
account in their measurements.
Peter Stott of the Met Office said computer-generated
climate models all showed that periods of slower warming were
to be expected as part of the natural variation of the
climate cycle, and did not contradict predictions. Given that
variation, current temperatures are within expectations.
As well as the heating of the deep oceans, other factors
have played a significant part in slowing temperature rises.
These have included the solar minimum--when the sun is less
active and generating slightly less heat, as occurred in
2008/2009--and a series of small volcanic eruptions,
including that of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano in 2010.
Ash from volcanoes reflects light back into space, and major
eruptions in the past have had a severe, albeit temporary,
cooling effect.
Despite the slowdown in warming, by 2060 the world is still
likely to have experienced average temperatures of more than
2C above pre-industrial levels--a threshold that scientists
regard as the limit of safety, beyond which climate change
impacts are likely to become catastrophic. Prof Rowan Sutton,
director of climate research at the National Centre for
Atmospheric Research at Reading University, said the current
pause would only delay reaching this point by five to 10
years.
[[Page 13759]]
The ``pause'' in the rise of global temperatures has been
seized on by climate sceptics, however, who have interpreted
it as proof that the science of climate change is mistaken.
But despite the slowdown in warming, the warmest years on
record were 1998, 2005 and 2010, according to the US National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Prof Sutton said more research was needed on the effects of
warming on the deep oceans, as observations of deep ocean
temperatures have only been carried out in detail over the
past decade and more are needed. Higher temperatures could
not only have a devastating effect on marine life, he said,
but could also contribute to increases in sea levels as sea
water expands.
The Met Office warned early in the summer that the UK could
be in for a decade of ``washout'' summers, like those of the
past six years, because of the effect of climate change on
global weather systems, partly as a result of changes in wind
patterns caused by the melting Arctic.
But no sooner had the meteorologists made their prediction
than the weather bucked this trend, with a shift in the
Atlantic's jet stream air circulation system giving rise to
high-pressure weather fronts and a long period of settled
sunny weather.
____
[From NOAA, May 10, 2013]
CO2 at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory Reaches New Milestone:
Tops 400 ppm
On May 9, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per
million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in
1958. Independent measurements made by both NOAA and the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography have been approaching
this level during the past week. It marks an important
milestone because Mauna Loa, as the oldest continuous carbon
dioxide (CO2.) measurement station in the world,
is the primary global benchmark site for monitoring the
increase of this potent heat-trapping gas.
Carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel
burning and other human activities is the most significant
greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change. Its
concentration has increased every year since scientists
started making measurements on the slopes of the Mauna Loa
volcano more than five decades ago. The rate of increase has
accelerated since the measurements started, from about 0.7
ppm per year in the late 1950s to 2.1 ppm per year during the
last 10 years.
``That increase is not a surprise to scientists,'' said
NOAA senior scientist Pieter Tans, with the Global Monitoring
Division of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in
Boulder, Colo. ``The evidence is conclusive that the strong
growth of global CO2 emissions from the burning of
coal, oil, and natural gas is driving the acceleration.''
Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century,
global average CO2 was about 280 ppm. During the
last 800,000 years, CO2 fluctuated between about
180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm
periods. Today's rate of increase is more than 100 times
faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age
ended.
It was researcher Charles David Keeling of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, who began
measuring carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa in 1958, initiating now
what is known as the ``Keeling Curve.'' His son, Ralph
Keeling, also a geochemist at Scripps, has continued the
Scripps measurement record since his father's death in 2005.
``There's no stopping CO2 from reaching 400
ppm,'' said Ralph Keeling. ``That's now a done deal. But what
happens from here on still matters to climate, and it's still
under our control. It mainly comes down to how much we
continue to rely on fossil fuels for energy.''
NOAA scientists with the Global Monitoring Division have
made around-the-clock measurements there since 1974. Having
two programs independently measure the greenhouse gas
provides confidence that the measurements are correct.
Moreover, similar increases of CO2 are seen all
over the world by many international scientists. NOAA, for
example, which runs a global, cooperative air sampling
network, reported last year that all Arctic sites in its
network reached 400 ppm for the first time. These high values
were a prelude to what is now being observed at Mauna Loa, a
site in the subtropics, this year. Sites in the Southern
Hemisphere will follow during the next few years. The
increase in the Northern Hemisphere is always a little ahead
of the Southern Hemisphere because most of the emissions
driving the CO2 increase take place in the north.
Once emitted, CO2 added to the atmosphere and
oceans remains for thousands of years. Thus, climate changes
forced by CO2 depend primarily on cumulative
emissions, making it progressively more and more difficult to
avoid further substantial climate change.
____
[From the New York Times, May 10, 2013]
Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears
(By Justin Gillis)
The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the
atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared
milestone, scientists reported Friday, reaching a
concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.
Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an
average daily level above 400 parts per million--just an
odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder
that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions
under control are faltering.
The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas
in the air has not been this high for at least three million
years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise
portends large changes in the climate and the level of the
sea.
``It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in
tackling this problem,'' said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the
monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration that reported the new reading.
Ralph Keeling, who runs another monitoring program at the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, said a
continuing rise could be catastrophic. ``It means we are
quickly losing the possibility of keeping the climate below
what people thought were possibly tolerable thresholds,'' he
said.
Virtually every automobile ride, every plane trip and, in
most places, every flip of a light switch adds carbon dioxide
to the air, and relatively little money is being spent to
find and deploy alternative technologies.
China is now the largest emitter, but Americans have been
consuming fossil fuels extensively for far longer, and
experts say the United States is more responsible than any
other nation for the high level.
The new measurement came from analyzers atop Mauna Loa, the
volcano on the big island of Hawaii that has long been ground
zero for monitoring the worldwide trend on carbon dioxide, or
CO2. Devices there sample clean, crisp air that
has blown thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean,
producing a record of rising carbon dioxide levels that has
been closely tracked for half a century.
Carbon dioxide above 400 parts per million was first seen
in the Arctic last year, and had also spiked above that level
in hourly readings at Mauna Loa.
But the average reading for an entire day surpassed that
level at Mauna Loa for the first time in the 24 hours that
ended at 8 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Thursday. The two
monitoring programs use slightly different protocols; NOAA
reported an average for the period of 400.03 parts per
million, while Scripps reported 400.08.
Carbon dioxide rises and falls on a seasonal cycle, and the
level will dip below 400 this summer as leaf growth in the
Northern Hemisphere pulls about 10 billion tons of carbon out
of the air. But experts say that will be a brief reprieve--
the moment is approaching when no measurement of the ambient
air anywhere on earth, in any season, will produce a reading
below 400.
``It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,''
said Maureen E. Raymo, a scientist at the Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia University.
From studying air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice,
scientists know that going back 800,000 years, the carbon
dioxide level oscillated in a tight band, from about 180
parts per million in the depths of ice ages to about 280
during the warm periods between. The evidence shows that
global temperatures and CO2 levels are tightly
linked.
For the entire period of human civilization, roughly 8,000
years, the carbon dioxide level was relatively stable near
that upper bound. But the burning of fossil fuels has caused
a 41 percent increase in the heat-trapping gas since the
Industrial Revolution, a mere geological instant, and
scientists say the climate is beginning to react, though they
expect far larger changes in the future.
Indirect measurements suggest that the last time the carbon
dioxide level was this high was at least three million years
ago, during an epoch called the Pliocene. Geological research
shows that the climate then was far warmer than today, the
world's ice caps were smaller, and the sea level might have
been as much as 60 or 80 feet higher.
Experts fear that humanity may be precipitating a return to
such conditions--except this time, billions of people are in
harm's way.
``It takes a long time to melt ice, but we're doing it,''
Dr. Keeling said. ``It's scary.''
Dr. Keeling's father, Charles David Keeling, began carbon
dioxide measurements on Mauna Loa and at other locations in
the late 1950s. The elder Dr. Keeling found a level in the
air then of about 315 parts per million--meaning that if a
person had filled a million quart jars with air, about 315
quart jars of carbon dioxide would have been mixed in.
His analysis revealed a relentless, long-term increase
superimposed on the seasonal cycle, a trend that was dubbed
the Keeling Curve.
Countries have adopted an official target to limit the
damage from global warming, with 450 parts per million seen
as the maximum level compatible with that goal. ``Unless
things slow down, we'll probably get there in well under 25
years,'' Ralph Keeling said.
Yet many countries, including China and the United States,
have refused to adopt binding national targets. Scientists
say that unless far greater efforts are made soon, the
[[Page 13760]]
goal of limiting the warming will become impossible without
severe economic disruption.
``If you start turning the Titanic long before you hit the
iceberg, you can go clear without even spilling a drink of a
passenger on deck,'' said Richard B. Alley, a climate
scientist at Pennsylvania State University. ``If you wait
until you're really close, spilling a lot of drinks is the
best you can hope for.''
Climate-change contrarians, who have little scientific
credibility but are politically influential in Washington,
point out that carbon dioxide represents only a tiny fraction
of the air--as of Thursday's reading, exactly 0.04 percent.
``The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rather
undramatic,'' a Republican congressman from California, Dana
Rohrabacher, said in a Congressional hearing several years
ago.
But climate scientists reject that argument, saying it is
like claiming that a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom
cannot have much effect. Research shows that even at such low
levels, carbon dioxide is potent at trapping heat near the
surface of the earth.
``If you're looking to stave off climate perturbations that
I don't believe our culture is ready to adapt to, then
significant reductions in CO2 emissions have to
occur right away,'' said Mark Pagani, a Yale geochemist who
studies climates of the past. ``I feel like the time to do
something was yesterday.''
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to ask Senator Durbin how much time
he needs, and I will make a request that he be recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the gentlelady from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I am not the gentlelady anymore.
Mr. DURBIN. Pardon me?
Mrs. BOXER. I remember 10 years of being a gentlelady.
Mr. DURBIN. Well, I still think she is a gentlelady.
Mrs. BOXER. Well, that is so nice of the Senator to say.
Mr. DURBIN. In addition to being the Senator from California.
I see on the floor the Senator from Wisconsin. I do not want to step
in front of him.
All right. Then I ask unanimous consent to be given 5 minutes to
speak after the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to talk about what is happening in
this Congress or, better yet, what is not happening. We have to pass a
continuing resolution so we can fund this government. That means all
the functions--whether it is air traffic controllers, whether it is
building our highways, whether it is FBI agents, whether it is paying
Social Security. All the things we do--Medicare--we have to pass a
continuing resolution to keep this government going--sending meat
inspectors out to make sure we do not get poisoned, and the rest; you
name it.
And where is the House? All spending bills have to start over there.
The Republicans control it. They have not sent us a continuing
resolution. We also have to make sure we pay our debts--just like all
Americans--debts we voted for. Whether it is military spending,
domestic spending, spending to help our farmers, spending to help
recover from Hurricane Sandy, we have to pay our debts. To do that, we
have to increase the debt ceiling.
October 15; it is coming. If we do not do it, if the Republicans play
games, we will see a crash in the stock market. I am sure every
American looks forward to that. They are not doing their work because
they are obsessed--they are obsessed--with repealing a law they have
tried to repeal 41 times. They are obsessed.
They tried to get it overturned in the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court said it is constitutional. They are trying to take away a law
that is helping every American, and I am going to talk about it. They
are obsessed.
They refuse to understand that raising the debt ceiling is not about
future spending, it is about past spending. So their reason is, they
are very upset about the Affordable Care Act--or ObamaCare, however you
want to call it--and they are very upset about the deficit, which has
come down by half from its height with this President's leadership.
Here is the thing: I do a lot of speaking to youngsters in school.
When I explain to them what the role of a Senator is, I say, in
essence, it is to make life better for the people--that is what I think
it is--and to do it in a smart way, and to work with your colleagues to
make sure you can compromise and get things done. Whether it is
building highways or making sure our ports are dredged or funding the
military, we must work together. No one gets everything he or she
wants. That is life. You have to compromise. You cannot be an ideologue
and say: My way or the highway.
To go after a law that was passed years ago--that you tried to repeal
41 times and failed, that you tried to overturn in the Court and
failed--and then not to do your most fundamental responsibility of
keeping the government open? There is something really wrong about
this.
Let's take a look at this economy. Why are they so upset at what the
President has been able to achieve?
President Clinton left office with a surplus--over $200 billion.
Remember that.
Eight years later, President Bush left office with a $1.3 trillion
deficit. I will not go into why because I do not have the time, but
that is the fact, and no one can erase it from the books.
Since President Obama took office, the projected annual deficit has
been cut in half. It is less than $650 billion. Yet they are willing to
shut the government down by making believe no progress has been made,
when we have cut the deficit in half and we are trying to get out of a
disastrous recession.
Under the Clinton administration, the economy created more than 20
million private sector jobs. Under George W. Bush, we lost 665,000
jobs.
Remember, Clinton, millions of jobs created; George Bush, the
Republican, hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs lost.
Under President Obama, we have added 3.9 million private sector
jobs--coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. You
can say what you want, but President Obama and the Democrats here--even
though it has been a bear to do it--we have managed to wrap our arms
around this recession and get us on a course.
How about housing? Home prices are up more than 12 percent over the
last year. Home sales have increased 47 percent since their crisis low.
Recent housing starts are up 75 percent from April 2009.
Housing was the cause of this recession. People sliced and diced
mortgages and sold them on Wall Street and brought everything down.
Deregulation; that was the Republican mantra. It went too far, and we
lost our way, and people suffered through the worst recession since the
Great Depression.
The Republicans, instead of working with us to keep the progress up,
want to shut the government down, want to say we are not going to pay
our bills, even though they voted to rack up those bills.
Look at the auto industry. In 2009, the auto industry lost more than
100,000 jobs. Rescuing the auto industry saved more than 1 million
jobs, and the news is great coming out of Detroit. People are buying
cars.
The Republicans put it all at risk by shutting down the government
and not paying the bills.
There are going to be no more bailouts. I was so proud. I offered the
first amendment. I think my friend remembers: No more government
bailouts to the big banks. So we are on our way to saying, once and for
all, we are not going to let this crisis happen again.
The stock market. Do you know the Dow fell to 6,500, Mr. President?
Since then, it has rebounded to 15,000--almost 2,000 points above its
precrisis record. But yet they will put it all at risk because they are
saying they are going to play games, shut down the government, not pay
the debt.
The last time they played these games--the Republicans--GAO found
that threatening to breach the debt limit cost the Treasury $1.3
billion just in 2011, and $18 billion over the next 10 years.
The next time a Republican tells you how fiscally conservative they
are, ask them why it is they added $18 billion to the debt by playing
games with the debt ceiling.
I want to quote Republican President Ronald Reagan, one of the heroes
of my friends' party. He said:
[[Page 13761]]
The full consequences of a 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 the value of
the dollar.
That is Ronald Reagan. In 1983 he said that even talking about a
default had terrible consequences. They are not even talking about a
default, they are planning for a default.
My friend, who is such a great leader in the Senate, Senator Durbin,
informed us and Senator Reid informed us that the Republicans in the
House have a bill they love. We call it Pay China First. If there is a
default, they will keep paying China the interest we owe them, but they
will default on all of the Americans here and all of the contractors,
the highway contractors, the people who dredge our ports. They will
default on what they owe the American people, but they will pay China.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the CBO Director under George W. Bush, said:
It's a bad idea. Little defaults, big defaults; default's a
bad idea period and there should be no one who believes
otherwise.
He said that in 2011. There is no such thing as a good default.
I have shown how far we have come with this economy. If we do not
have the far right of the Republican Party taking America's country
hostage, we will continue to grow this economy. But if they play games
and try to shut down this government, it could all turn around. If they
play games and they try to default on the debt, they could turn it all
around in a bad way, and we will see the results as Social Security
recipients start to worry, as Medicare recipients start to worry, as
contractors start to worry, as Federal FBI agents can no longer get
paid--it goes on and on and on.
One of the reasons they are so crazed is they are obsessed over the
Affordable Care Act, which they call ObamaCare. In my time, I want to
tell you what the Affordable Care Act does and see whether you think it
is worth shutting down the government over this bill. They tried it 41
times, but they hope 42 will be their winner. Over 1 million
Californians--this is just in my State--are already newly insured.
Three million young adults are now insured on their parents' plans--3
million are now insured, 400,000 in my State. Now 71 million Americans
are getting free preventive care, such as checkups and birth control
and immunizations. They do not like that, I guess. They are willing to
shut the government down over it. Now 17 million kids with preexisting
conditions, such as asthma, can no longer be denied coverage. Insurance
companies cannot cancel your health insurance because you get sick.
There are no more lifetime limits on coverage. Anyone who has had a
catastrophic disease knows it is pretty easy to hit that cap. No more
caps in a year. No more lifetime caps. This is what they are so
obsessed about. So they are willing to shut down the government to take
away these benefits.
They said: Oh, health care costs are going to go up because of the
Affordable Care Act. Well, guess what, health care costs are growing at
the slowest rate in over 50 years. Insurance companies now have to
justify their premium hikes. Before, they just hiked your rates and
they could do it with impunity. Now, insurers have to spend at least 80
percent of your premiums on your medical care, not on overhead. They
cannot pocket the money; they have to spend it on health care. Also,
8.5 million Americans have received rebate checks from their insurance
company because they were overcharged. Is that what the Republicans are
so upset about? They are willing to shut down the government to take
away these benefits from the people.
Insurance companies cannot deny coverage or charge more for
preexisting conditions. They cannot charge women more than men. There
is no more discrimination. Again, in a single year, they cannot impose
dollar limits on you.
The Republicans are upset about the deficit. The deficit has been cut
in half.
I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. The House has voted 41 times to defund the Affordable
Care Act. They took it all the way to the Supreme Court, the Republican
attorneys general. They lost. They made it a centerpiece of the 2012
election. They lost the Presidential election. Now they are willing to
shut down the government unless they get their way.
So I would conclude by asking some rhetorical questions.
Why are the Republicans obsessed with kicking young people off their
parents' insurance?
Why are the Republicans so obsessed with stopping preventive care,
such as checkups and birth control and immunizations?
Why are Republicans so obsessed with repealing benefits that
guarantee insurance coverage for children and adults with preexisting
conditions?
Why are they so obsessed with stopping 13 million people from getting
insurance who never had the chance before?
Why are they so obsessed with stopping 24 million people from getting
insurance under the new State health exchanges?
Why are they so obsessed with repealing a law that prevents insurance
companies from canceling an insurance policy when someone gets sick?
Why are they obsessed that we are stopping that practice?
Why are they so obsessed when we say you can no longer have an annual
dollar limit on benefits?
Why are they so obsessed with repealing a law that says to an
insurance company: You cannot have a lifetime limit on benefits.
Why are they so obsessed with repealing a law that finally stops
discrimination against women? You know, being a woman was considered a
preexisting condition. Honestly. You would have to pay twice as much as
a man for your health care. If you were a victim of some kind of
spousal abuse, that was considered a preexisting condition and your
payments went up or maybe you never even got insurance.
I have to say that finally, why are they so obsessed with doing away
with the Affordable Care Act when CBO--the Congressional Budget
Office--says it will save $109 billion over 10 years and over $1
trillion the following decade?
I cannot answer these questions. All I can think is that it is
politics. It is politics. I have been here a long time. I am proud of
it. I thank my people in California for allowing me to have this honor.
There were many laws I did not like, believe me. I have served with
five Presidents. I did not agree with quite a few of them--two or
three--but when I lost a battle, I did not try to shut down the
government. When I lost a battle, I did not say: We cannot pay our
debts. Oh, maybe I voted once or twice as a symbolic vote, but I knew
the votes were there.
So I would say to my friends, get over your obsession and proceed
with your responsibilities to keep this government open. Forget about
repealing a health care law that is about to kick in that is good for
the people and pay your debts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Tribute to Tom Lamont
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to thank a good friend for his
service to our Nation, America's soldiers, and their families. Tom
Lamont of Springfield, IL, is retiring this week as Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, the Army's top personnel
officer. It is a post Tom has held for more than 4 years. These were
not 4 ordinary years; they were 4 of the most challenging in the Army's
modern history. The list of challenges Tom Lamont faced from day one
was daunting. At the top of his list, he had to help coordinate the
drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. At the same time he had to support a
surge of troops in Afghanistan and then help the return home of those
same troops. He also had to address many of the most important issues
facing the military and our Army today, including post-traumatic
stress, traumatic brain injuries, sexual assault in the military, and
the disturbingly high incidence of
[[Page 13762]]
suicide among Active-Duty soldiers and veterans.
I was proud to introduce Tom Lamont at his confirmation hearing
before the Senate Armed Services Committee 4 years ago. I said then
that with the tremendous strain the war in Iraq and Afghanistan had
created for soldiers and their families, the Army needed a leader like
Tom Lamont.
As he prepares to complete his mission in the Pentagon, I am proud
but not at all surprised that Tom was every bit the leader our Army
needed. In the time of this historic challenge for the Army, Assistant
Secretary Thomas Lamont has consistently risen to the challenge. He
made clear from the start that his No. 1 priority was the well-being of
America's soldiers and their families, especially those coping with
multiple deployments.
He also supervised the development of the Army's first Total Force
Policy--a new policy that integrates the Active Duty, Guard, and
Reserve components of the Army into a single, effective, unified force.
It was signed by Secretary of the Army John McHugh just last September.
The new Total Force Policy reflects a fundamental fact that, as decades
of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, our Army Guard and
Reserve are now as integral to the fight as the Active-Duty component
and we are not going back. Very few people could bring to that task the
experience and personal commitment that Tom Lamont did.
Assistant Secretary Lamont also oversaw a review of the Army's
Integrated Disability Evaluation System. The IDES system is a
partnership between the Defense Department and the Department of
Veterans Affairs. It is used to evaluate the wounded, ill or injured
servicemembers, to determine whether they are fit for duty, and if not,
what disability rating or benefits they receive. Thanks to Tom's focus,
the Army's IDES wait times are down more than 40 percent, and the
process is more consistent and less adversarial. We need to cut back on
that backlog even further, and we will. Tom Lamont's leadership over
the last 4 years has made a real difference in reducing the so-called
benefits gap for servicemembers transitioning to civilian life.
One reason Tom has been such an effective Assistant Secretary of the
Army is the respect he brought to this position for the sacrifices made
by all soldiers, whether they are Active Duty, Guard, or Reserve. That
respect is something Tom learned during his 25 years as a judge
advocate general in the Illinois National Guard. He retired from the
Guard with the rank of colonel in 2007. His years of experience in the
Illinois Army National Guard gave Tom Lamont a deep understanding of
the needs of the Army.
Tom is also a respected attorney in our hometown of Springfield, IL,
and a former partner in two distinguished law firms. One of those
firms, the Springfield firm of Brown, Hay & Stephens, is the oldest law
practice in Illinois. From 1837 to 1841, it employed a young lawyer by
the name of Abraham Lincoln. Later, in his second inaugural address,
President Lincoln spoke of the solemn obligation of any nation that has
been through a war. He said we have a moral responsibility ``to bind up
the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle
and for his widow and orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a
just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'' Tom
Lamont has kept faith with that moral responsibility Abraham Lincoln
spoke to.
Tom Lamont has also served the people of Illinois in many important
positions: executive Director of the Office of the State Attorney
Appellate Prosecutor, director of civil litigation in the Office of the
Illinois Attorney General, executive director of the Illinois Board of
Higher Education, special counsel to the University of Illinois, and
member of the Senate Judicial Nomination Commission.
A while back, GEN Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, gave a speech in which he described the historic challenges
facing the U.S. Armed Forces. He said in those remarks that ``if we
don't get the people right, the rest of it won't matter.'' He went on
to say, ``We might get the equipment right, the organizational design
right, modernization right, but if we don't get the people right, we're
going to put the country at risk.''
When President Obama nominated Tom Lamont to be Assistant Secretary
of the Army, he got the people right. His service these last 4 years
leaves our Army stronger and better prepared for what lies ahead.
In closing, I wish to thank Tom for his extraordinary record of
public service.
Tom and his wife Bridget are good friends of Loretta's and mine. I
know better than most the personal sacrifices both have made so Tom
could serve this President in the U.S. Army and the Nation he loves. I
wish Tom and Bridget the best in life's next challenge.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask for 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I wish to salute my colleague from California Senator
Boxer. The statement she made before I spoke summarized what we face:
People say to me are we really going to shut down the Federal
Government? Is that what we were elected to come here to do, to reach
an agreement between the parties, between the House and the Senate, to
shut down the government and cut off the basic services of the
Government of the United States of America, the leading Nation in the
world when it comes to striving for social justice as well as peace?
Are you going to shut down the government? Is that the best you can do
in this Congress?
The answer is it is not worthy of this great institution or this
great Nation for us to entertain the thought of shutting down this
government or, even worse, to default on America's debt for the first
time in our history.
People don't understand this term ``debt ceiling.'' Let me explain
it. Do you have a mortgage on your home? What would happen if you
didn't make a payment next month? Oh, you might get by with it, but by
the second month there would be a knock on the door, a call, or an e-
mail. They would be saying to you: You missed your payment, and if you
want to stay in this house you better make it.
Even if you made that payment, the next time you negotiate a
mortgage, someone will remember you defaulted, you failed to pay your
mortgage, and you are likely to pay a higher mortgage rate.
Translate that into the United States of America. If we don't pay our
mortgage, if we don't lift the debt ceiling to reflect spending that
this Congress has already engaged in by both political parties, we will
have defaulted on America's debt for the first time in history. We may
get through it. I am sure we will. But at the end of the day what will
happen is the interest rate paid by Americans to borrow money will go
up. It means that $1 sent to Washington in taxes will no longer buy $1
worth of goods and services. No. It will buy less because more of that
is to be paid in interest to someone loaning money to the United
States. Golly, it is an awful outcome. I wish we could avoid it.
The answer is we can avoid it. The default on America's debt, the
failure to extend the debt ceiling, is a self-imposed crisis generated,
sadly, by the majority in the House of Representatives who happen to
believe this is good politics. The American people will rally to the
notion that we are going to default on our debt for the first time and
we are going to stop funding the government.
What a glorious day for this great Nation, closing the doors of our
government in every single agency, virtually every single agency, and
defaulting on our debt for the first time in history.
If that is what the tea party Republicans think is leadership, God
save the United States of America. We need leadership where Democrats
and Republicans sit down and act as adults, not as squealing political
pigs trying to get attention. We need to basically sit down, both
political parties, and solve this problem.
[[Page 13763]]
I have been waiting patiently, watching. We have asked for a budget
conference committee to work out our differences. Time and again we
have come to the floor over the last 6 months and said Senator Murray's
budget which passed the Senate is ready to be negotiated with the
House. Consistently, four Senators on the Republican side of the aisle
have taken turns standing up and objecting to working out our
differences and coming up with an agreement on how much we will spend.
That is not how you should govern this Nation. I don't believe that is
how you should serve in the Senate.
The latest excuse--and I won't go into detail--is, of course,
Republicans have said: Of course, we have to shut down the government
and we have to default on our debt for the first time in history to
stop ObamaCare.
Senator Boxer went through the details of what ObamaCare means to
millions of families and the opportunity for health insurance for the
first time for many of them in their entire lives. It is working, and I
think that is what infuriates many Republicans the most.
We can fix it, it can be better, and we should do it. But to bring
this government to a halt and to default on our debt over this question
of a bill that passed over 3 years ago and is the law of the land,
found constitutional by the Supreme Court, is the height of
irresponsibility.
The American people have a right to be angry with Congress, but
please take a moment and realize that this desperate, awful strategy is
inspired by one political party, which thinks that somehow this is
going to appeal to the American people. I don't believe it will. The
American people are too smart to fall for that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I sat through the speech given by the
junior Senator of California. I have a long list of things with which I
disagree and I am going to get to as many of those as I can in a
minute. I feel an obligation to make a statement about some important
policy issues that nobody talks about, certainly not partisan in any
way. I wish to get that out of the way first and then I will have time,
on the time that I have been given, to go back and cover as many of the
issues that were misrepresented by my good friend, the junior Senator
from California.
Sri Lanka
I wish to encourage the Obama administration to review its current
policies regarding the country of Sri Lanka and seek further engagement
to assist them as they continue their progress toward reconciliation
and reconstruction after 30 years of a bloody civil war against the
Tamil Tiger terrorists.
Just 4 years ago Sri Lanka defeated the Tamil terrorists and is
currently recovering from economic, political, and social upheaval
caused by this destructive civil war. I think there are a lot of people
who didn't expect this to happen with this new administration, but it
is. Good things have happened. Peace has brought historic postconflict
recovery and Sri Lanka is bringing the dividends of peace in an
exclusive manner, particularly to those in the north and to the east of
the country, from where Tamil suicide bombers and other terrorist
attacks were once launched.
Specifically, since the war ended, those two areas have seen an
economic growth of 22 percent compared to an average of 7.5 percent for
the rest of the country.
Sri Lanka has removed half a million antipersonnel mines, resettled
300,000 internally displaced people, and reestablished vital social
services in the areas of health and education.
It is also conducting local elections in the formerly Tamil-
controlled north on the 21st of September. I see this as an important
step toward political reconciliation. Such processes take time, as we
learned from our own Civil War.
It seems to me that Sri Lanka is developing into a key economy, both
in its own right and as a gateway to India. A lot of people don't know
where Sri Lanka is. It is that little island at the bottom of India and
that part of the world.
Sri Lanka's geostrategic location, the deepwater ports, could be
vital to the long-term financial and national security interests of the
United States. We want them on our side. Some 50 percent of all
container traffic, for example, and 70 percent of the world's energy
supplies pass within sight of Sri Lanka's coast.
U.S. diplomatic efforts there, however, have lagged. As a result, I
believe our long-term economic and national security interests are
suffering. At a time when the United States is pivoting or rebalancing
toward Asia, we may be giving this island nation reason not to consider
the United States a friend and strategic partner.
Understandably, the policies of the United States toward Sri Lanka
have focused on accountability for what happened during the last phases
of the civil war, as well as on steps toward political reconciliation
and respect for human rights. While these aspects are very important
and deserving of support, I also believe there is the opportunity to
engage in a wider simultaneous approach that also takes into account
economic and national security consideration. Maybe this wider, dual-
track approach would have a positive influence overall and make up for
lost ground.
I have expressed these views in letters to both Secretary Kerry and
Secretary Hagel in recent months. While both of them agree with me
about Sri Lanka and its economic and geostrategic importance to the
United States, both still point to the lack of political transparency
and poor human rights record to reject a review of the administration's
position, which restricts military-to-military relations and foreign
assistance funding.
I take Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel at their word and believe
the upcoming September 21 provincial council elections in the north can
be a meaningful act of political reconciliation that would be between
the Sinhala majority and the Tamil minorities. If they are conducted in
a free and fair manner, free of human rights violations, I will
strongly renew my request to the administration to reassess our current
policies toward Sri Lanka.
I know it is a little bit controversial, but we have watched what has
happened over the years. We have watched the civil war. Then when you
consider the very strategic location of Sri Lanka, it is very
important, in my view, that we establish these relationships and
recognize them.
Let me mention a few things I took issue with. Some of them I had a
hard time understanding what the junior Senator from California was
talking about when she was singing the praises of this administration.
First, I agreed with her on the tragedy at the Navy Yard. I have been
down there many times. I was envisioning as I was coming from Tulsa up
here on Monday--at that time they said Ronald Reagan Airport was going
to be closed. They thought it was going to be closed down because of
the proximity to the Navy Yard. It didn't turn out that way and we
ended up landing there.
When I went down and I saw the scene, which I have seen many times
before, and I looked at it, it was gut-wrenching to think that one
deranged person could do this. We saw it before in Waco. We have seen
it in Boston. We have seen it in other places. It is something that I
assume is going to be with us. I don't know how it can be precluded.
I will say this, though. I fully expected several of my liberal
friends would use that to try to come up with an excuse for more
stringent gun regulations. I would only suggest that the District of
Columbia has the most stringent anti-Second Amendment gun control laws
anywhere in the country, and that is where this took place. You can't
say this has anything to do with it, but I knew it was going to happen.
Another thing my friend talked about was the debt, all of this,
talking about the other administrations. I would only remind you, this
is something that is incontrovertible, the amount of debt this
President has had up to today. He has increased our deficit by $6.1
trillion, which is more than all of the other Presidents from George
[[Page 13764]]
Washington on up through recent administrations combined. You wonder
where is all of that money, where did it all go? It went to his social
programs.
My major concern--the Presiding Officer may have heard I was making
quite an issue out of the fact the President wanted to send cruise
missiles into Syria. I don't think there is anyone naive enough to
believe you can do that and not have repercussions.
We have heard from Iran, which I consider to be the greatest threat
to the United States, in that our intelligence has told us since 2007
Iran would have the nuclear weapon and the delivery system in place by
2015. That is a year and a half from now. Yes, it is something where we
would be going in.
However, in the disarming of America, as I have referred to, I
remember going to Afghanistan 4\1/2\ years ago. It was after the
President's first budget. I went there because I knew what was going to
happen to the military in spite of all this spending that has given us
new debt, $6.1 trillion. Where did it go? I can tell you a lot of
places where it didn't go. It didn't go to defending America.
I went over there. In that very first budget the President had, the
first thing he did was do away with our only fifth-generation fighter,
the F-22. He did away with our lift capability, the C-17. He did away
with our future combat system, the only advancement of ground
capability in some 60 years. He did away with the ground-based
interceptor in Poland, which now puts us in a position where we are
hustling all over trying to figure out where we can get a third site to
protect the United States of America against a missile coming in from
the East. We have 33 of them out there but they are all on the west
coast. That doesn't help us here.
On top of that, this administration, in its extended budget, has
taken now already $487 billion out of our defense budget and is talking
about another $\1/2\ trillion through his sequestration.
I know nobody believes this, and that is why none of the Members on
this floor will talk about it, but this disarming of America puts us in
a very serious situation.
The junior Senator from California was praising this President and
all of the things she felt he has been doing, but it is time to hear
the truth. She was praising him on ObamaCare and how wonderful this is
and how thankful everyone is. Why is it the most recent polling showed
88 percent of the people in America want to do away with the individual
mandate, and the vast majority of them say it is a bad idea? Those are
the words they use. So it is not working.
I can remember back when we were going to have Hillary health care,
back during the Clinton administration, and we asked the question--and
you can ask any liberal who wants to get to a single-payer system or
ultimately have socialized medicine, which I think will be down the
road in the vision of this administration--if this hasn't worked in
Great Britain, it hasn't worked in Denmark and it hasn't worked in
Canada, why would it work here? They will never tell you this, but they
were saying if they were running it, it would work here.
Anyway, this is something that is not popular, as was misrepresented
by the junior Senator from California. Then she said: ``The news is
great coming out of Detroit.'' That is fine, except they filed
bankruptcy last week.
So when we hear all the things that are stated, just keep in mind
this is still America, we still have certain values that have been
completely reversed by this administration, and it is time to keep that
in mind and to move on ahead.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about two
overarching issues that are confronting the Senate and the House at the
same time. Both, unfortunately in this circumstance, are directly
related. Normally, we would talk about these two issues separate and
apart.
First of all, the Affordable Care Act and what that means for the
country, what it means for families, the impact it is having now in a
very positive way but also what it means for those families in the
future and also the concerns I have about what a small group, but a
very powerful group in the Congress, want to do that I would argue
would adversely impact the economy.
Let me talk first about the Affordable Care Act. I was a strong
supporter, worked hard for its passage, and will continue to work hard
on the implementation. We have seen in the last couple of years, since
implementation began in 2010, continued in 2011, 2012, and 2013, the
benefits the Affordable Care Act have brought to this country. We have
also seen where we have had to make changes, where we have had to come
together, often in a bipartisan manner, to make changes to the
legislation to make it work. There will be plenty of other changes in
the future, but the worst thing we could do right now is to pretend, as
some in this body and in the other body do as well, that nothing has
changed for the better for families.
Let me give a couple of examples. I will use Pennsylvania examples,
but of course in every one of these there is a national number that
corresponds to the State-by-State numbers.
Consider this: In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 222,703
Pennsylvania seniors saved money on prescription drugs directly as a
result of the Affordable Care Act. Health care reform provides seniors
who hit the so-called doughnut hole with more than a 50-percent
discount on brand name drugs. Already, just in Pennsylvania, that many
seniors have had some measure of support when they got into that
doughnut hole. That is a very nice way of saying a coverage gap, where
they have to come up with the dollars for prescription drugs. I
mentioned the number of 222,000 seniors in Pennsylvania who have
already saved $168 million on prescription drugs directly as a result
of this legislation. So if you are for repealing this, you have to tell
us how you are going to help those 222,703 Pennsylvanians with their
prescription drug coverage if you want to take away that benefit.
Two more examples. I will not go through all of these. There are
5,489,162 Pennsylvanians with preexisting conditions who will no longer
have to worry about being denied coverage. That part of the
legislation, as the Presiding Officer knows so well, is an enlargement
of what we had before. What we had in the first couple years of
implementation was a legal prohibition that a child who had a
preexisting condition would not be denied coverage. Imagine where we
were before this legislation. The Federal Government and the Nation
were saying to those families: We know your child has coverage, we know
you are paying the premium for that child, we know that technically
your child has some kind of health insurance coverage, but if that
child has a preexisting condition, he or she does not get covered.
That was the prevailing policy before the Affordable Care Act was
passed. What we said in the act was that is unacceptable. The United
States is not going to say any longer to a family: If your child has a
preexisting condition he or she will be denied coverage and treatment.
We wiped that out by virtue of passage of the act and then
implementation.
Now we are saying, as implementation proceeds in 2014, that same kind
of coverage for preexisting conditions will apply to adults as well. We
couldn't afford to do it right away, but now we are able to move in
that direction. Imagine what happens upon repeal, if we repeal the
Affordable Care Act, if we go back to the old and, I would argue, very
dark days, where children and adults with preexisting conditions don't
get the coverage they need and surely deserve.
What kind of a country are we if we say a child whose parents have
health insurance and have been paying premiums should not be covered or
treated because an insurance company says they are not entitled to
coverage? If we repeal the bill, we are going back to those days.
Whether it is a child or an adult, the least we can do is say we will
have a health insurance system in the United States where if you are
paying your premiums, you will be given the
[[Page 13765]]
coverage you are paying for and that you are entitled to. We couldn't
say that before the passage of this act.
So repeal of the Affordable Care Act means preexisting conditions are
no longer covered.
I haven't heard a lot from the other side about how they would
achieve that. Maybe they will. Maybe they will come up with a plan to
do that.
Finally, this is the third example. There are 91,000 young
Pennsylvanians who have been able to find health care coverage. Under
the act, young adults, ages 19 to 25, are able to stay on their
parents' plan in order to maintain coverage.
A lot of families out there had a lot of worry and, frankly, a lot of
financial burden but especially the anxiety of knowing a young person
who may have been in college for years--maybe they had a 2-year college
or 4-year education, but somewhere in that time period of being in
college, roughly that age and after college up through age 25--had no
coverage. This has solved that problem. Imagine the numbers across the
country.
In both of these instances--young people having coverage on their
parents' plans and children being covered for preexisting conditions--
we are talking in the tens of millions of Americans, children and young
adults.
Those are just three examples--seniors getting help with their
prescription drug coverage, which they never got before at this level
of protection and help; children with preexisting conditions, now
adults; and then, thirdly, young people across the country.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a summary
entitled ``The Affordable Care Act Is Providing Stability and Security
for Middle-Class Pennsylvanians.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Affordable Care Act Is Providing Stability and Security for Middle-
Class Pennsylvanians
The Affordable Care Act is providing middle-class families
with stability and security. Instead of refighting old
political battles over health care, Republicans should work
with us to improve the law, help make sure people are aware
of and take advantage of its benefits, and strengthen the
economy. Republicans want to go back to the days when
insurance companies were in charge and could deny coverage to
children with pre-existing conditions, charge women more than
men, and run up premiums.
Providing Benefits for Pennsylvania Seniors
222,703 Pennsylvania seniors saved money on prescription
drugs. Health reform provides seniors who hit the so-called
``donut hole'' with a more than 50% discount on brand name
drugs. Seniors will receive larger discounts each year until
the ``donut hole'' closes completely in 2020. 222,703
Pennsylvania seniors have saved $168 million on prescription
drugs under health reform, for an average savings of $753.
1,034,635 Pennsylvania seniors have received free
preventive health services. As a result of health reform,
seniors have access to free preventive health services such
as cancer screening, diabetes screening, and annual wellness
visits.
Providing Stable and Secure Coverage for Middle-Class Pennsylvanians
5,489,162 Pennsylvanians with pre-existing conditions will
no longer have to worry about being denied coverage. Under
the Affordable Care Act (ACA), insurance companies are
already barred from denying coverage to children with pre-
existing conditions. Starting in 2014, that protection will
be afforded to all Americans, ensuring that those with
conditions like cancer, diabetes, asthma, or heart disease
will not be denied coverage or charged higher premiums.
5,489,162 non-elderly Pennsylvanians have been diagnosed with
a preexisting condition.
91,000 young Pennsylvanians have been able to find health
coverage. Under the ACA, young adults aged 19-25 are able to
stay on their parents' plan in order to maintain coverage.
3,151,000 Pennsylvanians have received free preventive
health services. The Affordable Care Act ensures that most
insurance plans provide recommended health services like
colonoscopies, Pap smears, mammograms, and well-child visits
without cost-sharing or out of pocket costs. 3,151,000
Pennsylvanians have benefited from these services, including
1,218,000 women and 761,000 children.
4,582,000 Pennsylvanians no longer have to worry about
lifetime or annual limits on coverage. Under the ACA,
insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to those who
need it most by imposing arbitrary lifetime or annual dollar
limits on coverage.
Making Pennsylvanians Health Care More Affordable
123,581 Pennsylvanians have received rebates and greater
value from their health insurance. Under the ACA, Americans
get greater value from their health insurance. Insurance
companies are required to spend at least 80 cents of every
dollar paid in premiums on health care as opposed to
administrative expenses, executive salaries, or padding their
profits. For every dollar spent above that limit, they are
required to give rebates back to the American people. Last
year, 123,581 Pennsylvanians received an average rebate of
$77 for a total of $6,875,277.
Pennsylvania has received $5,312,084 in lower premium
increases. Because of the ACA, for the first time, insurance
companies are required to publicly justify their actions if
they want to raise rates by 10% or more. As a result of this
effort to fight unreasonable premium hikes, Pennsylvania has
received $5,312,084.
Mr. CASEY. There is a lot more we could talk about, but we don't have
time. I will not go into the national numbers because I know others
have done that, but these are just some of the examples of what this
legislation has meant.
The act is not perfect. No act that has been passed by this Senate
has ever been perfect, especially something as challenging as health
care, and we will make changes to make it work. But the worst thing we
could do is for the Senate to turn its back on children and say: You
don't deserve to have coverage if you have a preexisting condition or
turn our back on older citizens who fought our wars, worked in our
factories, taught our children, gave us a middle class, and gave us and
younger generations life and love and helped us in so many ways and say
to them: You know what. You can be on your own when it comes to
prescription drug coverage.
That is the Affordable Care Act. But unfortunately this isn't just a
debate about the act. Now we are getting into a debate about some
people in Washington wanting to use the Affordable Care Act as a
political weapon in other contexts. They say if they do not have a
repeal of or a defunding of the Affordable Care Act, that somehow they
think a government shutdown would be the right way to go or that we
would default on our obligations.
Of course, I and many others don't believe that is the right way to
go; in essence, in the case of the debt limit, holding the debt limit
hostage to a relitigation of the Affordable Care Act. That is dangerous
for the economy, but I think it is also very bad for those families I
just mentioned.
This debt limit crisis that is ahead of us, just as the end of the
fiscal year crisis is ahead of us, is manufactured. We don't need to
have a crisis on the debt ceiling, but it is being manufactured to make
a political point by some in Washington. Not all Republicans agree with
this, certainly not around the country but even here in Washington. But
some seem to believe this is the right way to go.
This is the kind of edge-of-the-cliff brinkmanship we saw in 2011,
which had a substantial--and I think this is irrefutable--adverse
impact on the economy. The Dow dropped 2,000 points because of the last
debt ceiling debate, a debate which resulted in us getting an agreement
at the very last minute, not going over the deadline. But some
apparently think it is a good idea to default on our obligations for
the first time since 1789.
What does that mean for most Americans? If we have the Dow drop 2,000
points or maybe lower, if we actually go over the deadline, it means a
loss of savings for Americans. It may not affect people in the Senate
who are wealthy or people in the Senate who have job security and
health care security and everything else, but it will hurt a lot of
Americans, and it will crater the savings of Americans if that happens.
An adverse credit rating, another adverse consequence, means more
expensive credit for everyone. It translates into higher costs for
housing, education, and other critical household expenses. Local
governments would also bear the burden of a lower credit rating--a drop
in the credit rating of the United States--which makes every project
that much more difficult and expensive.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Wall Street
[[Page 13766]]
Journal op-ed entitled ``Uncertainty Is the Enemy of Recovery,'' dated
April 28, 2013, and written by Bill McNabb, the CEO of Vanguard.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 28, 2013]
Uncertainty Is the Enemy of Recovery
(By Bill McNabb)
Anyone hoping for signs of a healthy economic recovery was
disappointed by lower-than-expected GDP growth for the first
quarter of 2013--a mere 2.5%, far short of the forecast 3.2%.
Meanwhile, the stock market continues to soar, hitting record
levels in recent weeks. It's a striking disconnect, and one
that is discouraging and confusing for Americans as they seek
to earn a living and save for the future.
Companies and small businesses are also dealing with the
same paradox. Many are in good shape and have money to spend.
So why aren't they pumping more capital back into the
economy, creating jobs and fueling the country's economic
engine?
Quite simply, if firms can't see a clear road to economic
recovery ahead, they're not going to hire and they're not
going to spend. It's what economists call a ``deadweight
loss''--loss caused by inefficiency.''
Today, there is uncertainty about regulatory policy,
uncertainty about monetary policy, uncertainty about foreign
policy and, most significantly, uncertainty about U.S. fiscal
policy and the national debt. Until a sensible plan is
created to address the debt, America will not fulfill its
economic potential.
Uncertainty comes with a very real and quantifiable price
tag--an uncertainty tax, so to speak. Over the past two
years, amid stalled debates in Washington and missed
opportunities to tackle the debt, the magnitude of this
uncertainty tax has gotten short shrift.
Three economists, Stanford University's Nicholas Bloom and
Scott Baker and the University of Chicago's Steven Davis,
have done invaluable work measuring the level of policy
uncertainty over the past few decades. Their research
(available at policyuncertainty.com) shows that, on average,
U.S. economic policy uncertainty has been 50% higher in the
past two years than it has been since 1985.
Based on that research, our economists at Vanguard isolated
changes in the U.S. economy that we determined were
specifically due to increases in policy uncertainty, such as
the debt-ceiling debacle in August 2011, the congressional
supercommittee failure in November 2011, and the fiscal-cliff
crisis at the end of 2012. This gave us a picture of what the
economy might look like if the shocks from policy uncertainty
had not occurred.
We estimate that since 2011 the rise in overall policy
uncertainty has created a $261 billion cumulative drag on the
economy (the equivalent of more than $800 per person in the
country). Without this uncertainty tax, real U.S. GDP could
have grown an average 3% per year since 2011, instead of the
recorded 2% average in fiscal years 2011-12. In addition, the
U.S. labor market would have added roughly 45,000 more jobs
per month over the past two years. That adds up to more than
one million jobs that we could have had by now, but don't.
At Vanguard we estimate that the spike in policy
uncertainty surrounding the debt-ceiling debate alone has
resulted in a cumulative economic loss of $112 billion over
the past two years. To put that figure in perspective, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that sequestration may
reduce total funding by $85 billion in 2013. Clearly, the
U.S. debt situation is the economic issue of our generation.
But it's not just about the numbers. Every time lawmakers
seemingly get close to a deal that will restore fiscal
responsibility but instead fail, we at Vanguard hear the
concerns of investors. They ask: How does this affect my
retirement fund? What about my college savings account? How
does this affect my taxes? Would I be better off putting my
savings under the mattress?
Investor anxiety is a critical component in all of this.
We'd be foolish to take comfort in the strength of recent
stock-market performance. Until the U.S. debt issue is
resolved for the long term, market gains and losses will be
built on an unstable foundation of promises that cannot be
kept.
Developing a credible, long-term solution to the country's
staggering debt is the biggest collective challenge right
now. It should be America's biggest collective priority, too.
Any comprehensive deficit reduction must take on the
imbalance between revenues and expenditures as a share of
GDP. That means entitlement reforms, spending reductions and
additional tax revenues.
This does not have to be about European-style ``instant
austerity.'' Because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve
currency, America doesn't have to balance the budget
tomorrow.
The key is to provide clarity to businesses, financial
markets and everyday savers and investors. Make no mistake: A
comprehensive, long-term, binding plan that brings the budget
into balance over a reasonable time frame is essential. If
Washington fails to achieve one, the consequences will be
harsh.
The good news is that if reform is enacted, and the costly
pall of uncertainty is lifted, the U.S. economy has the
potential to bounce back, creating the growth and jobs that
are so badly needed. I am confident that our leaders in
Washington can make it happen.
Mr. CASEY. I will not read the article, but I was certainly struck by
it. Obviously, the author talks about this problem of uncertainty and
what it causes. In support of his op-ed he mentioned the work done by
two economists in measuring and calculating the cost of this
uncertainty.
Here is what they concluded just as it relates to the uncertainty
that results from a debt ceiling battle:
At Vanguard we estimate that the spike in policy
uncertainty surrounding the debt-ceiling debate alone has
resulted in a cumulative economic loss of $112 billion over
the past two years.
This is what Bill McNabb, who is someone who knows something about
markets and related issues, said in April of this year.
So there is a 2-year impact of $112 billion because of a politically
motivated and manufactured crisis, because some people want to make a
political statement about the debt ceiling, which puts the economy at
risk. I hope that some folks come to their senses because we can have
and should have debates about reducing spending in a bipartisan
fashion, how to reduce spending the way a business does, how to reduce
spending the way a family does. But does it make any sense to do this
kind of high-wire act? This is very dangerous for the economy.
This isn't theoretical. We had a dry run, unfortunately. We had a
rehearsal of this in 2011. We didn't go over the line, we didn't
default, but we came very close. We came within days of defaulting.
Getting close to that alone had an adverse impact on the economy.
So to say this is fiscally reckless is a vast understatement. I don't
know how to express it beyond saying that. To say that it is dangerous
for the economy, for jobs, for families, for the middle class, for
companies all over the country; to say that to default on our
obligations or coming close to that--playing with fire, in a sense--to
say that is dangerous is an understatement.
Here is what we should do: We should stop the games and the fiscal
high-wire act, and we should focus on what middle-class families want.
When I go home to Pennsylvania, they say to me in a couple of short
words what they want me to do: Work together to create jobs. Work
together to create the conditions for growth, whether that is tax
credits or tax policy, whether it is efforts to jump-start the economy.
One of the more depressing charts I have seen in 6 months or maybe
even 6 years is a chart that was in the New York Times called ``A
Shifting Economic Tide,'' dated July 25, 2013. It depicts the change in
income from 1995. There is a long line going up and down with spikes
and then the line going down. But the two most relevant numbers here
are the comparison between the top 1 percent during the recession and
then in the recovery. The top 1 percent got hit pretty hard, as a lot
of people did. Even the very wealthy got hit. They lost a little more
than 36 percent of their real income. But in the recovery, even though
they lost 36 percent, they are up plus-11 in the recovery. So they went
down by 36, but they are up plus-11. So they are still not back yet.
But what happened to the bottom 90 percent--not the top 1 percent,
but what happened to the bottom 90 percent in the recession and
recovery? According to this chart, the bottom 90 percent lost 12
percent of their real income, but they are still at minus 1.5. They
haven't even gotten to zero. They haven't even gotten to positive
territory yet when you compare their real income in the recession and
the hit they took and where they are today.
So what does that mean for us? It means that both parties have a lot
of work to do. It means that both parties should be working together to
create more jobs and create more economic certainty instead of playing
this game,
[[Page 13767]]
which is dangerous, fiscally reckless for sure, and very damaging to
the economy and even the morale of the country. They want us to work
together. They don't want us to play a games like some want to play
here.
I appreciate the fact that we are having a debate about the
Affordable Care Act. It is very important to have that debate and make
sure we get the implementation right. But we should not be using the
Affordable Care Act as a political weapon in these debates about our
fiscal policy. I believe we can do that in a rational way as long as
people are willing to set aside their political ideology for a short
period of time so we can resolve some of these issues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maryland is
recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending parliamentary
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 1392 is pending.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Are there any amendments that need to be set aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, there are not.
Navy Yard Tragedy
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am going to speak from the heart--a
heavy heart--because six Marylanders died at the Navy Yard on Monday.
I join with all Americans in expressing my deepest condolences to all
of the families of those killed and injured in the Navy Yard shooting,
and I particularly express my condolences to the Maryland families.
I also thank our first responders, including the local and Federal
law enforcement officers who were first to arrive at the scene and took
control of this terrible, horrific situation. I thank the doctors and
all the support staff at MedStar trauma center who worked so hard to
help the injured and saved lives that day and every one of those who
played such an important role in responding to that emergency.
My heart goes out to the victims and the families and to everyone who
is mourning the loss of the men and women who died there. This has
deeply affected those of us in Maryland, as it has those in nearby
Virginia and the District of Columbia. But for us in Maryland, this is
whom we mourn, a cluster of people, the dead, the shooting victims.
This is Maryland and Virginia--hands across the Potomac--and we just
can't believe it.
We think of Kenneth Bernard Proctor. He was 46 years old. He was a
civilian utilities foreman at the Navy Yard. He worked for the Federal
Government for 20 years. He lived in Charles County and married his
high school sweetheart in 1994. They have two boys, now teenagers. He
loved his sons and the Redskins.
Then there was Sylvia Frasier, who was 52 years old. She was a
resident of Maryland and one of seven children. She studied computer
information systems at Strayer College. She received an undergraduate
and her master's degree in computer information systems. She worked
hard to get her education, and she wanted her education to work hard
for America. She had worked at the Navy Sea Systems Command since 2000,
and she worked a few nights a week at Walmart as a customer service
manager, helping her family, paying off student debt. Sylvia really was
a remarkable person.
Then there is Frank Kohler. He was 50 years old. He lived in a
community called Tall Timbers, MD. And we certainly say that Frank was
a tall timber when it came to working for his country. He too was a
computer specialist. He worked as a contractor for Lockheed Martin. He
was a graduate of Pennsylvania's Slippery Rock College, where he met
his wife Michelle. He was president of the Rotary Club and was honored
for his Rotary Club work. Down in southern Maryland, in St. Mary's
County, they have an oyster festival that is coming up. He held the
title ``King Oyster'' for his community service and organizing the
Rotary Club's annual festival to raise money for the much needed Rotary
Club Challengers. He was a great family man and loved by many.
There is John Roger Johnson, who was a civilian employee for the Navy
who lived in Derwood, MD, for more than 30 years. He was the father of
four daughters and a loving grandfather. His 11th grandchild is due in
November. Like so many who live in our community, he loved the
Redskins. His neighbors described him as smart, always had a smile, and
was always there for his neighbors.
Then there is Vishnu Pandit, who was 61 years old. He came from India
in his early twenties. He lived with his wife Anjali in North Potomac,
MD. He was the father of two sons. He was well liked in his community
and was known for helping people and particularly those who are part of
the Indian heritage community in Maryland. He was known for talking
about job opportunities, educational opportunities, and was a strong
advocate for them. He was proud of his heritage from his mother
country, but he was proud of being a citizen of the United States of
America.
Richard Michael Ridgell, 52 years old, was a father of three. This
guy, though, was a Ravens fan. When the Ravens came into Baltimore at
No. 1, he bought season tickets and has owned them for the last 17
years. He grew up in a community called Brooklyn, MD, but settled in
Carroll County in Westminster. He was a Maryland State trooper before
he came to work in Federal service, a brave guy, and someone who really
liked to protect and defend people in many ways.
Those are six of the 13 who died, and there are those who are
recovering. It is just a heavy heart we have. In the wake of yet
another senseless tragedy and mass casualties, I hope we do take action
to end this kind of senseless act of violence that takes innocent lives
in our communities. I hope we do something about it.
There are those who are calling for renewed background checks, and I
support that, and renewed efforts to get guns out of the hands of
dangerous people, and I support that. But there are also people who
suffer from mental illness. This case is currently under investigation,
so I am not going to comment on the person we know did this horrific
act and the struggles he had with the demons inside of him. I just know
we have to come to grips with problems. Yes, background checks are one
thing, but really--and this is where I truly agree with the NRA--we
have to do something about mental illness and early detection and early
treatment.
We mourn for those whose lives were lost on Monday. We mourn for
their families. And we hope now that out of this something positive
grows. But I want to say to their families that today is not really the
day to talk about public policy. The men and women who were at that
Navy Yard were Federal employees. They worked hard every single day.
They were proud to work for the U.S. Government. They were proud to do
everything from IT service to security service. Some had master's
degrees, some had a high school education. Whatever their education,
whatever ZIP Code they came from, they really served one Nation and one
flag.
I acknowledge their tremendous service to this country. I also
acknowledge the wonderful way they were involved with their families
and their communities. And on behalf of all of Maryland, I know Senator
Cardin and I express our deepest gratitude to them for their lives and
express our heartfelt sympathy and condolences.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for
her beautiful remarks on behalf of her constituents and their families.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families. I also thank her for
her thoughts on some of the policy ramifications that come out of the
terrible tragedy. I know the Senator stands by those families as she
has stood by so many military families in the State of Maryland.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Brown follow me after my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy
[[Page 13768]]
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013. I believe the
beneficial role that energy efficiency improvements can have for
consumers and also for industrial competitiveness often gets overlooked
in today's debate about energy policy. When I travel around my State I
am always hearing from businesses and manufacturers about the
importance of keeping energy affordable. That is why it is so important
we are having this debate and that we are looking at taking real steps
on meaningful energy legislation.
This legislation will help consumers save money on their utility
bills and help our businesses be more competitive. Minnesota has long
been an example of leadership in energy policy, with the 25 by 25
renewable energy standard. Our largest energy provider, Xcel Energy,
agreed to a 30-percent standard by 2020. So we have been one of the
leading States in a bipartisan way. This bill was signed by Governor
Pawlenty, then-Governor Pawlenty, with strong bipartisan support in our
State legislature. I would say it was also as a result of other things,
but I would say it certainly has not hurt our economy. We have one of
the lowest unemployment rates. We are at 5.2 percent. It came out today
the Twin Cities had its biggest year in the last year of any year in
terms of economic gain.
Minnesota is also leading the way with a 1.5-percent energy
efficiency standard. Each year our utilities work with consumers and
businesses to find ways to save energy and reduce waste from energy
efficiency improvements, much like those contained in the Shaheen-
Portman bill.
I believe we need an ``all of the above'' plan to get serious about
building a new energy agenda for Minnesota, a plan that helps
businesses compete in the global economy, preserves our environment,
and restarts the engine that has always kept our economy going forward;
that is the energy of innovation.
Although Senators may differ on the specific details of an ``all of
the above'' energy plan, I believe we can find broad agreement that
energy efficiency, as we see in this bill, must be a part of any plan.
Senators Shaheen and Portman have produced a very good bill that I
strongly support, but I also know there are many good ideas, many of
them bipartisan, that promote energy efficiency, and I thank them for
the opportunity to build on their legislation to boost energy
efficiency.
One goal that I share with my friend and colleague from North Dakota
Senator Hoeven was to find new opportunities to engage the nonprofit
community in making energy efficiency improvements.
I spoke briefly on the Senate floor earlier in the week about this
important issue. When faced with the choice, nonprofits including
hospitals, schools, faith based organizations and youth centers often
make the decision to delay or forgo improvements in energy efficiency
to help stretch budgets and serve more people.
But we know investing in energy efficiency improvements today can
lead to savings over time that go beyond the cost of the initial
investment. So it is a difficult question. Should we do a little less
for a year or two so that upgrades can be made to our heating system so
that we can use the long term savings to protect our ability to serve
well into the future?
That is why I introduced the Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act as an
amendment with Senator Hoeven, and we have the support of Senators
Blunt, Pryor, Risch, Schatz, and Stabenow.
Our amendment, which is fully offset, would provide $10 million each
year for the next 5 years to create a pilot grant program so that non-
profits can save through energy efficiency. We worked with stakeholders
to ensure that grants will achieve significant amounts of energy
savings and are done in a cost effective manner. The grants would
require a 50 percent match so that there is complete buy in from the
nonprofits, and grants would also be capped at $200,000.
Our amendment has the support of National Council of Churches, the
YMCA of the USA, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.
I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support for the
Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act be included in the Record.
I again thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski as well as
Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman for their tireless efforts to move
this important legislation forward.
I urge my colleagues to support the Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment, the
Nonprofit Energy Efficiency Act, and also support the underlying
Shaheen-Portman legislation.
I want to raise another important energy issue that I have worked on
this year that impacts nearly every family, business, and industry in
America--and that is the price of gasoline.
This past May in Minnesota in just one week we saw gas prices spike
40 cents higher per gallon and over 80 cents higher over the course of
one month.
We know that this sharp spike in prices was caused when a number of
refineries that serve Minnesota and the region went offline for both
scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, in part to prepare for summer
fuel blends.
I understand the need to adjust for seasonal gasoline blends and
perform upgrades to protect worker safety and make necessary repairs.
But scheduled, routine maintenance should not be an excuse for major
gasoline shortages and steep price spikes.
Gas prices in Minnesota have subsided after setting records this
spring of over $4.25 a gallon, but we know refinery outages will
continue to have significant impacts, disrupting commerce and hurting
consumers, small businesses and farmers if we do not act.
That is why I introduced the Gas Price and Refine Capacity Relief Act
of 2013 with Senators Hoeven, Franken, and Durbin. Our bill requires
refineries give advance warning of any planned outage and immediate
notification for any unplanned outage.
This information would serve as an early warning system and protect
consumers from paying the price at the pump when there are production
problems within the refining industry. With more transparency--and more
lead time--fuel retailers will have the opportunity to purchase fuel at
prices that better reflect the underlying costs of crude oil and better
reflect supply and demand across the country.
When we had this recent increase you couldn't explain it by supply
and demand. We had ample supplies. Demand was down. The only reason we
could find, besides perhaps speculation, was these refineries that had
planned closures. What we are trying to do is create an early warning
system and I appreciate the bipartisan support for this bill.
The bill would also require the Secretary of Energy look at the
potential for additional refined fuel storage capacity in our region.
Minnesota has less storage capacity for refined products than other
parts of the country and that makes us more vulnerable to the kinds of
refinery outages we've experienced this year--both planned and
unplanned--that led to dramatic spikes in the price of gas.
I thank Chairman Wyden for holding a hearing on this issue in July.
Although this amendment will not come up for a vote as a part of the
bill being considered by the Senate, I look forward to continue working
on this issue so we can prevent another unnecessary spike in gas prices
like we saw in Minnesota this spring.
Most people wouldn't tie the last issue I wish to discuss today to
energy policy. But just ask any power company or construction crew
across the country, or even operators of ice skating rinks in Minnesota
and you would quickly learn about the growing national problem of metal
theft and it must be addressed.
I have filed my bipartisan bill, the Metal Theft Prevention Act, to
the energy efficiency bill to bring attention to metal theft. I
introduced it last February with Senators Hoeven, Schumer, Graham, and
Coons.
The bill is the much-needed Federal response to the increasingly
pervasive and damaging crime of metal theft.
Metal theft has jumped more than 80 percent in recent years, hurting
businesses and threatening public safety in
[[Page 13769]]
communities throughout the country. Metal theft is a major threat to
American businesses, especially to power companies. In a recent study,
the U.S. Department of Energy found that the total value of damages to
industries affected by the theft of copper wire is approximately $1
billion each year.
Across the country, copper thieves have targeted construction sites,
power and phone lines, retail stores, and vacant houses. They've caused
explosions in vacant buildings by stealing metal from gas lines, and
they've caused blackouts by stealing copper wiring from streetlights
and electrical substations. Thieves are even taking brass stars from
our veterans' graves. On Memorial Day in 2012, thieves stole more than
200 bronze star markers from veterans' graves in Minnesota.
In another case that shows just how dangerous metal theft can be,
Georgia Power was having a huge problem with thieves targeting a
substation that feeds the entire Atlanta-Hartsfield International
Airport, one of the busiest airports in the world. The airport was
getting hit 2 to 3 times a week and surveillance didn't lead to any
arrests.
Last winter, at a recreation center in St. Paul thieves stole $20,000
worth of pipe from the outdoor ice rink, causing the center to close
until local businesses donated labor and materials to make the repairs.
This rise in incidents of metal theft across the country underscores
the critical need for Federal action to crack down on metal thieves,
put them behind bars and make it more difficult for them to sell their
stolen goods.
Our Metal Theft Prevention Act will help combat this growing problem
by putting modest record-keeping requirements onto the recyclers who
buy scrap metal . . . limiting the value of cash transactions . . . and
requiring sellers in certain cases prove they actually own the metal .
. . The amendment also makes it a Federal crime to steal metal from
critical infrastructure and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to
review relevant penalties.
This amendment respects State law. Our intention is not to preempt
State laws, so if a State already has laws on the books regarding metal
theft, they would not apply the Federal law.
I realize that the majority of cases will likely continue to be
handled by State and local law authorities, but the Federal government
needs to be a strong partner, and the Metal Theft Prevention Act will
send the clear message that metal theft is a serious crime.
The Metal Theft Prevention Act has been endorsed by the National
Rural Electrical Cooperatives, American Public Power Association, APPA,
American Supply, Edison Electric Institute, National Electrical
Contractors Association, National Association of Home Builders,
National Retail Federation, U.S. Telecom Association, and about a dozen
other businesses and organizations.
It also has the support of the major law enforcement organizations--
Major Cities Police Chiefs, Major County Sheriffs, National Sheriffs,
Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police
Organizations. I would love to just bring this bill to the Senate after
I have gotten it through the committee already in Judiciary,
unanimously, but there are people still holding it up.
The Metal Theft Prevention Act will not come to a vote in relation to
the bill currently pending before the Senate, but it must be a
priority. We need to do everything we can to protect our critical
energy industry infrastructure from unscrupulous metal thieves. And, I
hope my colleagues will support the Metal Theft Prevention Act as well
when it does come before the full Senate.
Again, I commend Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman on their
legislation to encourage energy efficiency. The bill would save
consumers and taxpayers money through reduced energy consumption, help
create jobs, make our country more energy independent, and reduce
harmful emissions.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
September 17, 2013.
Senator Amy Klobuchar,
Senator John Hoeven,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators, We write to you on behalf of our
organizations, to express our strong support for a bipartisan
amendment (#1940) you have sponsored toward the Energy
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S.1392; sponsored
by Senators Shaheen and Portman and supported by ENR
Committee Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski.
Amendment 1940 will create a pilot grants program in the
Department of Energy to award limited, but impactful,
matching grants to nonprofit organizations to make their
buildings more energy efficient. It authorizes $10 million
per year for the next 5 fiscal years (importantly the funding
is fully offset by reallocating other DoE spending). The
pilot program will provide grants of up to 50% of a
nonprofit's building energy efficiency project, with a
maximum grant of $200,000.
Such a program is much needed. According to the U.S.
E.P.A., nonresidential buildings in the U.S. consume more
than $200 billion annually in energy costs. The United States
is also home to 4000 Boys & Girls Clubs, 2700 YMCAs, 2900
nonprofit hospitals and more than 17,000 museums. These
buildings also account for a significant portion of annual
greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the energy efficiency
incentive or support programs that have been in place the
past several years have been structured in the form of tax
credits and rebates. Nonprofits--being tax exempt entities--
have not been able to take advantage of these programs.
Moreover, nonprofit entities are often least able to surmount
the ``front end'' investment cost of efficiency retrofits.
The Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment, based upon S.717, received
consideration in the Senate Energy Subcommittee earlier this
year. It is good public policy that enjoys bipartisan support
and the support of a broad coalition of nonprofit
organizations. We urge you to support Amdt. 1940's inclusion
in the Shaheen Portman legislation.
Thank you,
Association of American Museum Directors, The Baha'is of
the United States, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Friends Cmte. on Nat'l Legislation (Quakers), Gen'l Conf. of
Seventh Day Adventists, Jewish Federations of North America,
National Council of Churches, Sojourners, Union of Orthodox
Jewish Congregations, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
YMCA of the U.S.A.
____
September 12, 2013.
Dear Senator: The YMCA of the USA is the national resource
office for the 2,700 YMCAs in the U.S. The nation's YMCAs
engage 21 million men, women and children--of all ages,
incomes and backgrounds--with a focus on strengthening
communities in youth development, healthy living, and social
responsibility. YMCAs are led by volunteer boards and depend
upon the dedication of their 550,000 volunteers for support
and strategic guidance in meeting the needs of their
communities.
We are writing to express our support for an amendment,
#1856, sponsored by Senators Klobuchar and Hoeven, to the
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, S. 1392.
The amendment creates a pilot grants program in the
Department of Energy that awards limited, but important,
matching grants to nonprofit organizations to make their
buildings more energy efficient. It authorizes $10 million
per year for the next five fiscal years and is fully offset
by reallocating other DOE spending.
The U.S. EPA has found that nonresidential buildings
consume more than $200 billion in energy costs. Many of the
energy efficiency programs are structured as tax credits and
rebates. Because nonprofits are tax exempt organizations they
have not been able to take advantage of these programs. In
addition, many nonprofits don't have the financial resources
to invest in energy efficient retrofits. This amendment would
help nonprofits significantly cut energy costs.
The Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment is sound public policy and
has both bipartisan support and broad support among nonprofit
organizations. Please support including this amendment in S.
1392, the Shaheen, Portman legislation.
Thank you,
Neal Denton,
Senior Vice President and Chief Government Affairs Officer,
YMCA of the USA.
____
The Jewish Federations
of North America,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2013.
Dear Senator: It is our understanding that the Senate will
commence consideration this afternoon of the Energy Savings
and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013 (S. 1392). In this
regard, we wanted to share with you our strong support for
Amendment Number 1856 filed by Senators Klobuchar and Hoeven.
This amendment would establish an energy efficiency pilot
program for nonprofit institutions. The Jewish Federations of
North America, one of North America's oldest, largest and
longest-serving health and social
[[Page 13770]]
services network supports this amendment for the following
reasons:
--JFNA has a long history of public private partnerships
and working with Congress to promote innovations and
efficiencies in nonprofit human services delivery. As such,
we endorse the Klobuchar-Hoeven amendment as a timely and
necessary pilot program to assist nonprofits to become more
energy efficient and environmentally responsible.
--JFNA is comprised of 153 Jewish Federations and 300
independent Jewish communities. Within our umbrella, we
support and operate thousands of agencies (i.e., schools,
community centers, hospitals, health centers, day care
facilities, museums, and more) that serve millions of
individuals and families within most major population centers
across the country. Many of our institutions are several
decades old--some were built more than a century ago. The
need for these institutions to upgrade and retrofit
antiquated and unreliable operating systems is great.
--As nonprofits, we know only too well the importance of
creating energy efficiencies to our bottom line--to ensure
that we maximize the use of philanthropic dollars to best
serve the most vulnerable populations and to maintain healthy
and vibrant communities across the country. We also know the
power and opportunity that is created through
congressionally-derived pilot projects. They help to shed
needed light on issues of importance to the country. They
help to galvanize support for needed public policy shifts.
They help to bolster and promote positive change within the
nonprofit sector. In this regard, Amendment Number 1856 would
provide an important catalyst for energy improvements and
modernization within the nonprofit sector.
Comprehensive energy efficiency reform cannot succeed
without Congress also addressing the issues facing the
nonprofit sector. With your support, Senate adoption of
Klobuchar-Hoeven Amendment 1856 would be a needed bi-partisan
improvement to S. 1392.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Goldberg,
Senior Director, Legislative Affairs.
____
United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2013.
Senator Amy Klobuchar,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Senator John Hoeven,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Klobuchar and Senator Hoeven: I write in
support for your amendment (#1856) to the Energy Savings and
Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 1392). This amendment
reflects the policy of your bill, S. 717, The Nonprofit
Energy Efficiency Act, which was endorsed by our Committee on
Domestic Justice and Human Development.
As our committee chair noted back in June, this amendment
would ``establish a pilot program at the U.S. Department of
Energy to provide grants to non-profit organizations to help
make the buildings they own and operate more energy
efficient.''
I would like to thank both of you for championing
innovation in energy policy and ask that your colleagues
support your amendment.
Sincerely,
Jayd Henricks,
Executive Director.
____
Association of
Art Museum Directors,
Washington, DC, September 13, 2013.
Hon. Amy Klobuchar,
Hon. John Hoeven,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Klobuchar and Hoeven, On behalf of the
Association of Art Museum Directors, its members and board of
trustees, I write to express our strong support for the
bipartisan amendment (#1856) that you have sponsored to the
Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S.1392),
which would create a pilot grants program in the Department
of Energy to award limited, but impactful, matching grants to
nonprofit organizations to make their buildings more energy-
efficient.
Many of the energy efficiency incentive or support programs
that have been in place the past several years have been
structured in the form of tax credits and rebates. As
nonprofits we have not been able to take advantage of these
programs. Your amendment would give museums, schools, houses
of worship and other nonprofit institutions the opportunity
to make our systems more energy-efficient and thereby allow
us to reduce our energy costs. In our case, the cost savings
will go into programs that museums offer to the public.
The grants program would be particularly useful to the
museum field, because many of our institutions are in large
buildings that are many decades old and were not designed to
modern efficiency standards.
Thank you for your leadership on this important piece of
legislation.
Sincerely,
Christine Anagnos,
Executive Director.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Policy
Mr. BROWN. I thank the senior Senator from Minnesota for her words
and especially work on this bill and the consumer issues. She has made
a real name in this body for her work.
I rise today to discuss the most significant reform of our Nation's
health policy in decades. The Affordable Care Act is a result of
extensive policy discussions, late-night deliberations, 400 amendments
that we considered in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension
Committee, more than 100 of those amendments that we adopted coming
from Republican ideas and Republican Senators. There is a reason that
people across the country, mothers and fathers and students and faith
leaders and business owners and workers, are paying attention. It is
because the law benefits all Americans, a wide range of Americans and
especially in my home State, which I will discuss.
More than 900,000 people in Ohio will be eligible for financial
assistance to buy insurance that provides good coverage at a price they
can afford. Ohioans suffering from preexisting conditions will no
longer be denied coverage or charged higher premiums. Young Ohioans
stay on their parents' plan until the age of 26, giving them a chance
to finish school and secure a job that provides coverage.
Those with the greatest need will get the greatest help. For years we
have heard countless stories, story after story of Americans frustrated
by and failed by our health system. Last fall my wife Connie was
waiting in line at the local drugstore in an affluent community outside
of Cleveland. The woman in front of her was, for all intents and
purposes, negotiating price with the pharmacist to save money. ``What
if I cut my pill in half and then take it twice a day,'' she asked. The
very understanding pharmacist wanted her to take her full medication
twice a day.
``But isn't it better, since I can't afford this, to take half a pill
twice a day than the whole pill just once,'' she asked.
After the woman left my wife asked how often does this happen? The
pharmacist answered, ``Every day, every day all day.''
The tide is turning. I hear from constituents at roundtables, in
restaurants, in letters and tweets and e-mails about their concerns for
their family's health. A woman in Cuyahoga Falls, a community near
Akron, explained to me she recently graduated law school. She is a type
1 diabetic. Without the health care law she would have been paying out
of pocket for extremely costly lifesaving medication because she could
not afford it on her own.
I can imagine, she said, there are many Ohioans like me, working hard
for my future but finding myself in a tough demanding spot while still
needing to care for my health needs. Health care enrollment marks a
milestone for millions of Ohioans, including myself. Twenty years ago I
was running for Congress and made a promise in 1992 that I would not
accept congressional health care; I would pay my own health insurance,
until similar coverage was available to all Americans. I did that for
well over a decade. I can now say I will be enrolling in the health
care marketplace, alongside hundreds of thousands of people from Ohio.
While millions will be able to enroll in benefits beginning in less
than 2 weeks, the health care law has already provided measurable
benefits.
I wish to share how Ohioans are already helped by provisions in this
law signed by the President 3 years ago. There are 97,000 young adults
who are now able to stay on their parents' health insurance until their
26th birthday. We are closing the doughnut hole. The Senator from
Pennsylvania mentioned what that means for his State. There are similar
numbers in Ohio. Closing the doughnut hole for seniors' prescription
drugs saves Ohioans an average of $774 a year on medication benefits.
[[Page 13771]]
There are 6,300 Ohioans who receive rebates from their insurance
companies because those companies failed to follow the new Federal law
that required them to spend at least 80 to 85 percent--depending on the
kind of insurance--of their premium dollars on health care. In other
words, if these companies spend more than 15 percent of your dollar
that you pay to these insurance companies on marketing, executive
salaries, and various kinds of administrative expenses, they owe you
money back because not a high enough percent--85 percent--of your
health care dollar was spent on health care itself.
There are 900,000 Ohioans who have received free preventive care,
with no copays and no deductibles. Seniors have been tested for
osteoporosis, diabetes, and all the other kinds of screenings that
seniors should get.
Children are no longer denied coverage for preexisting conditions. My
wife was diagnosed with asthma at a young age--way before I knew her.
She might have been denied coverage today. She, and young people like
her at that stage in their life, cannot be denied coverage for
preexisting conditions such as asthma, diabetes, cancer or whatever
they might have.
Soon all Ohioans will have access to quality, affordable health care.
In 2014, we will see all aspects of this health care law fully
implemented, which will make a huge difference for business--especially
small businesses--families, and communities.
From Ashtabula to Athens, from Bryan to Bellaire, from Mansfield to
Middletown, middle-class families across Ohio have been in the horrible
position of paying monthly premiums only to find they were stripped of
coverage or that the coverage was so minimal as to be useless when they
became sick. That worry will no longer exist.
For students at Ohio State or Wooster, Youngstown State or Xavier,
the choice between paying for another semester at school or health
insurance will not be the concern it has been for so many years. For
Ohioans from Cleveland to Cincinnati already covered, they can keep
their current plan without lifting a finger. The only change they will
see are new benefits, better protections, and more bang for their buck.
For millions in my State, the new law will mean less worry, less
anxiety, and more money in their wallets.
For some Americans, the health insurance marketplace will lower
premiums at least 10 percent more than previously expected. Work needs
to be done. The system is not perfect, but this law is already bringing
our health care into the future. It is a forward-looking law. I have
been proud to support it.
On October 1, frustrations, worry, and failed health care protections
will soon become a thing of the past for millions in my State and tens
of millions around the country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes in
support of the bill currently before the Senate, S. 1392, the Energy
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2013.
It has taken a long time for this bipartisan legislation to make it
to the floor of the Senate, and I commend Senators Shaheen and Portman,
as well as Senators Wyden and Murkowski, and all of their staffs for
their hard work.
Energy efficiency doesn't grab headlines in the same way as fracking
or nuclear reactors or even renewable energy policies for wind and
solar, but this bill is good, solid policy that will shrink energy
bills for families and businesses. It is exactly the kind of
legislation the Senate should be working on, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
This bill strengthens and updates the voluntary building codes States
and tribes can adopt in order to determine and meet targets for energy
efficiency and continues to strengthen the Federal Government's efforts
to reduce energy use.
As the Nation's largest energy consumer, the Federal Government can
play a significant role in helping to provide a market for innovation
in energy-efficient technologies and in turn reduce our Nation's
CO2 emissions while also saving taxpayers money. This is the
kind of policy everyone should be able to agree to. The bill also
provides resources to train workers on energy-efficient building design
and operation, a crucial component of making sure advances in energy
efficiency translate into real, well-paying jobs. In addition, the bill
provides incentives for more energy-efficient manufacturing and the
development and deployment of new technologies.
Finally, the bill would establish a Supply Star Program which will
help provide support to companies looking to improve the efficiency of
their supply chains. This program could be particularly helpful to
Hawaii, where transportation of goods from the mainland and other
places can be very costly.
While individually these provisions may sound like modest proposals
or changes, when taken together, the policies in this bill make
significant progress toward reducing energy costs. That is good for
consumers and businesses, driving innovation, reducing environmental
harm, and positioning the United States as a leader in clean energy
technology and jobs.
It goes without saying that the cost of energy is an important
consideration for families and businesses across our country. When
energy costs go up, they can be a drag on the economy. We see this very
clearly in Hawaii, where we are uniquely impacted by the price of oil.
In 2011, Hawaii's energy expenditures totaled $7.6 billion--almost
equal to 11 percent of our entire State economy. In addition, no other
State uses oil to generate electricity to the extent we do in Hawaii.
As a result, we have electricity prices that average 34 cents per
kilowatt hour. That is over three times the price on the mainland.
Moreover, 96 percent of the money we spend on energy leaves our
islands to buy oil from places outside of Hawaii. That is money that
could be better used to create jobs, bolster paychecks or to make
investments in Hawaii's future.
Obviously, our State's energy security and economic potential is
severely undermined by a reliance on fossil fuels. While breaking that
reliance is a challenge, it is also an opportunity. Hawaii has set some
of the Nation's most aggressive goals for generating renewable energy
and improving energy efficiency. We are working to show that renewable
energy and energy efficiency technologies are not just good for the
environment, they can be an engine for economic growth and innovation.
That is what makes the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness
Act such an important bill. At its core, this legislation is about
updating Federal energy efficiency policies to better meet the needs of
today's marketplace.
For example, updating voluntary building codes will give States and
tribes the opportunity to reduce their energy use while also giving the
private sector signals that there will be demand for innovation. The
use of energy savings performance contracts is an example. Energy
savings performance contracts are private agreements that make energy
and water efficiency retrofits more affordable. A third-party company
covers the cost of the upgrade, and it is repaid over time from the
resulting savings in energy costs.
Thanks to the State of Hawaii's commitment to improving energy
efficiency, Hawaii is the Nation's No. 1 user of energy savings
performance contracts. In fact, just a few weeks ago the State of
Hawaii was awarded the Energy Services Coalition's Race to the Top
Award which recognizes the State's commitment to pursuing energy
savings through performance contracting. This is the second year in a
row that Hawaii has won this award.
These are the types of innovative financing models and partnerships
that can happen when there is clear, sustained demand for improving
energy efficiency.
Another aspect to keep in mind is that even something as unglamorous
sounding as improving building codes
[[Page 13772]]
or advancing energy-efficient construction techniques can have a
profound impact on the lives of families across the country.
In 2011, Hawaii's first net-zero affordable housing community of
Kaupuni Village opened on Oahu. The 19 single-family homes and
community center at Kaupuni Village were constructed to maximize energy
efficiency and use renewables to achieve net-zero energy performance.
The development has earned a LEED Platinum status. Each home in the
community was designed with optimal building envelope design, high-
efficiency lighting, natural ventilation, solar water heating, and
ENERGY STAR appliances.
Kaupuni Village also provides affordable homes to Native Hawaiians--a
population that has faced many challenges in achieving independence,
home ownership, and economic success. These homes were completed at an
average cost of less than half the median sales price of homes on Oahu,
which are some of the Nation's highest home costs.
Thanks to technical assistance from the National Renewable Energy
Lab, or NREL, this partisanship between the Department of Hawaiian
Homelands, Hawaiian Electric Company, the State of Hawaii, and private
and Federal partners is a model for other communities.
Homeowners in Kaupuni Village are able to conserve energy and save
money by optimizing their high-tech homes while also maintaining a
lifestyle firmly rooted in traditions that go back thousands of years.
Homeowner Keala Young described her new life at Kaupuni Village by
saying:
We grow our own vegetables. We raise our own fresh-water
tilapia.
We are passionate about net-zero living. There is so much
pride in our home and our community. We feel we can be an
example to others.
These are the types of stories I imagine every Member of the Senate
wants to tell in order to help bring about stories of strong
communities, happy, vibrant families, and new opportunities that create
a bright future.
The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act is bipartisan
legislation that can help to make those stories real for more people in
Hawaii and across the country.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to
speak for up to 10 minutes therein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MCC COMPACT FOR EL SALVADOR
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on September 12 I made a statement in this
Chamber about the vote earlier that day by the board of directors of
the Millennium Challenge Corporation to approve a second compact for El
Salvador.
As I said then, that vote was expected, and it began the final phase
of discussions between the United States and El Salvador on a compact
which, if funded, could result in investments totaling $277 million
from the United States and $85 million from El Salvador.
I share the view of the MCC board that the compact, if implemented
fully, would improve the lives of the Salvadoran people, but I also
noted that when the MCC was established a decade ago it was not
intended to be just another foreign aid program. Rather, an MCC compact
provides a kind of stamp of approval by the United States indicating
that the government of the compact country has demonstrated a
commitment to integrity, to good governance and respect for the rule of
law, and to addressing the needs of its people. I said this should be
doubly so for a second compact.
While El Salvador can point to some success in these areas, it
remains a country of weak democratic institutions where the
independence of the judiciary has been attacked, corruption is
widespread, and transnational criminal organizations and money
laundering have flourished. Nobody knows this better than the
Salvadoran people.
I urged the MCC, the Department of State, and the Government of El
Salvador, prior to a final decision to provide the funds for a second
compact, to do more to address these problems which is necessary for
the rule of law and economic growth in that country. Regrettably,
rather than acknowledge the need to address these problems more
convincingly, the reaction of top Salvadoran officials was to accuse me
of being ``misinformed'' about their country and of meddling in their
affairs. They reacted similarly when U.S. Ambassador Aponte expressed
some of the same concerns.
For over 20 years, I have been a friend of El Salvador. I actively
supported the negotiations that ended the civil war. I worked to help
El Salvador recover from that war, and I supported the first MCC
compact which was financed with $461 million from the Appropriations
subcommittee that I chair. I obtained emergency funding to help that
country rebuild after devastating floods. And over the past decade I
have watched as the Salvadoran people were victimized by increasing
levels of crime and violence, a corrupt police force, and some
individuals in positions of authority who cared more about enriching
themselves or protecting their privileges than improving the lives of
the people. So it is disappointing that Salvadoran officials reacted as
they did to my remarks last week.
As I said then, I appreciate that MCC CEO Yohannes, U.S. Ambassador
Aponte, and other State Department officials have echoed some of the
concerns I have raised.
The budget of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which I have long
supported, and the funds for a second compact for El Salvador--for
those who may not be aware or have forgotten--comes from the Congress.
It should not be taken for granted.
I hope President Funes and his government will reconsider their
response to these concerns--for the good of the Salvadoran people and
if they want a second MCC compact to be funded.
____________________
REMEMBERING BRIGADIER GENERAL DOUGLAS KINNARD
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay
tribute to retired BG Douglas Kinnard, a former University of Vermont
professor and retired general officer who passed away on July 29 of
this year at the age of 91.
Long before I came to know General Kinnard, he had built a reputation
as a wise and thoughtful soldier. Respected for his leadership and
integrity on and off the battlefield, he honorably served our country
in three wars, including two tours in Vietnam, despite his misgivings
about American strategy and involvement in the conflict. Having
graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on D-day during
World War II, Douglas Kinnard rose to the rank of brigadier general
before retiring from the Army to pursue his doctor of philosophy at
Princeton University.
It is no surprise given his intellect and objectivity that when he
went searching for his first faculty job, he found a home at the
University of Vermont. Those who have worked with General Kinnard have
praised him as an imposing figure that was ``always open and fair'' and
an ``enjoyable colleague'' who taught his students about real
patriotism from his own experience.
I am grateful that the University of Vermont was able to benefit from
the many gifts General Kinnard brought with him to his work in
Burlington and throughout the country. Marcelle and I
[[Page 13773]]
send our condolences to his wife Wade and son Frederick. I will miss
his steady counsel, which he provided me throughout my Senate career.
The many soldiers, students, and colleagues who were fortunate to have
known him throughout his long and industrious life will not soon forget
his impact.
The Burlington Free Press recently paid tribute to General Kinnard
and his many contributions. I ask unanimous consent that a recent Free
Press article entitled ``Remembering UVM prof., ex-Army general Douglas
Kinnard'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Burlington Free Press, Aug. 7, 2013]
The Two Accomplished Careers of Douglas Kinnard, 1921-2013
(By Tim Johnson)
In 1977, midway through his faculty career at the
University of Vermont, ex-Army man Douglas Kinnard was
invited to appear on ``Good Morning America'' to talk about
the Vietnam War with his former commanding officer, William
Westmoreland.
The appearance preceded the publication of Kinnard's book,
``The War Managers,'' which drew on a detailed survey Kinnard
had sent to all the American generals in Vietnam in 1974, a
year before U.S. forces finally withdrew. The survey
revealed, among other things, that about 70 percent of the
generals thought the war's objectives were unclear, and that
more than half thought the war shouldn't have been fought
with American troops.
Mark Stoler, a UVM historian who knew Kinnard, recalls
watching the show and thinking that Westmoreland looked
uncomfortable while Kinnard remained unruffled. ``He just sat
there, smiling,'' said Stoler, who recalled that Kinnard had
``an incredibly sharp mind'' and was eminently clear-headed
about that controversial episode in American military
history.
Kinnard, who died of pneumonia last week in Pennsylvania at
age 91, spent about a decade in UVM's Political Science
Department during the 70s and 80s, in what for him was a
second career following 26 years as an Army officer and
service in three wars. He won the respect of his UVM peers
partly because of his intellect: He did, after all, complete
his Ph.D. work at Princeton in just three years, following
his retirement in 1970 as a brigadier general.
``Very capable, very serious,'' said Garrison Nelson,
professor of political science. ``A remarkably well-organized
guy. A good teacher and a relatively high grader, as I
recall. I have very fond memories of Doug.''
Kinnard was also prolific. His first book on President
Eisenhower, an adaptation of his doctoral thesis, was also
published in 1977. ``The Secretary of Defense'' also came out
during his UVM tenure, in 1980, and he wrote about Vietnam
again later in ``The Certain Trumpet: Maxwell Taylor and the
American Experience in Vietnam.''
Among Kinnard's eight books were two memoirs, the first of
which details his life's remarkably humble beginnings.
``Abandoned'' by a broken family at age 4 and placed in an
orphanage in Paterson, N.J., he was moved into a boarding
house after several months and raised by an extended Catholic
family.
``He had to take care of himself,'' said his son, Frederick
Kinnard, in a phone interview. ``He was an adult before age
5. He lived with an old Irish spinster above a saloon.''
Kinnard made his way through Paterson's St. Joseph Grammar
School and Eastside High, became an Eagle Scout, and
eventually won an appointment to West Point. He didn't aspire
to be a soldier, he told an interviewer in 1977, but chose
West Point partly because it was close to home.
``It was a good way to go to college,'' he said. ``I really
wasn't thinking about a military career.'' The Army became
his career, however, with a series of promotions. He
graduated on June 6, 1944--D Day--and was dispatched to
Europe where, as an artillery lieutenant and forward
observer, he was awarded the Bronze Star for Heroic
Achievement. During the Korean War, he served in an artillery
unit, and later was assigned to the Pentagon and to NATO
headquarters in France.
Kinnard did two tours in Vietnam. The first, beginning in
1966, was as chief of operations analysis under Gen.
Westmoreland. When he returned to the United States he was
promoted to brigadier general, but he was having doubts about
the war and mulling a career in academia. Of the war, he told
an interviewer for the Princeton Independent in 2004:
``The more I dealt with [the war and U.S. strategy], the
more skeptical I became, especially about the assumption
underpinning [General] Westmoreland's and American strategy:
that if we punished the enemy enough, he would negotiate an
end favorable to us. I was convinced that we really did not
understand the enemy or his motivations, or even his
strategy. The premise that our punishment would bring us
victory was to build a strategy on a house of cards.''
Kinnard wanted to retire but the Army refused and sent him
to Vietnam again, in 1969, this time commanding artillerymen.
The Independent interviewer asked him how he felt about being
sent back to Vietnam, given his doubts about the war.
``You must understand that I had already applied for
retirement, and that was turned down,'' he said. ``So when
the decision was made that I would definitely go back, then I
had to concern myself with my job and not worry about my
personal feelings. As Commanding General of Force Artillery,
I commanded eight thousand troops in sixty firebases from the
Cambodian border to the South China Sea. I had to visit those
people daily and get involved in the planning, so I had to
toss my personal feelings--gone! Nothing can stand in the way
of the welfare of your troops. Your job is to defeat the
enemy; your job is to take care of your troops and keep your
casualties down. And that's what I did.''
Later in that tour he served as chief of staff of the
Second Field Force and aided in planning of the Cambodian
incursion of 1970, which incited fierce protests in the
United States. The U.S. bombing of Cambodia that had preceded
that operation was unknown to him, he said, as it was to the
American public.
After he returned home he retired and headed to Princeton
as a 48-year-old graduate student. He didn't conceal his
military background but didn't advertise it either. When he
started looking for a faculty job, he impressed his
interviewers at the University of Vermont.
``He was an imposing presence,'' said Stoler, who shared
with Kinnard a scholarly interest in military history.
``I remember Professor Kinnard as a very professional and
enjoyable colleague,'' said Frank Bryan, who retired from UVM
recently as a political science professor. ``Our areas of
expertise were different, of course, but I can say he was a
very good `department citizen'--always open and fair and
collegial.''
Nancy Viens was Kinnard's secretary at UVM for two years.
She typed ``The War Managers'' for him.
In the beginning, she said, ``I was very intimidated about
working for a 6-foot general from the Army. I'd signed (anti-
war) protest petitions and all that.''
He surprised her, though, telling her, ``I'm not your
average run-of-the-mill general.''
``He turned out to be one of the nicest people I've ever
known,'' she said, adding that he kept in touch with her for
years after they both left UVM. Of the Vietnam War debates,
she said, ``He had sympathy for both sides. He did his job as
a general and then he got out.''
In the Independent interview, Kinnard was asked what he
taught UVM students about the Vietnam War.
``I taught them that it was a war that should not have been
fought,'' he said. ``It should not have gone past the
advisory effort. I traced for them all the presidential
decisions that were made, going from Truman all the way up
through Nixon, and showed how each one led to another. But
those decisions were made at political levels; the generals
had no part in them.''
He acknowledged that patriotism could take many forms, and
that the war opponents had done the country ``a great
service.''
Following their joint appearance on ``Good Morning
America,'' Kinnard told the Independent interviewer,
Westmoreland gave him a ride to Laguardia Airport, and
Kinnard gave Westmoreland a copy of his book.
``Well, God, he called me for a whole week, asking, `Who
said this?' and `Who said that?''' Kinnard recalled. ``I
said, I can't tell you that, General Westmoreland,' because I
had promised the respondents anonymity. I went away to Maine
for a week, and the book arrived in the mail with his notes
written on damn near every page.''
After Kinnard left UVM, he continued lecturing and writing,
holding positions at the University of Oklahoma, Naval War
College, National Defense University and University of
Richmond. In 1994, President Clinton appointed him to the
American Battle Monuments Commission and he helped plan the
World War II memorial on the National Mall.
``He wasn't a retiring type,'' Frederick Kinnard said.
``Doug Kinnard had the wonderful facility of being highly
knowledgeable and impeccably honest,'' said Sen. Patrick
Leahy, D-Vt., in an email. ``I've relied on his good judgment
for years. Marcelle and I were sorry to learn of his passing
and send condolences to his family.'' Besides his son,
Douglas Kinnard is survived by his wife, Wade Tyree Kinnard.
He will be buried at West Point Aug. 15.
____________________
GRAMEEN BANK
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to speak about
troubling actions by the Government of Bangladesh against the Grameen
Bank.
Founded in 1983 by Professor Mohammed Yunus, the Grameen Bank has
been a model of the immense potential of microfinance for economic
development. By providing small loans to the
[[Page 13774]]
world's poorest people who possess the skills but not the financing
needed to start a small business, microcredit institutions have shown
to be successful in promoting the most effective means of poverty
reduction, the empowerment of women. The Grameen Bank, about which
volumes have been written, has been a leading example of these
successful borrower-owned banks, and the model has spread from
Bangladesh throughout Southeast Asia and beyond.
The proposal of the Government of Bangladesh to dissolve the Grameen
Bank into 19 separate entities would curtail one of the best mechanisms
for reducing poverty in Bangladesh. This radical restructuring would
fragment Grameeen's governance structure, essentially rendering it
powerless. It would move ownership of the bank from the people with a
vested interest in its success to an assortment of agencies with no
legal relationships with the public.
The force behind the efforts to weaken the Grameen Bank is none other
than Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has clashed with Professor Yunus
since the latter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 and expressed
interest in running for public office himself. Threatened by Professor
Yunus' popularity, the Prime Minister has tried for years to undermine
his authority and influence.
The Grameen Bank has been targeted by the government-created Grameen
Bank Commission, and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was instrumental in
Yunus' removal from his position as Grameen's managing director through
an age mandated retirement although no such mandate exists for the
country's private banks. Most recently, the government has accused
several microcredit companies founded by Professor Yunus of failing to
pay taxes, which he has denied as baseless. The Prime Minister's
vendetta against Professor Yunus seems to have no limit.
I want to echo the sentiments of my friend Senator Durbin who has
spoken about this, as well as 17 Senators, who sent a letter to Prime
Minister Sheikh Hasina last year. I join them and leaders of goodwill
around the world in supporting the Grameen Bank and Professor Yunus.
They have been bright spots in one of the world's poorest countries
whose own nationalized banks are failing.
Millions of Bangladesh's poorest people, particularly women, need
access to the credit the Grameen Bank provides. Rather than continue to
persecute Professor Yunus, the Prime Minister and her government should
learn from his example and redirect their efforts to helping improve
the lives of the people they have a responsibility to serve.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE LYNN FAMILY
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of
the Senate a notable family whose work has made a unique and meaningful
contribution to the Vermont newspaper community and to our State. The
Lynn family runs several Vermont newspapers, reporting local news and
serving general commerce in these communities.
In 1984, Angelo Lynn bought the Addison County Independent, marking
the beginning of a family newspaper operation based out of Middlebury,
VT. Today, Angelo's three daughters have joined a five-generation
newspaper tradition, each taking on a different Vermont town newspaper.
With Elsie running the Colchester Sun and the Essex Reporter, Polly
running the Mountain Times in Killington, and Christy working side by
side with her father overseeing the advertising sales team of the
Addison County Independent, the Lynn family reports stories Vermonters
depend on.
While some of the biggest newspapers struggle, local papers are
thriving, and the Lynn family has embraced the opportunity to influence
the future of the newspaper industry. Focusing on local government,
events, schools, sports and businesses, the Addison County Independent
is a vital piece of the community it serves. It is personal and caring,
and it reflects what matters to the residents of the community.
I congratulate Angelo Lynn on the success of his family-run newspaper
operation. Mr. Lynn, his daughters, and his brother Emerson have
harnessed local newspapers to strengthen our Vermont communities. I
have included the New York Times article ``Vermont Sisters with Roots
in News Embrace Small-Town Papers'' that covers each Lynn family
member's individual story. I ask that the text of this article, dated
August 15, 2013, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Vermont Sisters With Roots in News Embrace Small-Town Papers
(By Christine Haughney)
Middlebury, VT.--King Lear's three daughters had their
lands and loyalties to fight over. Jane Austen's Dashwood
sisters had the prospect of marriage to occupy them, and
Anton Chekhov's three sisters had local military officers to
brighten their days.
None of them ever contemplated a future as risky as
newspapers.
For a long time, neither did the Lynn sisters, even though
they are a fifth-generation newspaper family. Polly, Christy
and Elsie Lynn left behind their father's dusty but cozy
newsrooms for college and careers.
Now they are back. Elsie, 26, moved home in 2010 after she
ran out of money while working and traveling through Asia.
She manages two of her father's weeklies in the Burlington
suburbs of Colchester and Essex.
Polly, 29, returned in 2011 from Denver, and has thrown
herself into running the weekly newspaper in Killington, the
popular ski town. Christy, 28, moved back in June after her
boyfriend finished graduate school in Vancouver. She helps
her father, Angelo, running the business side of Middlebury's
paper, The Addison County Independent.
It is conventional wisdom that newspapers are a fading
enterprise. Last month, the Tribune Company bought 19 local
television stations even as it sought to sell its portfolio
of papers, and twice in August, big-city papers changed
hands: The New York Times sold The Boston Globe and other
properties for $70 million, after paying $1.1 billion for The
Globe 20 years ago, and the Graham family said it would sell
The Washington Post after eight decades of ownership.
But instead of fleeing the newspaper business, the Lynn
sisters have embraced it, and not just because it is part of
their heritage.
``I've grown up in the papers,'' said Elsie Lynn. ``But I
don't think that's the reason I'm in it. The future is
exciting for me. We have this chance and this opportunity to
be pioneers and change our career and change this industry.''
The papers the Lynn sisters help run have been surprisingly
profitable. They have not faced bankruptcy like newspapers of
the Tribune Company including The Los Angeles Times and
haven't cut coverage like The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.
In these parts of Vermont, where Internet connections are
less reliable and winter snowstorms can block roads for days,
readers often prefer print.
Mr. Lynn said that he had run his newspapers debt-free for
a decade. While his papers aren't making money yet from their
digital efforts, his newspaper and phone book businesses
generate about $4.5 million in gross revenue.
``We can't afford not to make money,'' Mr. Lynn said as he
sat in his office here surrounded by photographs of his
daughters, the family dogs dozing loudly nearby. ``There's no
future losing money in any of these papers.''
It helps that Mr. Lynn has a long history in the business.
His great-grandfather, Charles Scott, bought The Iola
Register in Kansas in 1882. Mr. Lynn was raised upstairs from
the offices of another nearby Kansas paper called The
Humboldt Union. In 1984, Angelo Lynn bought The Addison
County Independent in Vermont and started building up his
chain of papers. Mr. Lynn's older brother, Emerson, owns two
papers with his wife, Suzanne, and Angelo as well as two
other Vermont papers.
Angelo Lynn speaks fondly of the newspaper life. He spends
his weekends hiking and skiing with his daughters and
weekdays churning out enterprising local journalism.
``Once you become part of a community, you see the good
that a paper does,'' Mr. Lynn said. ``That's very
fulfilling.'' His daughters' newspaper futures were less
certain. When Elsie Lynn arrived at the newsroom of The
Colchester Sun and The Essex Reporter, she had never studied
journalism or held a journalism job. She wasn't convinced she
wanted to work with her father and uncle.
``I've said, `Man, I don't know, Dad, if this is what I
want to do,''' she said as she sat in her threadbare
newspaper office in a converted stable space on the outskirts
of Colchester. ``He said `No pressure.'''
She settled in, typing up wedding announcements, but before
long her father asked her to review the papers' finances.
Elsie discovered they were owed $120,000 from advertisers. In
three months, she collected $90,000. She also saved her
father labor costs by absorbing multiple job titles. Elsie
said she often logged 13-hour days writing and editing
stories and promoting them on social media.
[[Page 13775]]
Polly Lynn was living in Colorado working for an
educational tour company with her partner, Jason Mikula, when
her father received an offer to buy The Mountain Times in
Killington. Mr. Lynn asked the couple, who were already
thinking of moving, to come to Vermont to run it. The couple
took over in September 2011 just as Hurricane Irene hit and
Killington was hit with some of the storm's worst flooding.
She produced the first editions from her father's dining room
table.
Since then, Polly said, she has kept a nonstop schedule of
publishing deadlines and has designed a hyper-local news app
for Killington. She spends evenings attending town planning
meetings and winters skiing with sources and advertisers.
There has already been a payoff. Polly and Mr. Mikula
increased the paper's revenue by 15 percent, or about
$100,000, by improving editorial content and strengthening
its advertising relationships, according to Mr. Lynn.
Mike Miller, a Killington business owner and former
selectman, said local businesses appreciated the couple's
forthright approach: when they made early mistakes on
advertisements, they admitted they were wrong, fixed them and
even offered to make more creative advertisements. They also
appreciate the couple's efforts to participate in the
community.
``I'm just amazed at their energy,'' Mr. Miller said. ``If
there's something that there are going to be more than 10
people there, they cover it.''
In some ways, Christy Lynn had the toughest transition.
While her sisters work at papers an hour's drive from their
father, she works steps away from him. Her father focuses on
editorial content, and she oversees the advertising sales
team and comes up with new promotions.
She has accomplished some small coups. She realized that
the Waterfalls Day Spa in Middlebury was promoting itself on
social media but did not advertise much in the paper. So she
persuaded the owners to advertise more in both the paper and
online. Mr. Lynn said that advertising revenue grew 6 percent
in this year's first quarter under Christy's watch.
Gary Greene, a newspaper sales broker, said successful
community newspapers shared specific traits. Unlike larger
newspapers, local community papers have little debt and don't
depend heavily on classified advertising. They hire enough
employees to report on town meetings and sports events and
publish material people can't find elsewhere. They are in
county seats, where they receive legal notices and
advertisements from local businesses.
Mr. Greene, who sits on the boards of small newspaper
chains nationwide and sees their financial statements, says
those qualities are critical to profitability.
``These papers have all made money through the downturn,''
Mr. Greene said. ``What other business categories are doing
15 to 20 percent margins? Most businesses would love to make
that kind of money.''
For now, newspaper analysts say these papers' futures
remain promising as long as they remain the sole information
source. Alan D. Mutter, a newspaper consultant who writes the
Reflections of a Newsosaur blog, said that there was still
value in information like school lunch menus and high school
sports scores.
``Weeklies in healthy communities that do a good job
reporting on local news and serving local businesses are by
far the healthiest of publications,'' he said.
``The Messenger has been in business for 150 years,'' said
Emerson Lynn, referring to one of his Vermont papers, The St.
Albans Messenger. ``Do I think Google is going to be in
existence for 150 years? Not a chance.''
It's unclear how long the Lynn sisters will work in
newspapers. While Mr. Lynn has made no succession plans, he
also doesn't want to sell. While some of the nation's largest
papers are being sold for a small fraction of their purchase
price, the market for smaller community papers is healthier.
Mr. Greene, the newspaper broker, said that this year his
company closed eight deals with 23 publications, nearly
double the sales volume in 2011 and 2012. And the resale
value of smaller newspapers--the deals worth less than $20
million--is higher than that of bigger papers and chains.
It also helps that the Lynn family seems committed to the
business. In March, Angelo and his wife, Lisa Gosselin,
invited his brood and their partners and dogs for dinner at
his home, a renovated camp building on Lake Dunmore. Dinner
conversation revolved around food, skiing and newspapers.
Polly warned her father to expect calls of complaint about a
forthcoming article.
None of them talked about how long they would remain in the
business. But long after they finished their dessert of
poached pears and blueberry pie, they lingered at the table
to chat. Before they left, Elsie remembered that The
Colchester Sun was sponsoring a cold-water dive into Lake
Champlain.
``Who is going to jump in the lake with me?'' she asked.
There was a flurry of reporterlike questions: ``How cold is
the water? When is it?''
But one by one, they all agreed to take the plunge.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JIMMY ROSE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a Kentuckian
who has become a hero to many in my home state and across the country
for his honest and moving portrayal of life in southeastern Kentucky. I
am speaking of Jimmy Rose, the man from Pineville who has risen to fame
this summer for his appearances on the television show ``America's Got
Talent'' and his performance of the hit song ``Coal Keeps the Lights
On.''
Last night, millions of Americans tuned in to see Jimmy's performance
in the final round of the competition, held in New York City. I know I
speak for thousands of Kentuckians when I say that no matter what the
outcome tonight, he is truly a winner in our hearts, and his original
song is a winner with people all over.
Jimmy is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who learned how to play guitar
from a fellow marine while deployed in Iraq. He has worked as a coal
miner and he himself wrote the song ``Coal Keeps the Lights On'' to
raise awareness about how excessive regulations are hurting jobs in his
hometown and in the coal industry.
Coal is part of a vital energy sector in the State of Kentucky. But
Jimmy is tired of seeing coal mining jobs disappear from Pineville,
from his native Bell County, and from the region. I agree with him, 100
percent.
From Jimmy's first appearance on ``America's Got Talent'' earlier
this summer, he became a phenomenon. People could identify with the
words he sang, and they could identify with his courteous disposition
and steadfast character as the trademarks of the people of southeastern
Kentucky. Fans across the country have happily supported, voted for,
and sung along with Jimmy Rose.
I commend Jimmy Rose for putting a face on a problem that is all too
often overlooked by some in Washington--the plight of the coal miner
and the many hard-working Kentuckians whose jobs are related to the
coal industry. In these difficult economic times, we should be doing
everything we can to protect these jobs and protect a way of life for
thousands of families.
I think Jimmy's message is an important one. And I want to
congratulate Jimmy Rose for all his success to date. I am certain that
we will be hearing much more from him in the years to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO REAR ADMIRAL MARK D. GUADAGNINI
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor a superb leader, aviator,
and American. After more than 33 years of service to a grateful nation,
RADM Mark D. Guadagnini is retiring from the United States Navy and his
position as the Director of U.S. Fleet Forces Command's Maritime
Headquarters. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize
Rear Admiral Guadagnini's years of distinguished service and dedication
to fostering the relationship between the military and this Chamber.
Rear Admiral Guadagnini is a 1980 distinguished graduate of the U.S.
Naval Academy. Over the course of his career, he participated in six
combat Operations, including Desert Storm, Provide Comfort, Deliberate
Force, Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom,
accumulating almost 5,000 hours of flight time and accomplishing nearly
100 combat missions. He has led at the highest levels of operational
aviation command at Strike Fighter Attack Squadron 15, Carrier Air Wing
17, and Carrier Strike Group NINE.
In addition to his impressive accomplishments at sea, he was also one
of our most well-rounded officers, serving as a test pilot, flag aide,
fleet staff officer, manpower distribution officer, a Capitol Hill
liaison, and, not coincidentally, as one of my first and best
legislative fellows 20 years ago. While in the flag ranks, Rear Admiral
Guadagnini leveraged his expertise serving as the chief of Naval Air
Training; head of Human Resources for the Naval Aviation Enterprise;
Deputy Commander for Fleet Management at U.S. Fleet
[[Page 13776]]
Forces Command, and lastly, as the director of Maritime Headquarters at
U.S. Fleet Forces Command.
I could not be prouder of the accomplishments that ``Guad'' has
earned while wearing the uniform of the world's greatest fighting
force. His impact, particularly in the aviation community, will
continue well into the future and our navy and nation will feel his
absence. I wish him and his whole family ``fair winds and following
seas.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. MILTON RUSH
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in
recognizing the distinguished teacher and agricultural scientist, Dr.
Milton C. Rush. Dr. Rush devoted his career to his students, his
research, and his tireless efforts to protect and enhance one of our
most important sources of nutrition.
Dr. Rush began his career in rice pathologies in 1970 as a professor
at Louisiana State University after receiving a doctor of philosophy
degree in plant pathology from North Carolina State University. For the
next 40 years at Louisiana State University, Dr. Rush has provided the
agricultural community with invaluable research on rice pathology that
has greatly benefited farmers throughout the State of Louisiana and the
Nation. Under his leadership, the LSU rice program experienced its
greatest years of agricultural research expansion and development.
Through his years of service as an educator and pathologist, Dr. Rush
created enduring changes in a wide breadth of research and direction to
impact and improve the lives of countless students, rice growers and
consumers within and throughout his community.
Perhaps Dr. Rush's greatest accomplishment came in his development of
a new rice variety, which he named after his beloved wife, Blanca
Isabel. This new high-yielding, early harvest, long-grain rice variety
was the culmination of decades of research focusing on the epidemiology
and control of rice diseases, rice tissue transformation, and the
breeding of disease-resistant rice strains. This new purple rice is
bred in Louisiana and contains anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant
properties. His outstanding development of a more healthful and
nutritious variety of rice will continue to provide unparalleled
benefits to the citizens and communities of Louisiana and the Nation,
delivering an improved alternative for generations to come.
Dr. Rush has been honored frequently during his distinguished career.
Among these honors are the Florence Avalon Daggett Professorship in
Rice Pathology, the LSU AgCenter's Distinguished Service Award, the
Sedberry Award for outstanding graduate professorship, memberships to
the American Phytopathological Society, the Rice Technical Working
Group, the Germplasm Advisory Committee, and two terms as president of
the Louisiana Plant Protection Association Constitution Committee. Dr.
Rush's career leaves a legacy of accomplishment and dedication to his
family and all those who are a part of the agricultural communities
that his tireless work impacted.
Dr. Rush has been and continues to be an inspiration to all those who
have benefited from his decades of service to the field of rice
pathology. It is with my heartfelt and greatest sincerity that I ask my
colleagues to join me along with Dr. Rush's family in recognizing the
life and many accomplishments of this incredible mentor, professor, and
agricultural scientist, as well as his lasting impact throughout the
Nation.
____________________
AIR FORCE 66TH BIRTHDAY
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today--September 18--marks the Air Force's
66th birthday. For 66 years, our Nation has entrusted the Air Force
with preserving peace and freedom, and defending our democracy. Since
its beginnings on July 26, 1947, when President Harry Truman signed the
National Security Act of 1947 on board the presidential aircraft, the
Sacred Cow, and set the creation of the United States Air Force in
motion, to its instrumental role in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan,
the Air Force has always served America admirably and I have every
confidence that it will continue in this proud tradition.
The Air Force tracks its origins back to 1907, when the Wright
Brothers conducted the world's first airplane flight over the sands of
Kitty Hawk, NC. Just like the Wright Brothers whose innovation spurred
aviation, the vast success and numerous achievements of the Air Force
would not be possible without the talented Airmen who fuel innovation
today, enabling the Air Force to fly faster, further, and utilize
technology that the Wright Brothers could not have imagined over 100
year ago.
Today, the United States Air Force is the largest, most capable, and
most technologically advanced air force in the world, with about 5,300
manned aircraft in service, 246 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles, and 450
intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Air Force prides itself on
five core missions; Air and Space Superiority; Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Rapid Global Mobility; Global Strike;
and Command and Control. The Air Force's commitment to core missions
illustrates its vast capability and has remained steadfast since the
Air Force's establishment as a separate service 66 years ago. Our
amazing Airmen today are constantly adapting and improving to meet the
challenges of a fast-paced security environment and an ever-evolving
battlespace across the globe.
The United States Air Force is, and will continue to be, the United
States' key asymmetric advantage across the spectrum of conflict.
Whether responding to a national security threat, a natural disaster,
or crisis engagements, the Air Force provides Global Vigilance, Global
Reach and Global Power to ensure that the U.S. is capable of responding
to events around the world. Without the Air Force's supremacy in air,
space and cyberspace, the U.S. would not be able to move troops and
equipment to war zones, send relief to countries devastated by natural
disasters, provide air support to troops on the ground, or gather
crucial intelligence through electronic warfare and stealth technology.
But let us not forget the true power behind the Air Force is its
Airmen. The Air Force comprises over 330,000 personnel on active duty,
185,000 civilian personnel, and 180,000 in the Air National Guard and
Air Force Reserves. These flexible, adaptable, and innovative Airmen
employ unmatched air, space, and cyberspace capabilities. Our Airmen
today are driven by the ideals of the Warrior Ethos and commit
themselves to succeed in any mission our Nation asks of them. Our
Airmen believe that our Constitution and the freedom it guarantees are
worth fighting for. They sacrifice their personal comfort and safety to
answer a higher calling: service in the cause of freedom, both here at
home and abroad. I am awed by our servicemen and women's ability to
adapt and succeed in a total force mission that at various stages has
called upon them to be scholars, teachers, policemen, farmers, bankers,
engineers, social workers, and, of course, warriors--often all at the
same time.
Above all, I am perpetually thankful for their willingness to serve,
and I have the greatest faith in their ability to face the difficult
and dangerous missions that lie ahead. These patriots have always been
the strength of our Nation. The unwavering dedication to duty, to our
country, and to all Americans is embodied in the Air Force vision,
``The World's Greatest Air Force--Powered by Airmen, fueled by
innovation.'' For 66 years, our Air Force has been on a mission to
protect the skies so that our society may be free. Let us remember our
Air Force Airmen for this achievement today, and wish them a happy 66th
birthday.
____________________
NATIONAL HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, September 15 through October
15 is National Hispanic Heritage Month. This is a time to remember and
to celebrate the integral role of Hispanic Americans in the economy,
culture and identity of our Nation.
[[Page 13777]]
In New Mexico, we enjoy a rich Hispanic heritage that goes back over
400 years. Santa Fe, the oldest capital city in the United States, was
founded a decade before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock. New
Mexico has the highest percentage of Hispanics of any State. From the
Spanish colonists to immigrants from Latin America, the Hispanic
community has informed our history, our art, and our sense of who we
are as a people.
New Mexico is blessed with a blend of cultures and backgrounds like
nowhere else. Our State is called the ``Land of Enchantment,'' not just
for the beauty of our landscapes but also for the vibrant diversity of
our culture.
The annual Spanish Market in Santa Fe is the largest exhibition of
traditional Spanish Colonial and Hispanic art in the United States.
New Mexico is home to the National Hispanic Cultural Center, which is
the fastest growing cultural institution in our State. The center,
located in Albuquerque, is a guardian of Hispanic arts, culture and
humanities, reaching people throughout the world.
Like America as a whole, the Hispanic community is itself diverse,
representing a rich mosaic of nationalities and backgrounds. Its values
of family, faith and hard work are the values that unite all of us as
Americans and New Mexicans, and make us both more compassionate and
stronger. Indeed, the story of Hispanics is a vital part of the
American narrative--of overcoming hardship, of sacrifice, persevering,
and helping one another.
During times of war and peace, at home and abroad, the Hispanic
community has been a rich part of the fabric of the American story.
From the time of the Revolutionary War, Hispanics have fought and died
for our freedoms. Forty-one have received the Congressional Medal of
Honor, the highest military honor our Nation can bestow. Hispanics
continue to contribute in communities throughout the Nation--in
business, in education and the arts, and at every level of government
service. Their talents and sacrifices are integral to our past, and
crucial to our future.
The late Dennis Chavez from New Mexico was the first American-born
Hispanic to be elected to the Senate. He was a trailblazer for the
people of New Mexico and for the Hispanic community. I am honored to
follow in his footsteps and to represent such a diverse State.
This month, as we celebrate the historic achievements and
contributions of Hispanic Americans, we should also remember the
challenges we face and dedicate ourselves to meeting those challenges.
With comprehensive immigration reform, and working together for vital
education, health care, and economic development initiatives, let us
commit ourselves to ensure that Hispanic families in New Mexico and
across the Nation have an equal opportunity to achieve the American
dream.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
REMEMBERING DR. PAUL EMERY
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor
the late Dr. Paul E. Emery's extensive service and commitment to the
psychiatric community and the people of New Hampshire.
At an early age, Paul knew he wanted to become a psychiatrist. His
calling was to help people overcome their challenges, and he did so
with great compassion. He was a highly skilled and dedicated doctor who
was loved by many.
He trained at Syracuse Psychopathic Hospital, Western New England
Psychoanalytic Institute, and Yale University. He was also an NIMH
fellow at Austin Riggs Center in Stockbridge, MA. His training was
interrupted by the Korean war, during which he was promoted to captain
and served as the division psychiatrist and chief of the Mental Hygiene
Clinic in the U.S. Army. He received several commendations for his
outstanding service.
He started his private practice of psychiatry in Concord, NH, and
practiced for more than 23 years. During this time, he was a consultant
for Concord Hospital, St. Paul's School, and the Division of Public
Health Program on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. He was also the medical
director for the Forensic Unit of the New Hampshire State Hospital. He
later became the first medical director and then executive director for
the VA's First Center on Stress Recovery in Brecksville, OH.
Subsequently, Dr. Emery became chief of psychiatry at the Manchester
VAMC. After his retirement from the VAMC, he became staff psychiatrist
at Manchester Counseling Services and Elliot Hospital. In addition, he
served on the New Hampshire Parole Board.
Dr. Emery had an academic/faculty appointment at Dartmouth Medical
School from the 1960s until he retired in 2005. He published about 30
scientific articles and chapters dealing primarily with post-traumatic
stress disorder.
He founded the N.H. Psychiatric Society in 1972 and held various
chairmanships and offices in that organization, including serving as
its president during the 1980s and as chairman of the ethics committee
during the 1990s. He was also active in the N.H. Medical Society and
was its vice president during the mid-1970s.
Dr. Emery touched so many lives, and I join with citizens across New
Hampshire in honoring the many contributions he made to our State and
the psychiatric community.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Pate, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The messages received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE NORTH
ATLANTIC TREATY FOR COOPERATION REGARDING ATOMIC INFORMATION, INCLUDING
A TECHNICAL ANNEX AND SECURITY ANNEX (COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS THE
``ATOMAL AGREEMENT'')--PM 20
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, consistent with sections
123 and 144 b. of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2153 and
2164(b)), the text of the Agreement Between the Parties to the North
Atlantic Treaty for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information, including
a technical annex and security annex (hereinafter collectively referred
to as the ``ATOMAL Agreement''), as a proposed agreement for
cooperation authorizing the exchange of U.S. Restricted Data and
Formerly Restricted Data within the context of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) between the United States of America and the
following member of NATO: the Republic of Croatia (hereinafter the
``New Party'').
In addition, I am pleased to transmit my written approval,
authorization, and determination concerning the ATOMAL Agreement with
respect to the New Party, with a copy of the memorandum of the
Secretary of Defense with respect to the agreement. The ATOMAL
Agreement entered into force on March 12, 1965, with respect to the
United States and the other NATO members at that time. The Czech
Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, Spain, the
Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia,
the Republic of Lithuania, Romania, the Slovak Republic, and the
Republic of Slovenia subsequently became parties to the ATOMAL
Agreement. The New Party
[[Page 13778]]
has signed this agreement and has indicated its willingness to be bound
by it. The ATOMAL Agreement with respect to the New Party meets the
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Although the
ATOMAL Agreement continues in force with respect to the United States
and the other current parties to it, it will not become effective as an
agreement for cooperation authorizing the exchange of atomic
information with respect to the New Party until completion of
procedures prescribed by sections 123 and 144 b. of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended.
For more than 40 years, the ATOMAL Agreement has served as the
framework within which NATO and the other NATO members that have become
parties to this agreement have received the information that is
necessary to an understanding and knowledge of, and participation in,
the political and strategic consensus upon which the collective
military capacity of the Alliance depends. This agreement permits only
the transfer of atomic information, not weapons, nuclear material, or
equipment. Participation in the ATOMAL Agreement will give the New
Party the same standing within the Alliance with regard to nuclear
matters as that of the other current parties to the ATOMAL Agreement.
This is important for the cohesiveness of the Alliance and will enhance
its effectiveness.
I have considered the views and recommendations of the Department of
Defense (DOD) and other interested agencies in reviewing the ATOMAL
Agreement and have determined that its performance, including the
proposed cooperation and the proposed communication of Restricted Data
thereunder with respect to the New Party, will promote, and will not
constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and security.
Accordingly, I have approved the ATOMAL Agreement with respect to the
New Party and authorized the DOD to cooperate with the New Party in the
context of NATO upon satisfaction of the requirements of section 123 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
The 60-day continuous session period provided for in section 123
begins upon receipt of this submission.
Barack Obama.
The White House, September 18, 2013.
____________________
REPORT ON THE CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO
PERSONS WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM THAT WAS
ESTABLISHED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER 13224 ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2001--PM 21
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs:
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless,
within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the
President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the
Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect
beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have
sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice
stating that the national emergency with respect to persons who commit,
threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive Order
13224 of September 23, 2001, is to continue in effect beyond September
23, 2013.
The crisis constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of
terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against
the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further
attacks on United States nationals or the United States that led to the
declaration of a national emergency on September 23, 2001, has not been
resolved. These actions continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the
United States. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary
to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224
with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support
terrorism.
Barack Obama.
The White House, September 18, 2013.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 1:23 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 bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 1410. An act to prohibit gaming activities on certain
Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain
gaming compacts.
H.R. 2449. An act to authorize the President to extend the
term of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government
of the United States of America and the Government of the
Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy for
a period not to exceed March 19, 2016.
H.R. 3092. An act to amend the Missing Children's
Assistance Act, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bill, with an amendment, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
S. 793. An act to support revitalization and reform of the
Organization of American States, and for other purposes.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 1410. An act to prohibit gaming activities on certain
Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain
gaming compacts; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
H.R. 2449. An act to authorize the President to extend the
term of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government
of the United States of America and the Government of the
Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy for
a period not to exceed March 19, 2016; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
S. 1513. A bill to amend the Helium Act to complete the
privatization of the Federal helium reserve in a competitive
market fashion that ensures stability in the helium markets
while protecting the interests of American taxpayers, and for
other purposes.
S. 1514. A bill to save coal jobs, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2009. An act to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury
from enforcing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
H.R. 2775. An act to condition the provision of premium and
cost-sharing subsidies under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act upon a certification that a program to
verify household income and other qualifications for such
subsidies is operational, and for other purposes.
____________________
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-2918. A communication from the Chief of the Planning and
Regulatory Affairs Branch, Food and Nutrition Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations: Income Deductions and Resource
Eligibility'' (RIN0584-AE05) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
EC-2919. A communication from the Program Manager,
Information Sharing Environment, Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report entitled ``2013 Annual Report to the Congress on the
Information Sharing Environment (ISE)''; to the Select
Committee on Intelligence.
EC-2920. A communication from the Director of the
Regulation Policy and Management Office of the General
Counsel, Center for Veterans Enterprise, Department of
Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``VA Veteran-Owned Small Business
Verification Guidelines'' (RIN2900-AO49) received during
adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of
the Senate on August 22, 2013; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
EC-2921. A communication from the Director of the
Regulation Policy and Management Office of the General
Counsel, Veterans
[[Page 13779]]
Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``VA Health Professional Scholarship and Visual Impairment
and Orientation and Mobility Professional Scholarship
Programs'' (RIN2900-AO34) received during adjournment of the
Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August
29, 2013; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-2922. A communication from the Director of the
Regulation Policy and Management Office of the General
Counsel, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Disease Associated with Exposure to
Certain Herbicide Agents: Peripheral Neuropathy'' (RIN2900-
AO32) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-2923. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs,
Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report entitled ``Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) Quarterly Report to
Congress; Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2013''; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-2924. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs,
Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report entitled ``Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) Quarterly Report to
Congress; Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2013''; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-2925. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures,
and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (106); Amdt. No. 3549'' (RIN2120-
AA65) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-2926. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures,
and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (35); Amdt. No. 3550'' (RIN2120-
AA65) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-2927. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric
Company Turbo Fan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-
2013-0195)) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2928. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Beechcraft
Corporation and Hawker Beechcraft Corporation'' ((RIN2120-
AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-1180)) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2929. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-1038))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2930. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-
0637)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-2931. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-1321))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2932. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; PIAGGIO AERO
INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No.
FAA-2013-0472)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2933. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Standard
Division and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation Propellers''
((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2013-0262)) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2934. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Eclipse
Aerospace, Inc. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-
2013-0448)) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2935. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2013-
0207)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-2936. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2013-
0361)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-2937. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2013-
0362)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-2938. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special
Local Regulations; Regattas and Marine Parades in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone'' ((RIN1625-AA08) (Docket No.
USCG-2013-0327)) received during adjournment of the Senate in
the Office of the President of the Senate on August 15, 2013;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2939. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special
Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Events in
Northern New England'' ((RIN1625-AA08; AA00) (Docket No.
USCG-2012-1057)) received during adjournment of the Senate in
the Office of the President of the Senate on August 15, 2013;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2940. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety
Zones; Tall Ship Safety Zones; War of 1812'' ((RIN1625-AA00)
(Docket No. USCG-2013-0192)) received during adjournment of
the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on
August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2941. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Metedeconk River; Brick Township, NJ'' ((RIN1625-AA00)
(Docket No. USCG-2013-0636)) received during adjournment of
the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on
August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2942. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Bullhead City Regatta; Bullhead City, AZ'' ((RIN1625-AA00)
(Docket No. USCG-2013-0260)) received during adjournment of
the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on
August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2943. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Maritime Heritage Festival Fireworks, St. Helens, OR''
((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2013-0485)) received during
adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of
the Senate on August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2944. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Kentucky Air National Guard Vessel for Parachute Rescue
Jumpmaster Training, Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY'' ((RIN1625-AA00)
(Docket No. USCG-2013-
[[Page 13780]]
0584)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the
Office of the President of the Senate on August 15, 2013; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2945. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Chicago Harbor; Navy Pier Southeast; Chicago, IL'' ((RIN1625-
AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2013-0320)) received during
adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of
the Senate on August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2946. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone
and Regulated Navigation Area; Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Romeoville, IL'' ((RIN1625-AA00, 1625-AA00) (Docket
No. USCG-2011-1108)) received during adjournment of the
Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August
15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2947. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Discovery World Fireworks, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI''
((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2013-0326)) received during
adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of
the Senate on August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2948. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
James River; Newport News, VA'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No.
USCG-2013-0670)) received during adjournment of the Senate in
the Office of the President of the Senate on August 15, 2013;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2949. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
North Hero Air Show; North Hero, VT'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket
No. USCG-2013-0497)) received during adjournment of the
Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August
15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2950. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety
Zones; Pacific Northwest Grain Handlers Association
Facilities; Columbia and Willamette Rivers'' ((RIN1625-AA00)
(Docket No. USCG-2013-0011)) received during adjournment of
the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on
August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2951. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
San Diego International Airport Terminal Two West Grand
Opening Fireworks; San Diego, CA'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket
No. USCG-2013-0637)) received during adjournment of the
Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on August
15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2952. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Kuoni Destination Management Fireworks; San Diego, CA''
((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2013-0666)) received during
adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of
the Senate on August 15, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2953. A communication from the Chairman of the Office of
Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Reporting Requirements for Positive Train
Control Expenses and Investments'' (RIN2140-AB09) received
during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the
President of the Senate on August 29, 2013; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2954. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Point
Thomson, AK'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2012-1175))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
September 9, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2955. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lexington,
OK'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2013-0272)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on September 9,
2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2956. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal
Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Energy and Water Use Labeling for
Consumer Products Under the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (Energy Labeling Rule)'' (RIN3084-AB15) received during
adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of
the Senate on August 27, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2957. A communication from the Legal Advisor, Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP)
Speech-to-Speech Telecommunications Relay Services;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 08-15 and 03-123, Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' (FCC 13-
101) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office
of the President of the Senate on August 23, 2013; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2958. A communication from the Associate Bureau Chief,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Lifeline and Link Up Modernization and
Reform'' ((RIN3060-AF85) (DA 13-1441)) received in the Office
of the President of the Senate on September 9, 2013; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. MENENDEZ, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
without amendment:
S. Res. 237. An original resolution authorizing
expenditures by the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. HARKIN, from the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, without amendment:
S. Res. 238. An original resolution authorizing
expenditures by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
By Ms. CANTWELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
without amendment:
S. Res. 239. An original resolution authorizing
expenditures by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:
By Mr. MENENDEZ for the Committee on Foreign Relations.
*Evan Ryan, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
State (Educational and Cultural Affairs).
*Nisha Desai Biswal, of the District of Columbia, to be
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs.
*Kenneth R. Weinstein, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors for a term
expiring August 13, 2014.
By Mr. HARKIN for the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Scott S. Dahl, of Virginia, to be Inspector General,
Department of Labor.
*Richard F. Griffin, Jr., of the District of Columbia, to
be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board for
a term of four years.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. KIRK:
S. 1515. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to improve and expand education savings accounts; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. MENENDEZ:
S. 1516. A bill to amend title II of the Public Health
Service Act to provide for the establishment and
implementation of guidelines on best practices for diagnosis,
treatment, and management of mild traumatic brain injuries
(MTBIs) in school-aged children, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
S. 1517. A bill to amend the Public Health Services Act and
the Social Security Act to extend health information
technology assistance eligibility to behavioral health,
mental health, and substance abuse professionals
[[Page 13781]]
and facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1518. A bill improving outcomes for youth at risk for
sex trafficking, and other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. VITTER:
S. 1519. A bill to ensure orderly conduct of Nuclear
Regulatory Commission actions; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. KING:
S. 1520. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to
designate segments of the York River and associated
tributaries for study for potential inclusion in the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1521. A bill to prohibit Federal agencies from requiring
seafood to be certified as sustainable by a third party
nongovernmental organization and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. Schatz):
S. 1522. A bill to improve access to oral health care for
vulnerable and underserved populations; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Harkin,
and Mr. Johnson of South Dakota):
S. 1523. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to make
permanent qualified school construction bonds and qualified
zone academy bonds, to treat qualified zone academy bonds as
specified tax credit bonds, and to modify the private
business contribution requirement for qualified zone academy
bonds; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. COBURN:
S. 1524. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to exclude major professional sports leagues from qualifying
as tax-exempt organizations; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr.
Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Chiesa, Mr. Coats, Mr.
Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Cornyn, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. Flake, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hoeven, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Moran, Ms. Murkowski, Mr.
Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Vitter, Mr. Wicker, and Mrs. Fischer):
S. 1525. A bill to ensure that the personal and private
information of Americans enrolling in Exchanges established
under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is
secured with proper privacy and data security safeguards; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. MENENDEZ:
S. Res. 237. An original resolution authorizing
expenditures by the Committee on Foreign Relations; from the
Committee on Foreign Relations; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. Res. 238. An original resolution authorizing
expenditures by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions; from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. Res. 239. An original resolution authorizing
expenditures by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; from
the Committee on Indian Affairs; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Cornyn, Mr.
Begich, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Coons, Mr.
Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Heinrich, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Rubio, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Heller, and Mr. Enzi):
S. Res. 240. A resolution designating the week beginning
September 15, 2013, as ``National Hispanic-Serving
Institutions Week''; considered and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 120
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen)
were added as cosponsors of S. 120, a bill to expand the number of
scholarships available to Pakistani women under the Merit and Needs-
Based Scholarship Program.
S. 131
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 131, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to improve the reproductive assistance
provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs to severely wounded,
ill, or injured veterans and their spouses, and for other purposes.
S. 282
At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Schatz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 282, a bill to amend the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a new
counseling program.
S. 283
At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Schatz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 283, a bill to amend the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to invest in innovation
for education.
S. 367
At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 367, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare
outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps.
S. 439
At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Schatz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 439, a bill to amend the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by establishing a
program to support the modernization, renovation, or repair of career
and technical education facilities, and for other purposes.
S. 441
At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Schatz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 441, a bill to amend the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by establishing a
program to provide professional development activities for educators,
and for other purposes.
S. 466
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Bennet) was added as a cosponsor of S. 466, a bill to assist low-
income individuals in obtaining recommended dental care.
S. 502
At the request of Mr. Casey, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Schatz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 502, a bill to assist States in
providing voluntary high-quality universal prekindergarten programs and
programs to support infants and toddlers.
S. 557
At the request of Mrs. Hagan, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 557, a bill
to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to
medication therapy management under part D of the Medicare program.
S. 582
At the request of Mr. Hoeven, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Heller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 582, a bill to approve the
Keystone XL Pipeline.
S. 635
At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Pryor) was added as a cosponsor of S. 635, a bill to amend the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the annual written
privacy notice requirement.
S. 699
At the request of Mr. Chiesa, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
699, a bill to reallocate Federal judgeships for the courts of appeals,
and for other purposes.
S. 896
At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 896, a bill to
amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government
pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.
S. 936
At the request of Mr. Heller, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Barrasso) was added as a cosponsor of S. 936, a bill to increase
oversight of small business assistance programs provided by the Small
Business Administration.
[[Page 13782]]
S. 1078
At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1078, a bill to
direct the Secretary of Defense to provide certain TRICARE
beneficiaries with the opportunity to retain access to TRICARE Prime.
S. 1210
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1210, a bill to allow a
State to submit a declaration of intent to the Secretary of Education
to combine certain funds to improve the academic achievement of
students.
S. 1242
At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1242, a bill
to amend the Fair Housing Act, and for other purposes.
S. 1302
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1302, a bill to
amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for cooperative and small
employer charity pension plans.
S. 1324
At the request of Mr. Barrasso, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1324, a bill to prohibit any
regulations promulgated pursuant to a presidential memorandum relating
to power sector carbon pollution standards from taking effect.
S. 1363
At the request of Mr. Heller, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1363, a bill to protect
consumers by prohibiting the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency from promulgating as final certain energy-related
rules that are estimated to cost more than $1,000,000,000 and will
cause significant adverse effects to the economy.
S. 1369
At the request of Mr. Brown, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1369, a bill to provide additional flexibility to the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to establish capital
standards that are properly tailored to the unique characteristics of
the business of insurance, and for other purposes.
S. 1431
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Burr) were added as cosponsors of S. 1431, a bill
to permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
S. 1452
At the request of Mr. Franken, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1452, a bill to enhance
transparency for certain surveillance programs authorized by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and for other purposes.
S. 1459
At the request of Mr. Kirk, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1459, a bill to amend
title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses
in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing 2 or more
levels stacked on top of one another.
S. 1462
At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1462, a bill to extend the
positive train control system implementation deadline, and for other
purposes.
S. 1490
At the request of Mr. Flake, the names of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) were added as cosponsors of S. 1490, a bill to
delay the application of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act.
S. 1500
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1500, a bill to declare
the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas, a terrorist attack,
and to ensure that the victims of the attack and their families receive
the same honors and benefits as those Americans who have been killed or
wounded in a combat zone overseas and their families.
AMENDMENT NO. 1908
At the request of Mr. Hoeven, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Heller) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1908 intended to
be proposed to S. 1392, a bill to promote energy savings in residential
buildings and industry, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 1916
At the request of Mr. Hoeven, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1916 intended to be
proposed to S. 1392, a bill to promote energy savings in residential
buildings and industry, and for other purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1518. A bill improving outcomes for youth at risk for sex
trafficking, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is an epidemic of abuse that is
taking place in America today. Recent reports estimate that hundreds of
thousands of children and youths are at risk of domestic sex
trafficking.
Individuals on the frontlines in the fight against domestic sexual
trafficking of children report that instances are on the rise. They
tell us former drug dealers have moved on to sex trafficking. They also
tell us technological advances have made this type of trafficking
easier as smart phones and other devices provide distance and increased
levels of anonymity. Certain Web sites that post classified ads
soliciting sexual partners also help facilitate trafficking.
The risk of sex trafficking is compounded every year for up to 30,000
young people who are ``emancipated'' from foster care. Too many of
these emancipated youth turn 18, pack their few belongings in a trash
bag and are driven to a homeless shelter, leaving them vulnerable and
exposed to traffickers and other predators.
While in foster care, children and youth are also at increased risk
for trafficking.
In July of this year, the FBI's Innocence Lost National Initiative,
which combats domestic sex trafficking of minors, launched Operation
Cross Country, a 3-day effort. Operation Cross Country recovered 105
children and arrested 152 traffickers. The efforts of the Innocence
Lost National Initiative and the results of Operation Cross Country are
laudable. However, they also revealed a disturbing element of our
Nation's child welfare and foster care systems. According to some
reports, up to 60 percent of sexually exploited children are recruited
out of the child welfare and foster care programs. That is an
unbelievable statistic, but it is apparently true. Because of the
trauma and past abuse suffered by children and youth in these systems,
they are particularly vulnerable to traffickers.
FBI officials involved in Operation Cross Country report:
Law enforcement refers to these young children as
``children with a void.'' Once the pimp identifies that void
and makes every attempt to fill it, a dependency between the
child and the perpetrator develops.
Law enforcement officers also report:
The most vulnerable victims forced into sex trafficking
range in age from 13 to 16. Most of the children come from
either foster care homes or are considered runaways.
In order to combat domestic sex trafficking and improve outcomes for
children and youth in foster care, systemic changes need to be made in
the current child welfare system.
Therefore, today I am introducing the Improving Outcomes for Youth at
Risk for Sex Trafficking Act of 2013. The short title of the bill is I
O Youth.
[[Page 13783]]
We do owe these youth. These are our country's most damaged and most
vulnerable children. Yet most kids who age out of foster care face
negative outcomes such as homelessness, teen pregnancy, drug addiction,
and trafficking. We ought to do better.
This legislation I am introducing today addresses some of the
widespread conditions in the child welfare and foster care systems that
make these children and youth particularly vulnerable to being sexually
trafficked. I am sure most Americans would be surprised to learn that
most child welfare agencies will not serve trafficked children and
youth who are not in the custody of a biological or foster family or
living in a group home.
Often these children, who are not legally able to give consent for
sex, are arrested for prostitution and referred to the juvenile justice
system. In many States, the courts and the juvenile justice system are
ill-equipped to deal with the trauma these children and youth have
endured.
My bill requires that States provide services to youth who have been
trafficked or are at risk of being trafficked. The bill also redirects
resources to improve the current court system to better identify and
address needs of trafficked youth.
Many youth in foster care are routinely denied the opportunity to
participate in normal age-appropriate activities and social events such
as playing sports, participating in afterschool activities, and
enjoying a social life with friends. This lack of contact and
engagement in healthy and meaningful activities deprives young people
of important social connections. Preventing youth from having normal
experiences impairs their healthy development and contributes to
isolation and loneliness, which in turn makes them vulnerable to
domestic sex trafficking, homelessness, drug abuse, poor educational
outcomes, poverty, and, of course, other negative outcomes.
My bill includes a number of provisions to encourage, enhance,
support youth in foster care, facilitate their participation in age-
appropriate activities and social events. I hope these provisions will
promote healthy development, increase meaningful opportunities to form
meaningful connections, reduce the risk of vulnerability to domestic
sex trafficking, and other negative outcomes.
Another major risk factor for vulnerability to sex trafficking and
other negative outcomes for older youth in care is a continued reliance
on congregate care facilities. These facilities are routinely targeted
by traffickers and are often warehouses for youth who are rarely, if
ever, allowed to engage in healthy age-appropriate activities and
social events.
I understand that many of the children and youth in foster care are
deeply traumatized and present with many acute physical and mental
conditions. Some of these children and youth need intensive treatment
to help them manage or overcome these conditions. I am pleased to
report there are many good providers who are doing this work who
support the legislation I am introducing today.
I O Youth refocuses Federal priorities of connecting vulnerable youth
with caring, permanent families. For those remaining in congregate care
facilities, my legislation requires that youth have improved access to
normal, age-appropriate activities.
Youth in foster care report that they feel uninvolved, unaware, and
disconnected to any planning around their care or their future. They
are not informed of their rights while in foster care. This can lead to
a sense of disenfranchisement and a lack of connection to siblings,
relatives, or other caring adults. In many cases, this lack of
connection contributes to the void so often preyed upon by traffickers.
My bill requires that State child welfare agencies provide ongoing
family finding for older youth in foster care. I O Youth, this bill,
also requires greater participation of youth in planning for their
future and encourages States to find individuals willing to be involved
on an ongoing basis with the youth in foster care.
Individuals who work with victims of domestic sex trafficking tell us
the single biggest challenge with access to these victims is the lack
of accessible and affordable housing. For older youth who have been
emancipated from foster care, not having a place to sleep is often a
reason why they enter into the sex trade. In order to improve housing
options for these at-risk youth, my bill redirects funds from the
social services block grant in order to provide housing to trafficked
and other vulnerable youth.
We live in very contentious times. There are fierce policy and
partisan divides on many political issues. Domestic sex trafficking of
children and youth from foster care is not one of those issues. If
there is any issue under the Sun that is without controversy, it is
this one.
Last June, the Senate Finance Committee heard from a courageous
survivor of domestic sex trafficking. She told us that she had been
sold:
to several other pimps that had sex with me and forced me to
have sex with other men. My story is sad, but it's common.
And, girls like me are all around, but people don't see them
so they remain victims.
This young gentlelady went on to change her life, hold a regular job,
and to testify against some of these so-called pimps. What a courageous
young woman.
It is time for us to pay attention to these girls and to all the
children and youth in the foster care system.
I expect my legislation to have broad, bipartisan support in the
Senate. I am pleased that a number of organizations already support the
bill, and I am particularly gratified that organizations that work
directly with young people have come out so strongly in support of my
legislation. I have received letters from support for I O Youth from
FosterClub, Children's Home Society of America, the National Network
for Young People in Foster Care, the National Center for Housing and
Child Welfare, Covenant House International, Human Rights Project for
Girls, The Children's Village, National Children's Alliance, and the
International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. I am hopeful the
Senate can come together to act quickly on my legislation. We owe these
youth that much.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1521. A bill to prohibit Federal agencies from requiring seafood
to be certified as sustainable by a third party nongovernmental
organization and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Responsible
Seafood Certification and Labeling Act which I am introducing today.
This bill addresses an issue of great importance to fishermen, seafood
producers and coastal communities in my state and around the country--
the issue of how fisheries are managed sustainably. Based on the most
recent economic data, the Alaska seafood industry supported more than
63,000 direct jobs and contributed over $4.6 billion to the state's
economy. Nationally, those numbers go up to 165,800 total jobs and an
economic contribution of $15.7 billion.
The salmon fisheries are a major part of my State's seafood economy
and commercial fishermen around the State harvested more than 265
million salmon this season. With nearly 1 in 7 Alaskans employed in the
commercial seafood industry, and numbers like the ones I just shared,
you can understand why I take seriously how the Federal Government
affects my State's fishermen.
On June 5, the National Park Service announced new guidelines to
promote healthy food options for concessionaires at National Park
Service facilities. These guidelines include the following statement:
Where seafood options are offered, provide only those that
are `Best Choice' or `Good Alternatives' on the Monterey Bay
Aquarium Seafood Watch list, certified sustainable by the
Marine Stewardship Council, or identified by an equivalent
program that has been approved by the NPS.
Within the week, I was hearing from constituents, and they were not
happy. Digging further into the origins led to policies developed by
the Department
[[Page 13784]]
of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration
that served as precursors to the NPS Guidelines, and an indication that
this is a broader problem within the Federal Government.
How bad could this be? Why are these guidelines a problem? Why I am
so concerned? Before delving into those questions, I want to
acknowledge what some of you may know: Alaska salmon is a `Best Choice'
according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. You can check your smart phone
app. Problem solved, no impediment to the Park Service allowing its
vendors to serve Wild Alaska salmon to its visitors, or any other
Federal agency creating a problem for wild Alaska seafood . . . right?
Wrong! It is a problem, a big problem, and here is why.
I believe it is bad Federal policy to allow third party certifiers,
including Non-Governmental Organizations, NGOs, from the UK, to be the
arbiters of what seafood is allowed to be sold in National Parks, or
procured by Federal agencies. Not too long ago, wild Alaska salmon
served as the flagship species for--MSC. Now MSC is disparaging the
``sustainability'' of Alaska salmon. These NGOs have political agendas,
lack transparency, and are soliciting payment for their certification
schemes. These NGOs are meddling, and their efforts to usurp Federal
and State management expertise is harming U.S. seafood interests. What
started as voluntary efforts to differentiate well-managed fisheries,
to create market value for seafood products, to reward responsible
fishermen and processors, has turned into an aggressive scheme
apparently intent on taking over federal and state management
responsibilities, intruding into the fabric of fisheries management in
my State and around the country. The U.S. currently spends almost a
billion tax dollars each year to sustainably manage American fisheries
in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. There is no reason to let
groups with no accountability interfere with this process.
On July 12 I sent a letter to HHS, GSA, and the Park Service stating
my concerns, defending wild Alaska seafood, and requesting that all
three agency heads meet with me to discuss how to change these
guidelines. At an Energy and Natural Resources Committee oversight
hearing on the Park Service's maintenance backlog, I questioned
Director Jarvis on this issue. When Director Jarvis responded that he
would make sure wild Alaska seafood would be included, I said that is
not good enough, this is a national issue important to seafood
interests around the country, and federal agency regulations, policies
and guidelines need to be changed to eliminate the references to third
party certification NGOs.
The bill I am introducing today will prohibit any U.S. Federal agency
from requiring or endorsing the use of any third party non-governmental
organization's label, criteria or other scheme to certify fish or
seafood as sustainable. This prohibition will apply to any federal
agency's purchase of fish or seafood, the sale of fish or seafood by a
vendor or lessee on federal land or property, and any reference to a
seafood sustainability standard developed by a third party non-
governmental organization in any regulation, policy or guideline.
This is the right Federal policy for the Alaska seafood industry, and
for our Nation's fishermen and coastal communities that depend on
healthy and sustainable fisheries. It also is the right policy to
ensure that hard working fishermen and the coastal communities that
depend on them are not disadvantaged by the agenda of several misguided
NGOs.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Johnson of South Dakota):
S. 1523. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent
qualified school construction bonds and qualified zone academy bonds,
to treat qualified zone academy bonds as specified tax credit bonds,
and to modify the private business contribution requirement for
qualified zone academy bonds; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am proud to partner with
Senator Sherrod Brown to introduce the Rebuilding America's Schools
Act. This legislation would provide a permanent path forward so our
Nation's students can learn in high-quality settings. Investing in
education is key to the future success of our Nation, so we have to
make choices that support teachers and strong curricula, textbooks, and
technology. We must also invest in school facilities.
Studies show that the learning environment affects students' academic
achievement, as well as their behavior. It also makes a difference in
the effectiveness of teachers. When the Department of Education asked
principals about the caliber of their facilities in 2005, 43 percent
reported that environmental factors like excessive noise, poor
lighting, or inadequate ventilation interfered with instruction. The
number was even higher when it came to portable or temporary buildings
and classrooms. Building on these sentiments is a recent report by the
American Society of Civil Engineers, which gave our Nation's school
facilities a grade of ``D.'' Clearly, we have significant work to do.
I have fought for many years to provide the Federal support needed to
help improve our existing schools and build new ones, so that our
students have the best environment possible to learn and grow. For most
students, their school is the center of their lives. School is where
friendships are built, knowledge is gained, and the foundation is laid
for them to excel in society.
The Rebuilding America's Schools Act would provide important
additional Federal resources to build and renovate schools through the
qualified zone academy bond program and the Qualified School
Construction Bond Program. Since 1998, qualified zone academy bonds
have helped renovate and repair schools in every State. In 2010-2011,
school districts in 49 States used $11 billion in qualified school
construction bond financing to build and renovate 21st century schools
in communities across the country. The need is great--the National
Education Association estimates that our public school systems need as
much as $322 billion to bring our school facilities up to modern
standards. Our legislation would make significant progress in helping
to finance these desperately needed improvements.
In addition to helping make sure that no child has to attend classes
at a deteriorating school, this legislation will help create good-
paying construction jobs and stimulate our local economies. In fact,
our legislation is an important opportunity to make an investment in
our schools, our students, our teachers, and ultimately, our
communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation that invests in the future success of our youngest
generations and our Nation.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 237--AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY THE COMMITTEE ON
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Mr. MENENDEZ submitted the following resolution; from the Committee
on Foreign Relations; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration:
S. Res. 237
Resolved, That, in carrying out its powers, duties, and
functions under the Standing Rules of the Senate, in
accordance with its jurisdiction under Rule XXV of such
rules, including holding hearings, reporting such hearings,
and making investigations as authorized by paragraphs 1 and 8
of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the
Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized from October 1,
2013, through September 30, 2014 and October 1, 2014, through
February 28, 2015, in its discretion (1) to make expenditures
from the contingent fund of the Senate, (2) to employ
personnel, and (3) with the prior consent of the government
department or agency concerned and the Committee on Rules and
Administration, to use on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable
basis the services of personnel of any such department or
agency.
Sec. 2(a). The expenses of the committee for the period
October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, under this
resolution shall
[[Page 13785]]
not exceed $6,599,622, of which amount (1) not to exceed
$150,000 may be expended for the procurement of the services
of individual consultants, or organizations thereof (as
authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 72a(i))), and (2) not to
exceed $20,000 may be expended for the training of the
professional staff of such committee (under procedures
specified by section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 72a(j))).
(b) For the period October 1, 2014, through February 28,
2015, expenses of the committee under this resolution shall
not exceed $2,749,842, of which amount (1) not to exceed
$150,000 may be expended for the procurement of the services
of individual consultants, or organizations thereof (as
authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 72a(i))), and (2) not to
exceed $20,000 may be expended for the training of the
professional staff of such committee (under procedures
specified by section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 72a(j))).
Sec. 3. The committee shall report its findings, together
with such recommendations for legislation as it deems
advisable, to the Senate at the earliest practicable date,
but not later than February 28, 2015.
Sec. 4. Expenses of the committee under this resolution
shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon
vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee, except
that vouchers shall not be required (1) for the disbursement
of salaries of employees paid at an annual rate, or (2) for
the payment of telecommunications provided by the Office of
the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, United States Senate, or
(3) for the payment of stationery supplies purchased through
the Keeper of the Stationery, United States Senate, or (4)
for payments to the Postmaster, United States Senate, or (5)
for the payment of metered charges on copying equipment
provided by the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper, United States Senate, or (6) for the payment of
Senate Recording and Photographic Services, or (7) for
payment of franked and mass mail costs by the Sergeant at
Arms and Doorkeeper, United States Senate.
Sec. 5. There are authorized such sums as may be necessary
for agency contributions related to the compensation of
employees of the committee from October 1, 2013, through
September 30, 2014, and October 1, 2014, through February 28,
2015, to be paid from the Appropriations account for
``Expenses of Inquiries and Investigations''.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 238--AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY THE COMMITTEE ON
HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
Mr. HARKIN submitted the following resolution; from the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; which was referred to the
Committee on Rules and Administration:
S. Res. 238
Resolved, That, in carrying out its powers, duties, and
functions under the Standing Rules of the Senate, in
accordance with its jurisdiction under rule XXV of such
rules, including holding hearings, reporting such hearings,
and making investigations as authorized by paragraphs 1 and 8
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is
authorized from October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014,
and October 1, 2014, through February 28, 2015, in its
discretion (1) to make expenditures from the contingent fund
of the Senate, (2) to employ personnel, and (3) with the
prior consent of the Government department or agency
concerned and the Committee on Rules and Administration, to
use on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis the services
of personnel of any such department or agency.
Sec. 2(a). The expenses of the committee for the period
October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, under this
resolution shall not exceed $8,663,935, of which amount (1)
not to exceed $75,000 may be expended for the procurement of
the services of individual consultants, or organizations
thereof (as authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended), and (2) not to
exceed $25,000 may be expended for the training of the
professional staff of such committee (under procedures
specified by section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946).
(b) For the period October 1, 2014, through February 28,
2015, expenses of the committee under this resolution shall
not exceed $3,609,973, of which amount (1) not to exceed
$75,000 may be expended for the procurement of the services
of individual consultants, or organizations thereof (as
authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended), and (2) not to
exceed $25,000 may be expended for the training of the
professional staff of such committee (under procedures
specified by section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946).
Sec. 3. Expenses of the committee under this resolution
shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon
vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee, except
that vouchers shall not be required (1) for the disbursement
of salaries of employees paid at an annual rate, or (2) for
the payment of telecommunications provided by the Office of
the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, United States Senate, or
(3) for the payment of stationery supplies purchased through
the Keeper of the Stationery, United States Senate, or (4)
for payments to the Postmaster, United States Senate, or (5)
for the payment of metered charges on copying equipment
provided by the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper, United States Senate, or (6) for the payment of
Senate Recording and Photographic Services, or (7) for
payment of franked and mass mail costs by the Sergeant at
Arms and Doorkeeper, United States Senate.
Sec. 4. There are authorized such sums as may be necessary
for agency contributions related to the compensation of
employees of the committee from October 1, 2013, through
September 30, 2014, and October 1, 2014, through February 28,
2015, to be paid from the Appropriations account for
``Expenses of Inquiries and Investigations''.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 239--AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. CANTWELL submitted the following resolution; from the Committee
on Indian Affairs; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration:
S. Res. 239
Resolved, That, in carrying out its powers, duties, and
functions imposed by section 105 of S. Res. 4, agreed to
February 4, 1977 (95th Congress), and in exercising the
authority conferred on it by that section, the Committee on
Indian Affairs is authorized from October 1, 2013, through
September 30, 2014, and October 1, 2014, through February 28,
2015, in its discretion (1) to make expenditures from the
contingent fund of the Senate, (2) to employ personnel, and
(3) with the prior consent of the Government department or
agency concerned and the Committee on Rules and
Administration, to use on a reimbursable, or non-
reimbursable, basis the services of personnel of any such
department or agency.
Sec. 2(a). For the period October 1, 2013, through
September 30, 2014, expenses of the committee under this
resolution shall not exceed $2,009,768.00, of which amount
(1) not to exceed $20,000 may be expended for the procurement
of the services of individual consultants, or organizations
thereof (as authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended), and (2) not to
exceed $20,000 may be expended for the training of the
professional staff of such committee (under procedures
specified by section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946).
(b) For the period October 1, 2014, through February 28,
2015, expenses of the committee under this resolution shall
not exceed $837,403.00, of which amount (1) not to exceed
$20,000 may be expended for the procurement of the services
of individual consultants, or organizations thereof (as
authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended), and (2) not to
exceed $20,000 may be expended for the training of the
professional staff of such committee (under procedures
specified by section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946).
Sec. 3. The committee shall report its findings, together
with such recommendations for legislation as it deems
advisable, to the Senate at the earliest practicable date,
but not later than February 28, 2015.
Sec. 4. Expenses of the committee under this resolution
shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon
vouchers approved by the Chairwoman of the committee, except
that vouchers shall not be required (1) for the disbursement
of salaries of employees paid at an annual rate, or (2) for
the payment of telecommunications provided by the Office of
the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, United States Senate, or
(3) for the payment of stationery supplies purchased through
the Keeper of the Stationery, United States Senate, or (4)
for payments to the Postmaster, United States Senate, or (5)
for the payment of metered charges on copying equipment
provided by the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper, United States Senate, or (6) for the payment of
Senate Recording and Photographic Services, or (7) for
payment of franked and mass mail costs by the Sergeant at
Arms and Doorkeeper, United States Senate.
Sec. 5. There are authorized such sums as may be necessary
for agency contributions related to the compensation of
employees of the committee from October 1, 2013, through
September 30, 2014, and October 1, 2014, through February 28,
2015, to be paid from the Appropriations account for Expenses
of Inquiries and Investigations.
[[Page 13786]]
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 240--DESIGNATING THE WEEK BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 15,
2013, AS ``NATIONAL HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS WEEK''
Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Begich, Mr.
Bennet, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Rubio, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Warner, Mr. Heller, and
Mr. Enzi) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and
agreed to:
S. Res. 240
Whereas Hispanic-Serving Institutions are degree-granting
institutions that have a full-time equivalent undergraduate
enrollment of at least 25 percent Hispanic students;
Whereas Hispanic-Serving Institutions play an important
role in educating many underprivileged students and helping
those students attain their full potential through higher
education;
Whereas more than 350 Hispanic-Serving Institutions operate
in the United States;
Whereas Hispanic-Serving Institutions serve more than half,
or 56 percent, of all Hispanic students, enrolling more than
1,480,000 students in 2011;
Whereas Hispanic-Serving Institutions are actively involved
in stabilizing and improving the communities in which the
institutions are located;
Whereas celebrating the vast contributions of Hispanic-
Serving Institutions to the United States strengthens the
culture of the United States; and
Whereas the achievements and goals of Hispanic-Serving
Institutions deserve national recognition: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the achievements and goals of Hispanic-
Serving Institutions across the United States;
(2) designates the week beginning September 15, 2013, as
``National Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week''; and
(3) calls on the people of the United States and interested
groups to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies,
activities, and programs to demonstrate support for Hispanic-
Serving Institutions.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 1953. Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, and Mr. Franken) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 1392, to promote energy
savings in residential buildings and industry, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1954. Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Tester,
and Mr. Schatz) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1392, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1955. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Graham, and Mr.
Schumer) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the bill S. 1392, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 1956. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Franken, and Mr.
Hoeven) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her
to the bill S. 1392, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1957. Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Markey) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1392, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 1953. Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado,
and Mr. Franken) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill S. 1392, to promote energy savings in residential buildings
and industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 47, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
SEC. 4___. SMART WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
(A) a utility;
(B) a municipality;
(C) a water district; and
(D) any other authority that provides water, wastewater, or
water reuse services.
(2) Smart water resource management pilot program.--The
term ``smart water resource management pilot program'' or
``pilot program'' means the pilot program established under
subsection (b).
(b) Smart Water Resource Management Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and carry
out a smart water resource management pilot program in
accordance with this section.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the smart water resource
management pilot program is to award grants to eligible
entities to demonstrate novel and innovative technology-based
solutions that will--
(A) increase the energy and water efficiency of water,
wastewater, and water reuse systems;
(B) improve water, wastewater, and water reuse systems to
help communities across the United States make significant
progress in conserving water, saving energy, and reducing
costs; and
(C) support the implementation of innovative processes and
the installation of advanced automated systems that provide
real-time data on energy and water.
(3) Project selection.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make competitive,
merit-reviewed grants under the pilot program to not less
than 3, but not more than 5, eligible entities.
(B) Selection criteria.--In selecting an eligible entity to
receive a grant under the pilot program, the Secretary shall
consider--
(i) energy and cost savings;
(ii) the novelty of the technology to be used;
(iii) the degree to which the project integrates next-
generation sensors, software, analytics, and management
tools;
(iv) the anticipated cost-effectiveness of the pilot
project in terms of energy efficiency savings, water savings
or reuse, and infrastructure costs averted;
(v) whether the technology can be deployed in a variety of
geographic regions and the degree to which the technology can
be implemented on a smaller or larger scale; and
(vi) whether the project will be completed in 5 years or
less.
(C) Applications.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), an eligible entity
seeking a grant under the pilot program shall submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary determines to be
necessary.
(ii) Contents.--An application under clause (i) shall, at a
minimum, include--
(I) a description of the project;
(II) a description of the technology to be used in the
project;
(III) the anticipated results, including energy and water
savings, of the project;
(IV) a comprehensive budget for the project;
(V) the names of the project lead organization and any
partners;
(VI) the number of users to be served by the project; and
(VII) any other information that the Secretary determines
to be necessary to complete the review and selection of a
grant recipient.
(4) Administration.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 300 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall select grant
recipients under this section.
(B) Evaluations.--The Secretary shall annually carry out an
evaluation of each project for which a grant is provided
under this section that--
(i) evaluates the progress and impact of the project; and
(ii) assesses the degree to which the project is meeting
the goals of the pilot program.
(C) Technical and policy assistance.--On the request of a
grant recipient, the Secretary shall provide technical and
policy assistance.
(D) Best practices.--The Secretary shall make available to
the public--
(i) a copy of each evaluation carried out under
subparagraph (B); and
(ii) a description of any best practices identified by the
Secretary as a result of those evaluations.
(E) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report containing the results of each evaluation
carried out under subparagraph (B).
(c) Funding.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use not less than
$7,500,000 of amounts made available to the Secretary to
carry out this section.
(2) Prioritization.--In funding activities under this
section, the Secretary shall prioritize funding in the
following manner:
(A) Any unobligated amounts made available for the State
Energy Program of the Department of Energy.
(B) Any unobligated amounts (other than those described in
subparagraph (A)) made available to the Secretary.
______
SA 1954. Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Tester, and Mr.
Schatz) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1392, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and
industry, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
Subtitle B--Energy Productivity Innovation Challenge
SEC. 411. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Energy Productivity
Innovation Challenge Act of 2013'' or the ``EPIC Act of
2013''.
[[Page 13787]]
SEC. 412. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this subtitle is to assist energy policy
innovation in the States to promote the goal of doubling
electric and thermal energy productivity by January 1, 2030.
SEC. 413. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Energy productivity.--The term ``energy productivity''
means, in the case of a State or Indian tribe, the gross
State or tribal product per British thermal unit of energy
consumed in the State or tribal land of the Indian tribe,
respectively.
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(3) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the
term in section 3 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6202).
SEC. 414. PHASE 1: INITIAL ALLOCATION OF GRANTS TO STATES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue an
invitation to States to submit plans to participate in an
electric and thermal energy productivity challenge in
accordance with this section.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--Subject to section 417, the Secretary
shall use funds made available under section 418(b)(1) to
provide an initial allocation of grants to not more than 25
States.
(2) Amount.--The amount of a grant provided to a State
under this section shall be not less than $500,000 nor more
than $1,750,000.
(c) Submission of Plans.--To receive a grant under this
section, not later than 90 days after the date of issuance of
the invitation under subsection (a), a State (in consultation
with energy utilities, regulatory bodies, and others) shall
submit to the Secretary an application to receive the grant
by submitting a revised State energy conservation plan under
section 362 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6322).
(d) Decision by Secretary.--
(1) Basis.--The Secretary shall base the decision of the
Secretary on an application submitted under this section on--
(A) plans for improvement in electric and thermal energy
productivity consistent with this subtitle; and
(B) other factors determined appropriate by the Secretary,
including geographic diversity.
(2) Ranking.--The Secretary shall--
(A) rank revised plans submitted under this section in
order of the greatest to least likely contribution to
improving energy productivity in the State; and
(B) provide grants under this section in accordance with
the ranking and the scale and scope of a plan.
(e) Plan Requirements.--A plan submitted under subsection
(c) shall provide--
(1) a description of the manner in which--
(A) energy savings will be monitored and verified and
energy productivity improvements will be calculated using
inflation-adjusted dollars;
(B) a statewide baseline of energy use and potential
resources for calendar year 2010 will be established to
measure improvements;
(C) the plan will promote achievement of energy savings and
demand reduction goals;
(D) public and private sector investments in energy
efficiency will be leveraged with available Federal funding;
and
(E) the plan will not cause cost-shifting among utility
customer classes or negatively impact low-income populations;
and
(2) an assurance that--
(A) the State energy office required to submit the plan,
the energy utilities in the State participating in the plan,
and the State public service commission are cooperating and
coordinating programs and activities under this subtitle;
(B) the State is cooperating with local units of
government, Indian tribes, and energy utilities to expand
programs as appropriate; and
(C) grants provided under this subtitle will be used to
supplement and not supplant Federal, State, or ratepayer-
funded programs or activities in existence on the date of
enactment of this subtitle.
(f) Uses.--A State may use grants provided under this
section to promote--
(1) the expansion of policies and programs that will
advance industrial energy efficiency, waste heat recovery,
combined heat and power, and waste heat-to-power utilization;
(2) the expansion of policies and programs that will
advance energy efficiency construction and retrofits for
public and private commercial buildings (including schools,
hospitals, and residential buildings, including multifamily
buildings) such as through expanded energy service
performance contracts, equivalent utility energy service
contracts, zero net-energy buildings, and improved building
energy efficiency codes;
(3) the establishment or expansion of incentives in the
electric utility sector to enhance demand response and energy
efficiency, including consideration of additional incentives
to promote the purposes of section 111(d) of the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)),
such as appropriate, cost-effective policies regarding rate
structures, grid improvements, behavior change, combined heat
and power and waste heat-to-power incentives, financing of
energy efficiency programs, data use incentives, district
heating, and regular energy audits; and
(4) leadership by example, in which State activities
involving both facilities and vehicle fleets can be a model
for other action to promote energy efficiency and can be
expanded with Federal grants provided under this subtitle.
SEC. 415. PHASE 2: SUBSEQUENT ALLOCATION OF GRANTS TO STATES.
(a) Reports.--Not later than 18 months after the receipt of
grants under section 414, each State (in consultation with
other parties described in subsection (b)(3)(F) that received
grants under section 414 may submit to the Secretary a report
that describes--
(1) the performance of the programs and activities carried
out with the grants; and
(2) in consultation with other parties described in
subsection (b)(3)(F), the manner in which additional funds
would be used to carry out programs and activities to promote
the purposes of this subtitle.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the receipt of the reports required under subsection (a),
subject to section 417, the Secretary shall use amounts made
available under section 418(b)(2) to provide grants to not
more than 6 States to carry out the programs and activities
described in subsection (a)(2).
(2) Amount.--The amount of a grant provided to a State
under this section shall be not more than $15,000,000.
(3) Basis.--The Secretary shall base the decision of the
Secretary to provide grants under this section on--
(A) the performance of the State in the programs and
activities carried out with grants provided under section
414;
(B) the potential of the programs and activities described
in subsection (a)(2) to achieve the purposes of this
subtitle;
(C) the desirability of maintaining a total project
portfolio that is geographically and functionally diverse;
(D) the amount of non-Federal funds that are leveraged as a
result of the grants to ensure that Federal dollars are
leveraged effectively;
(E) plans for continuation of the improvements after the
receipt of grants under this subtitle; and
(F) demonstrated effort by the State to involve diverse
groups, including--
(i) investor-owned, cooperative, and public power
utilities;
(ii) local governments; and
(iii) nonprofit organizations.
SEC. 416. ALLOCATION OF GRANTS TO INDIAN TRIBES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall invite Indian
tribes to submit plans to participate in an electric and
thermal energy productivity challenge in accordance with this
section.
(b) Submission of Plans.--To receive a grant under this
section, not later than 90 days after the date of issuance of
the invitation under subsection (a), an Indian tribe shall
submit to the Secretary a plan to increase electric and
thermal energy productivity by the Indian tribe.
(c) Decision by Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the
submission of plans under subsection (b), the Secretary shall
make a final decision on the allocation of grants under this
section.
(2) Basis.--The Secretary shall base the decision of the
Secretary under paragraph (1) on--
(A) plans for improvement in electric and thermal energy
productivity consistent with this subtitle;
(B) plans for continuation of the improvements after the
receipt of grants under this subtitle; and
(C) other factors determined appropriate by the Secretary,
including--
(i) geographic diversity; and
(ii) size differences among Indian tribes.
(3) Limitation.--An individual Indian tribe shall not
receive more than 20 percent of the total amount available to
carry out this section.
SEC. 417. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Independent Evaluation.--To evaluate program
performance and effectiveness under this subtitle, the
Secretary shall consult with the National Research Council
regarding requirements for data and evaluation for recipients
of grants under this subtitle.
(b) Coordination With State Energy Conservation Programs.--
(1) In general.--Grants to States under this subtitle shall
be provided through additional funding to carry out State
energy conservation programs under part D of title III of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.).
(2) Relationship to state energy conservation programs.--
(A) In general.--A grant provided to a State under this
subtitle shall be used to supplement (and not supplant) funds
provided to the State under part D of title III of
[[Page 13788]]
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et
seq.).
(B) Minimum funding.--A grant shall not be provided to a
State for a fiscal year under this subtitle if the amount of
funding provided to all State grantees under the base formula
for the fiscal year under part D of title III of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.) is less
than $50,000,000.
(c) Voluntary Participation.--The participation of a State
in a challenge established under this subtitle shall be
voluntary.
SEC. 418. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this subtitle $100,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2014 through 2017.
(b) Allocation.--Of the total amount of funds made
available under subsection (a)--
(1) 30 percent shall be used to provide an initial
allocation of grants to States under section 414;
(2) 61 percent shall be used to provide a subsequent
allocation of grants to States under section 415;
(3) 4 percent shall be used to make grants to Indian tribes
under section 416; and
(4) 5 percent shall be available to the Secretary for the
cost of administration and technical support to carry out
this subtitle.
SEC. 419. OFFSET.
Section 422(f) of the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17082(f)) (as amended by section 401) is
amended by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the
following:
``(5) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2014;
``(6) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2015;
``(7) $75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 and 2017;
and
``(8) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''.
______
SA 1955. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Schumer)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S.
1392, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE V--METAL THEFT PREVENTION ACT
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Metal Theft Prevention Act
of 2013''.
SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.
In this title--
(1) the term ``critical infrastructure'' has the meaning
given the term in section 1016(e) of the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of
2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e));
(2) the term ``specified metal'' means metal that--
(A)(i) is marked with the name, logo, or initials of a
city, county, State, or Federal government entity, a
railroad, an electric, gas, or water company, a telephone
company, a cable company, a retail establishment, a beer
supplier or distributor, or a public utility; or
(ii) has been altered for the purpose of removing,
concealing, or obliterating a name, logo, or initials
described in clause (i) through burning or cutting of wire
sheathing or other means; or
(B) is part of--
(i) a street light pole or street light fixture;
(ii) a road or bridge guard rail;
(iii) a highway or street sign;
(iv) a water meter cover;
(v) a storm water grate;
(vi) unused or undamaged building construction or utility
material;
(vii) a historical marker;
(viii) a grave marker or cemetery urn;
(ix) a utility access cover; or
(x) a container used to transport or store beer with a
capacity of 5 gallons or more;
(C) is a wire or cable commonly used by communications and
electrical utilities; or
(D) is copper, aluminum, and other metal (including any
metal combined with other materials) that is valuable for
recycling or reuse as raw metal, except for--
(i) aluminum cans; and
(ii) motor vehicles, the purchases of which are reported to
the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System
(established under section 30502 of title 49); and
(3) the term ``recycling agent'' means any person engaged
in the business of purchasing specified metal for reuse or
recycling, without regard to whether that person is engaged
in the business of recycling or otherwise processing the
purchased specified metal for reuse.
SEC. 503. THEFT OF SPECIFIED METAL.
(a) Offense.--It shall be unlawful to knowingly steal
specified metal--
(1) being used in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce; and
(2) the theft of which is from and harms critical
infrastructure.
(b) Penalty.--Any person who commits an offense described
in subsection (a) shall be fined under title 18, United
States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
SEC. 504. DOCUMENTATION OF OWNERSHIP OR AUTHORITY TO SELL.
(a) Offenses.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it
shall be unlawful for a recycling agent to purchase specified
metal described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 502(2),
unless--
(A) the seller, at the time of the transaction, provides
documentation of ownership of, or other proof of the
authority of the seller to sell, the specified metal; and
(B) there is a reasonable basis to believe that the
documentation or other proof of authority provided under
subparagraph (A) is valid.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
recycling agent that is subject to a State or local law that
sets forth a requirement on recycling agents to obtain
documentation of ownership or proof of authority to sell
specified metal before purchasing specified metal.
(3) Responsibility of recycling agent.--A recycling agent
is not required to independently verify the validity of the
documentation or other proof of authority described in
paragraph (1).
(4) Purchase of stolen metal.--It shall be unlawful for a
recycling agent to purchase any specified metal that the
recycling agent--
(A) knows to be stolen; or
(B) should know or believe, based upon commercial
experience and practice, to be stolen.
(b) Civil Penalty.--A person who knowingly violates
subsection (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not
more than $10,000 for each violation.
SEC. 505. TRANSACTION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Recording Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
recycling agent shall maintain a written or electronic record
of each purchase of specified metal.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
recycling agent that is subject to a State or local law that
sets forth recording requirements that are substantially
similar to the requirements described in paragraph (3) for
the purchase of specified metal.
(3) Contents.--A record under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) the name and address of the recycling agent; and
(B) for each purchase of specified metal--
(i) the date of the transaction;
(ii) a description of the specified metal purchased using
widely used and accepted industry terminology;
(iii) the amount paid by the recycling agent;
(iv) the name and address of the person to which the
payment was made;
(v) the name of the person delivering the specified metal
to the recycling agent, including a distinctive number from a
Federal or State government-issued photo identification card
and a description of the type of the identification; and
(vi) the license plate number and State-of-issue, make, and
model, if available, of the vehicle used to deliver the
specified metal to the recycling agent.
(4) Repeat sellers.--A recycling agent may comply with the
requirements of this subsection with respect to a purchase of
specified metal from a person from which the recycling agent
has previously purchased specified metal by--
(A) reference to the existing record relating to the
seller; and
(B) recording any information for the transaction that is
different from the record relating to the previous purchase
from that person.
(5) Record retention period.--A recycling agent shall
maintain any record required under this subsection for not
less than 2 years after the date of the transaction to which
the record relates.
(6) Confidentiality.--Any information collected or retained
under this section may be disclosed to any Federal, State, or
local law enforcement authority or as otherwise directed by a
court of law.
(b) Purchases in Excess of $100.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
recycling agent may not pay cash for a single purchase of
specified metal of more than $100. For purposes of this
paragraph, more than 1 purchase in any 48-hour period from
the same seller shall be considered to be a single purchase.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
recycling agent that is subject to a State or local law that
sets forth a maximum amount for cash payments for the
purchase of specified metal.
(3) Payment method.--
(A) Occasional sellers.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), for any purchase of specified metal of more than $100 a
recycling agent shall make payment by check that--
(i) is payable to the seller; and
(ii) includes the name and address of the seller.
(B) Established commercial transactions.--A recycling agent
may make payments for a purchase of specified metal of more
than $100 from a governmental or commercial supplier of
specified metal with which the recycling agent has an
established commercial relationship by electronic funds
transfer or other established commercial transaction payment
method through a commercial bank if the recycling agent
maintains a written record of the payment that
[[Page 13789]]
identifies the seller, the amount paid, and the date of the
purchase.
(c) Civil Penalty.--A person who knowingly violates
subsection (a) or (b) shall be subject to a civil penalty of
not more than $5,000 for each violation, except that a person
who commits a minor violation shall be subject to a penalty
of not more than $1,000.
SEC. 506. ENFORCEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The Attorney General may bring an enforcement action in an
appropriate United States district court against any person
that engages in conduct that violates this title.
SEC. 507. ENFORCEMENT BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.
(a) In General.--An attorney general or equivalent
regulator of a State may bring a civil action in the name of
the State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons
residing in the State, in any district court of the United
States or other competent court having jurisdiction over the
defendant, to secure monetary or equitable relief for a
violation of this title.
(b) Notice Required.--Not later than 30 days before the
date on which an action under subsection (a) is filed, the
attorney general or equivalent regulator of the State
involved shall provide to the Attorney General--
(1) written notice of the action; and
(2) a copy of the complaint for the action.
(c) Attorney General Action.--Upon receiving notice under
subsection (b), the Attorney General shall have the right--
(1) to intervene in the action;
(2) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters arising
therein;
(3) to remove the action to an appropriate district court
of the United States; and
(4) to file petitions for appeal.
(d) Pending Federal Proceedings.--If a civil action has
been instituted by the Attorney General for a violation of
this title, no State may, during the pendency of the action
instituted by the Attorney General, institute a civil action
under this title against any defendant named in the complaint
in the civil action for any violation alleged in the
complaint.
(e) Construction.--For purposes of bringing a civil action
under subsection (a), nothing in this section regarding
notification shall be construed to prevent the attorney
general or equivalent regulator of the State from exercising
any powers conferred under the laws of that State to--
(1) conduct investigations;
(2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
(3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
SEC. 508. DIRECTIVE TO SENTENCING COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section
994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with
this section, the United States Sentencing Commission, shall
review and, if appropriate, amend the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines and policy statements applicable to a person
convicted of a criminal violation of section 503 of this
title or any other Federal criminal law based on the theft of
specified metal by such person.
(b) Considerations.--In carrying out this section, the
Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy
statements reflect the--
(A) serious nature of the theft of specified metal; and
(B) need for an effective deterrent and appropriate
punishment to prevent such theft;
(2) consider the extent to which the guidelines and policy
statements appropriately account for--
(A) the potential and actual harm to the public from the
offense, including any damage to critical infrastructure;
(B) the amount of loss, or the costs associated with
replacement or repair, attributable to the offense;
(C) the level of sophistication and planning involved in
the offense; and
(D) whether the offense was intended to or had the effect
of creating a threat to public health or safety, injury to
another person, or death;
(3) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating
circumstances that may justify exceptions to the generally
applicable sentencing ranges;
(4) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives and with other sentencing guidelines and policy
statements; and
(5) assure that the sentencing guidelines and policy
statements adequately meet the purposes of sentencing as set
forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.
SEC. 509. STATE AND LOCAL LAW NOT PREEMPTED.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to preempt any
State or local law regulating the sale or purchase of
specified metal, the reporting of such transactions, or any
other aspect of the metal recycling industry.
SEC. 510. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title shall take effect 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______
SA 1956. Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Franken, and Mr. Hoeven)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S.
1392, to promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 48, after line 16, add the following:
SEC. 4___. COORDINATION OF REFINERY OUTAGES.
Section 804 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17283) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 804. COORDINATION OF REFINERY OUTAGES.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.
``(2) Planned refinery outage.--The term `planned refinery
outage' means a removal, scheduled before the date on which
the removal occurs, of a refinery, or any unit of a refinery,
from service for maintenance, repair, or modification.
``(3) Refined petroleum product.--The term `refined
petroleum product' means any gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil,
lubricating oil, liquid petroleum gas, or other petroleum
distillate that is produced through the refining or
processing of crude oil or an oil derived from tar sands,
shale, or coal.
``(4) Refinery.--The term `refinery' means a facility used
in the production of a refined petroleum product through
distillation, cracking, or any other process.
``(5) Unplanned refinery outage.--The `unplanned refinery
outage' means the removal of a refinery, or any unit of a
refinery, from service that is not scheduled in advance.
``(b) Reporting Requirement.--The owner or operator of a
refinery shall submit to the Administrator information
describing--
``(1) the schedule of the refinery for any planned refinery
outage, including--
``(A) the dates for the planned refinery outage at least 1
year in advance of the date of the expected outage or the
date the outage is scheduled; and
``(B) the estimated inventories and production of refined
petroleum products during the period described in
subparagraph (A); and
``(2) any unplanned refinery outages as soon as practicable
``(c) Review and Analysis of Available Information.--The
Administrator shall, on an ongoing basis--
``(1) review information on planned refinery outages and
unplanned refinery outages--
``(A) reported by refineries under subsection (b); and
``(B) that is available from commercial reporting services;
``(2) analyze that information to determine whether the
scheduling of a planned refinery outage or an unplanned
refinery outage may nationally or regionally substantially
affect the price or supply of any refined petroleum product
by--
``(A) decreasing the production of the refined petroleum
product; and
``(B) causing or contributing to a retail or wholesale
supply shortage or disruption; and
``(3) alert the Secretary of any refinery outage that the
Administrator determines may nationally or regionally
substantially affect the price or supply of a refined
petroleum product.
``(d) Action by Secretary.--On a determination by the
Secretary that a refinery outage may affect the price or
supply of a refined petroleum product, the Secretary shall
make available to refinery operators information on planned
refinery outages or unplanned refinery outages to prevent
significant market disruptions.
``(e) Limitation.--Nothing in this section--
``(1) alters any existing legal obligation or
responsibility of a refinery operator;
``(2) creates any legal right of action; or
``(3) authorizes the Secretary--
``(A) to prohibit a refinery operator from conducting a
planned refinery outage; or
``(B) to require a refinery operator to continue to operate
a refinery.
``(f) Study on National Strategic Refined Petroleum
Products Reserve.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall study
and submit to Congress a report on the costs and benefits of
creating a national strategic refined petroleum products
reserve for refined petroleum products.
``(2) Information.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall include information on--
``(A) the days of existing storage capabilities within the
different petroleum administration defense districts based on
normal usage of refined petroleum products;
``(B) the feasibility of increasing storage capacity for
refined petroleum products on a regional basis; and
``(C) the impact additional storage capacity would have on
the retail price of refined petroleum products for consumers
in the event of a supply shortage or market disruption from a
natural disaster or refinery outage.''.
______
SA 1957. Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado,
Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Markey) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1392, to
[[Page 13790]]
promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the beginning of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4__. RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD.
(a) In General.--Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 610. RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Base quantity of electricity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `base quantity of electricity'
means the total quantity of electric energy sold by a retail
electric supplier, expressed in terms of kilowatt hours, to
electric customers for purposes other than resale during the
most recent calendar year for which information is available.
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `base quantity of electricity'
does not include--
``(i) electric energy that is not incremental hydropower
generated by a hydroelectric facility; and
``(ii) electricity generated through the incineration of
municipal solid waste.
``(2) Biomass.--
``(A) In general.--The term `biomass' means--
``(i) cellulosic (plant fiber) organic materials from a
plant that is planted for the purpose of being used to
produce energy;
``(ii) nonhazardous plant or algal matter that is derived
from--
``(I) an agricultural crop, crop byproduct, or residue
resource; or
``(II) waste, such as landscape or right-of-way trimmings
(but not including municipal solid waste, recyclable
postconsumer waste paper, painted, treated, or pressurized
wood, wood contaminated with plastic, or metals);
``(iii) animal waste or animal byproducts; and
``(iv) landfill methane.
``(B) National forest land and certain other public land.--
In the case of organic material removed from National Forest
System land or from public land administered by the Secretary
of the Interior, the term `biomass' means only organic
material from--
``(i) ecological forest restoration;
``(ii) precommercial thinnings;
``(iii) brush;
``(iv) mill residues; or
``(v) slash.
``(C) Exclusion of certain federal land.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (B), the term `biomass' does not include
material or matter that would otherwise qualify as biomass if
the material or matter is located on the following Federal
land:
``(i) Federal land containing old growth forest or late
successional forest unless the Secretary of the Interior or
the Secretary of Agriculture determines that the removal of
organic material from the land--
``(I) is appropriate for the applicable forest type; and
``(II) maximizes the retention of--
``(aa) late-successional and large and old growth trees;
``(bb) late-successional and old growth forest structure;
and
``(cc) late-successional and old growth forest composition.
``(ii) Federal land on which the removal of vegetation is
prohibited, including components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
``(iii) Wilderness study areas.
``(iv) Inventoried roadless areas.
``(v) Components of the National Landscape Conservation
System.
``(vi) National Monuments.
``(3) Existing facility.--The term `existing facility'
means a facility for the generation of electric energy from a
renewable energy resource that is not an eligible facility.
``(4) Incremental hydropower.--The term `incremental
hydropower' means additional generation that is achieved from
increased efficiency or additions of capacity made on or
after--
``(A) the date of enactment of this section; or
``(B) the effective date of an existing applicable State
renewable portfolio standard program at a hydroelectric
facility that was placed in service before that date.
``(5) Indian land.--The term `Indian land' means--
``(A) any land within the limits of any Indian reservation,
pueblo, or rancheria;
``(B) any land not within the limits of any Indian
reservation, pueblo, or rancheria title to which was on the
date of enactment of this section held by--
``(i) the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe
or individual; or
``(ii) any Indian tribe or individual subject to
restriction by the United States against alienation;
``(C) any dependent Indian community; or
``(D) any land conveyed to any Alaska Native corporation
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.).
``(6) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaskan Native village or regional
or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.), that is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians.
``(7) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means
electric energy generated by a renewable energy resource.
``(8) Renewable energy resource.--The term `renewable
energy resource' means solar, wind, ocean, tidal, geothermal
energy, biomass, landfill gas, incremental hydropower, or
hydrokinetic energy.
``(9) Repowering or cofiring increment.--The term
`repowering or cofiring increment' means--
``(A) the additional generation from a modification that is
placed in service on or after the date of enactment of this
section, to expand electricity production at a facility used
to generate electric energy from a renewable energy resource;
``(B) the additional generation above the average
generation during the 3-year period ending on the date of
enactment of this section at a facility used to generate
electric energy from a renewable energy resource or to cofire
biomass that was placed in service before the date of
enactment of this section; or
``(C) the portion of the electric generation from a
facility placed in service on or after the date of enactment
of this section, or a modification to a facility placed in
service before the date of enactment of this section made on
or after January 1, 2001, associated with cofiring biomass.
``(10) Retail electric supplier.--
``(A) In general.--The term `retail electric supplier'
means a person that sells electric energy to electric
consumers that sold not less than 1,000,000 megawatt hours of
electric energy to electric consumers for purposes other than
resale during the preceding calendar year.
``(B) Inclusion.--The term `retail electric supplier'
includes a person that sells electric energy to electric
consumers that, in combination with the sales of any
affiliate organized after the date of enactment of this
section, sells not less than 1,000,000 megawatt hours of
electric energy to consumers for purposes other than resale.
``(C) Sales to parent companies or affiliates.--For
purposes of this paragraph, sales by any person to a parent
company or to other affiliates of the person shall not be
treated as sales to electric consumers.
``(D) Governmental agencies.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
term `retail electric supplier' does not include--
``(I) the United States, a State, any political subdivision
of a State, or any agency, authority, or instrumentality of
the United States, State, or political subdivision; or
``(II) a rural electric cooperative.
``(ii) Inclusion.--The term `retail electric supplier'
includes an entity that is a political subdivision of a
State, or an agency, authority, or instrumentality of the
United States, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a
rural electric cooperative that sells electric energy to
electric consumers, or any other entity that sells electric
energy to electric consumers that would not otherwise qualify
as a retail electric supplier if the entity notifies the
Secretary that the entity voluntarily agrees to participate
in the Federal renewable electricity standard program.
``(b) Compliance.--For calendar year 2014 and each calendar
year thereafter, each retail electric supplier shall meet the
requirements of subsection (c) by submitting to the
Secretary, not later than April 1 of the following calendar
year, 1 or more of the following:
``(1) Federal renewable energy credits issued under
subsection (e).
``(2) Certification of the renewable energy generated and
electricity savings pursuant to the funds associated with
State compliance payments as specified in subsection
(e)(4)(G).
``(3) Alternative compliance payments pursuant to
subsection (h).
``(c) Required Annual Percentage.--For each of calendar
years 2014 through 2039, the required annual percentage of
the base quantity of electricity of a retail electric
supplier that shall be generated from renewable energy
resources, or otherwise credited towards the percentage
requirement pursuant to subsection (d), shall be the
applicable percentage specified in the following table:
Required Amount
``Calendar Years percentage
2014..............................................................6.0
2015..............................................................8.5
2016.............................................................11.0
2017.............................................................11.0
2018.............................................................14.0
2019.............................................................14.0
2020.............................................................17.5
2021.............................................................17.5
2022.............................................................21.0
[[Page 13791]]
2023.............................................................21.0
2024.............................................................23.0
2025 and thereafter through 2039................................25.0.
``(d) Renewable Energy Credits.--
``(1) In general.--A retail electric supplier may satisfy
the requirements of subsection (b)(1) through the submission
of Federal renewable energy credits--
``(A) issued to the retail electric supplier under
subsection (e);
``(B) obtained by purchase or exchange under subsection
(f); or
``(C) borrowed under subsection (g).
``(2) Federal renewable energy credits.--A Federal
renewable energy credit may be counted toward compliance with
subsection (b)(1) only once.
``(e) Issuance of Federal Renewable Energy Credits.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish by
rule a program--
``(A) to verify and issue Federal renewable energy credits
to generators of renewable energy;
``(B) to track the sale, exchange, and retirement of the
credits; and
``(C) to enforce the requirements of this section.
``(2) Existing non-federal tracking systems.--To the
maximum extent practicable, in establishing the program, the
Secretary shall rely on existing and emerging State or
regional tracking systems that issue and track non-Federal
renewable energy credits.
``(3) Application.--
``(A) In general.--An entity that generates electric energy
through the use of a renewable energy resource may apply to
the Secretary for the issuance of renewable energy credits.
``(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible for the issuance of the
credits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Secretary
that--
``(i) the electric energy will be transmitted onto the
grid; or
``(ii) in the case of a generation offset, the electric
energy offset would have otherwise been consumed onsite.
``(C) Contents.--The application shall indicate--
``(i) the type of renewable energy resource that is used to
produce the electricity;
``(ii) the location at which the electric energy will be
produced; and
``(iii) any other information the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(4) Quantity of federal renewable energy credits.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, the Secretary shall issue to a generator of
electric energy 1 Federal renewable energy credit for each
kilowatt hour of electric energy generated by the use of a
renewable energy resource at an eligible facility.
``(B) Incremental hydropower.--
``(i) In general.--For purpose of compliance with this
section, Federal renewable energy credits for incremental
hydropower shall be based on the increase in average annual
generation resulting from the efficiency improvements or
capacity additions.
``(ii) Water flow information.--The incremental generation
shall be calculated using the same water flow information
that is--
``(I) used to determine a historic average annual
generation baseline for the hydroelectric facility; and
``(II) certified by the Secretary or the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
``(iii) Operational changes.--The calculation of the
Federal renewable energy credits for incremental hydropower
shall not be based on any operational changes at the
hydroelectric facility that is not directly associated with
the efficiency improvements or capacity additions.
``(C) Indian land.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall issue 2 renewable
energy credits for each kilowatt hour of electric energy
generated and supplied to the grid in a calendar year through
the use of a renewable energy resource at an eligible
facility located on Indian land.
``(ii) Biomass.--For purposes of this paragraph, renewable
energy generated by biomass cofired with other fuels is
eligible for 2 credits only if the biomass was grown on the
land.
``(D) On-site eligible facilities.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of electric energy generated
by a renewable energy resource at an on-site eligible
facility that is not larger than 1 megawatt in capacity and
is used to offset all or part of the requirements of a
customer for electric energy, the Secretary shall issue 3
renewable energy credits to the customer for each kilowatt
hour generated.
``(ii) Indian land.--In the case of an on-site eligible
facility on Indian land, the Secretary shall issue not more
than 3 credits per kilowatt hour.
``(E) Combination of renewable and nonrenewable energy
resources.--If both a renewable energy resource and a
nonrenewable energy resource are used to generate the
electric energy, the Secretary shall issue the Federal
renewable energy credits based on the proportion of the
renewable energy resources used.
``(F) Retail electric suppliers.--If a generator has sold
electric energy generated through the use of a renewable
energy resource to a retail electric supplier under a
contract for power from an existing facility and the contract
has not determined ownership of the Federal renewable energy
credits associated with the generation, the Secretary shall
issue the Federal renewable energy credits to the retail
electric supplier for the duration of the contract.
``(G) Compliance with state renewable portfolio standard
programs.--Payments made by a retail electricity supplier,
directly or indirectly, to a State for compliance with a
State renewable portfolio standard program, or for an
alternative compliance mechanism, shall be valued at 1 credit
per kilowatt hour for the purpose of subsection (b)(2) based
on the quantity of electric energy generation from renewable
resources that results from the payments.
``(f) Renewable Energy Credit Trading.--
``(1) In general.--A Federal renewable energy credit may be
sold, transferred, or exchanged by the entity to whom the
credit is issued or by any other entity that acquires the
Federal renewable energy credit, other than renewable energy
credits from existing facilities.
``(2) Carryover.--A Federal renewable energy credit for any
year that is not submitted to satisfy the minimum renewable
generation requirement of subsection (c) for that year may be
carried forward for use pursuant to subsection (b)(1) within
the next 3 years.
``(3) Delegation.--The Secretary may delegate to an
appropriate market-making entity the administration of a
national tradeable renewable energy credit market for
purposes of creating a transparent national market for the
sale or trade of renewable energy credits.
``(g) Renewable Energy Credit Borrowing.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2014, a
retail electric supplier that has reason to believe the
retail electric supplier will not be able to fully comply
with subsection (b) may--
``(A) submit a plan to the Secretary demonstrating that the
retail electric supplier will earn sufficient Federal
renewable energy credits within the next 3 calendar years
that, when taken into account, will enable the retail
electric supplier to meet the requirements of subsection (b)
for calendar year 2014 and the subsequent calendar years
involved; and
``(B) on the approval of the plan by the Secretary, apply
Federal renewable energy credits that the plan demonstrates
will be earned within the next 3 calendar years to meet the
requirements of subsection (b) for each calendar year
involved.
``(2) Repayment.--The retail electric supplier shall repay
all of the borrowed Federal renewable energy credits by
submitting an equivalent number of Federal renewable energy
credits, in addition to the credits otherwise required under
subsection (b), by calendar year 2022 or any earlier
deadlines specified in the approved plan.
``(h) Alternative Compliance Payments.--As a means of
compliance under subsection (b)(4), the Secretary shall
accept payment equal to the lesser of--
``(1) 200 percent of the average market value of Federal
renewable energy credits and Federal energy efficiency
credits for the applicable compliance period; or
``(2) 3 cents per kilowatt hour (as adjusted on January 1
of each year following calendar year 2006 based on the
implicit price deflator for the gross national product).
``(i) Information Collection.--The Secretary may collect
the information necessary to verify and audit--
``(1)(A) the annual renewable energy generation of any
retail electric supplier; and
``(B) Federal renewable energy credits submitted by a
retail electric supplier pursuant to subsection (b)(1);
``(2) the validity of Federal renewable energy credits
submitted for compliance by a retail electric supplier to the
Secretary; and
``(3) the quantity of electricity sales of all retail
electric suppliers.
``(j) Environmental Savings Clause.--Incremental hydropower
shall be subject to all applicable environmental laws and
licensing and regulatory requirements.
``(k) State Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section diminishes any
authority of a State or political subdivision of a State--
``(A) to adopt or enforce any law (including regulations)
respecting renewable energy, including programs that exceed
the required quantity of renewable energy under this section;
or
``(B) to regulate the acquisition and disposition of
Federal renewable energy credits by retail electric
suppliers.
``(2) Compliance with section.--No law or regulation
referred to in paragraph (1)(A) shall relieve any person of
any requirement otherwise applicable under this section.
``(3) Coordination with state program.--The Secretary, in
consultation with States that have in effect renewable energy
programs, shall--
``(A) preserve the integrity of the State programs,
including programs that exceed the required quantity of
renewable energy under this section; and
``(B) facilitate coordination between the Federal program
and State programs.
[[Page 13792]]
``(4) Existing renewable energy programs.--In the
regulations establishing the program under this section, the
Secretary shall incorporate common elements of existing
renewable energy programs, including State programs, to
ensure administrative ease, market transparency and effective
enforcement.
``(5) Minimization of administrative burdens and costs.--In
carrying out this section, the Secretary shall work with the
States to minimize administrative burdens and costs to retail
electric suppliers.
``(l) Recovery of Costs.--An electric utility that has
sales of electric energy that are subject to rate regulation
(including any utility with rates that are regulated by the
Commission and any State regulated electric utility) shall
not be denied the opportunity to recover the full amount of
the prudently incurred incremental cost of renewable energy
obtained to comply with the requirements of subsection (b).
``(m) Program Review.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under which
the Academy shall conduct a comprehensive evaluation of all
aspects of the program established under this section.
``(2) Evaluation.--The study shall include an evaluation
of--
``(A) the effectiveness of the program in increasing the
market penetration and lowering the cost of the eligible
renewable energy technologies;
``(B) the opportunities for any additional technologies and
sources of renewable energy emerging since the date of
enactment of this section;
``(C) the impact on the regional diversity and reliability
of supply sources, including the power quality benefits of
distributed generation;
``(D) the regional resource development relative to
renewable potential and reasons for any investment in
renewable resources; and
``(E) the net cost/benefit of the renewable electricity
standard to the national and State economies, including--
``(i) retail power costs;
``(ii) the economic development benefits of investment;
``(iii) avoided costs related to environmental and
congestion mitigation investments that would otherwise have
been required;
``(iv) the impact on natural gas demand and price; and
``(v) the effectiveness of green marketing programs at
reducing the cost of renewable resources.
``(3) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2018, the
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report describing the
results of the evaluation and any recommendations for
modifications and improvements to the program.
``(n) State Renewable Energy Account.--
``(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury a
State renewable energy account.
``(2) Deposits.--All money collected by the Secretary from
the alternative compliance payments under subsection (h)
shall be deposited into the State renewable energy account
established under paragraph (1).
``(3) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--Proceeds deposited in the State
renewable energy account shall be used by the Secretary,
subject to annual appropriations, for a program to provide
grants--
``(i) to the State agency responsible for administering a
fund to promote renewable energy generation for customers of
the State or an alternative agency designated by the State;
or
``(ii) if no agency described in clause (i), to the State
agency developing State energy conservation plans under
section 362 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6322).
``(B) Use.--The grants shall be used for the purpose of--
``(i) promoting renewable energy production; and
``(ii) providing energy assistance and weatherization
services to low-income consumers.
``(C) Criteria.--The Secretary may issue guidelines and
criteria for grants awarded under this paragraph.
``(D) State-approved funding mechanisms.--At least 75
percent of the funds provided to each State for each fiscal
year shall be used to promote renewable energy production
through grants, production incentives, or other State-
approved funding mechanisms.
``(E) Allocation.--The funds shall be allocated to the
States on the basis of retail electric sales subject to the
renewable electricity standard under this section or through
voluntary participation.
``(F) Records.--State agencies receiving grants under this
paragraph shall maintain such records and evidence of
compliance as the Secretary may require.''.
(b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
prec. 2601) is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to title VI the following:
``Sec. 609. Rural and remote communities electrification grants.
``Sec. 610. Renewable electricity standard.''.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on commerce, science and transportation
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on September 18, 2013.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on commerce, science and transportation
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on September 18, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room
253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on environment and public works
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on September 18, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of
the Dirksen Senate office building, to conduct a hearing entitled,
``Implementing MAP-21's Provision to Accelerate Project Delivery.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
September 18, 2013.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on September 18, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-
430 of the Dirksen Senate office building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on homeland security and governmental affairs
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Indian Affairs
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on September 18, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate, on September 18, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled
``Reevaluating the Effectiveness of Federal Mandatory Minimum
Sentences.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on September 18, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 428A
Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a roundtable entitled
``Closing the Wealth Gap: Empowering Minority Owned Businesses to Reach
Their Full Potential for Growth and Job Creation.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 13793]]
Special Committee on Aging
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate September 18, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Older
Americans: The Changing Face of HIV/AIDS.''
The Committee will meet in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building beginning at 2 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Economic Policy
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy
be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18,
2013, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Implementation of
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act of 2012: One Year After
Enactment.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing,
Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on September 18, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. to
conduct a hearing entitled ``Recovering From Superstorm Sandy:
Assessing the Progress, Continuing Needs, and Rebuilding Strategy.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
NATIONAL DAY OF REMEMBRANCE FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM WORKERS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 164 and
the Senate proceed to its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 164) designating October 30, 2013, as
a national day of remembrance for nuclear weapons program
workers.
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 upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 164) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of
Monday, June 10, 2013, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
____________________
NATIONAL HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS WEEK
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to the consideration of S. Res. 240, which was submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 240) designating the week beginning
September 15, 2013, as ``National Hispanic-Serving
Institutions Week.''
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 upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 240) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its
business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 19,
2013, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be
deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the
time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day;
that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning
business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to
10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between
the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the
first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; and that
following morning business the Senate resume consideration of S. 1392,
the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. REID. There being no further business to come before the Senate,
I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:07 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate:
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
TAMARA WENDA ASHFORD, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE
UNITED STATES TAX COURT FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS, VICE
MARY ANN COHEN, RETIRED.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
RICHARD STENGEL, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY, VICE TARA D. SONENSHINE.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LESLIE RAGON CALDWELL, OF NEW YORK, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, VICE LANNY A. BREUER, RESIGNED.
[[Page 13794]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. LaMalfa).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
September 18, 2013.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Doug LaMalfa 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 3, 2013, 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.
____________________
ALZHEIMER'S MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to discuss
the sixth-leading cause of death in the United States of America and
the fifth-leading cause of death for those aged 65 years and older.
It's a disease more than 5 million Americans are living with and is the
only cause of death among the top 10 in the United States without a way
to cure it or to slow its progression. It's a type of dementia that
encompasses various diseases and conditions that damage brain cells--
Alzheimer's disease.
September is Alzheimer's Month, a time spent by Alzheimer's advocates
in promoting and educating on this life-changing disease.
According to the Alzheimer's Association, deaths from Alzheimer's
increased close to 70 percent between 2000 and 2010. During that same
time period, deaths from other major diseases, such as heart disease,
decreased. In my home State of Pennsylvania, in 2010, more than 3,500
individuals died from Alzheimer's. My mom, Mary Thompson, suffered with
Alzheimer's for 10 years as the disease slowly stole her memories, her
dignity and, eventually, her life.
In 2010, Congress passed legislation to create a national plan to
combat Alzheimer's disease. It established a National Alzheimer's
Project within the Department of Health and Human Services in order to
coordinate the country's approach to research and caregiving. This
effort supports the amazing work being done through medical research
and awareness to improve the lives of those who are living with
Alzheimer's.
While awareness of Alzheimer's has grown over the last decade,
America and the world have a long way to go to educate and combat this
disease. Alzheimer's is a condition that most Americans have
encountered through a parent, a loved one, a friend or someone close
they care about. However, together, through continued advocacy,
research and the dedicated work of health professionals, care providers
and scientific researchers, we can and will make a difference.
____________________
END HUNGER NOW
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, week after week, I've stood on this floor
and talked about hunger in America. Week after week, I've talked about
the devastating impacts of hunger in our country--how it affects kids
and seniors and how our country is worse off because of hunger. I've
talked about ways we can end hunger, and have expressed my commitment
to the effort to end hunger now.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republican leadership not only
willfully ignores the plight of the hungry in America, but they are
actually moving legislation that will make hunger in America worse.
Just a few weeks ago, USDA released the newest data on hunger in
America. Hunger rates have essentially stayed flat over the past few
years. That means that, statistically, hunger hasn't gotten worse since
the end of the Great Recession, but it hasn't gotten any better either.
The United States has a strong anti-hunger safety net. Even though we
have 49 million people who don't know where their next meals will come
from, we know that nearly 48 million of them are enrolled in SNAP,
formerly known as ``food stamps.'' SNAP is a lifeline. It provides low-
income families with access to food, access they wouldn't otherwise
have if they were not enrolled in SNAP. Now let me address a common
piece of misinformation, a fabrication, that opponents of SNAP continue
to use again and again.
SNAP is among the most effective and efficient, if not the most
effective and efficient, Federal program in America. SNAP error rates--
overpayments, underpayments and fraud rates--are not only at all-time
lows for the program, but they are among the lowest rates of any
Federal program. This notion that fraud, waste and abuse are rampant in
SNAP is a fallacy. It's a make-believe talking point designed to take
away food from hungry people. Yet the Republicans are bringing a bill
to the floor tomorrow that, if passed, will undoubtedly make hunger
worse in this country. Their bill will make hunger worse for working
mothers and fathers, for kids, for senior citizens, and even for our
veterans.
CBO reports that the bill would cut 3.8 million low-income people
from SNAP in 2014--and just so there is no misunderstanding, ``low-
income'' means ``poor.'' On top of that, an average of nearly 3 million
people will be cut from SNAP each and every year over the coming
decade. These are some of the Nation's most destitute adults as well as
many low-income children, seniors and families that work for low wages.
That's right. People who work but who don't make enough to feed their
families will be cut from this program.
The biggest cut affects at least 1.7 million unemployed, childless
adults in 2014 who live in areas of high unemployment. These are poor
people. Many don't have the skills or education they need to find a
job. This is a group whose average income is about $2,500 a year for a
single individual--$2,500 a year--and for most, SNAP is the only
government assistance they receive.
This bill also cuts an additional 2.1 million people from SNAP in
2014, mostly low-income working families and low-income seniors. These
are people who have gross incomes or assets modestly above the Federal
SNAP limits but whose disposable incomes--the income that a family
actually has available to spend on food and other needs--are below the
poverty line, in most cases often because of high rent or child care
costs.
[[Page 13795]]
If that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in those families would
also lose their free school meals, and 170,000 unemployed veterans will
lose their SNAP benefits. To top it all off, other poor, unemployed
parents who want to work but who cannot find a job or an opening in a
training program, along with their children other than infants, will be
cut from the program.
Mr. Speaker, I remember when combating hunger was a bipartisan
issue--when Bob Dole worked with George McGovern and when Bill Emerson
worked with Tony Hall. It didn't matter whether you were a liberal or a
conservative--ending hunger was a priority. The current Republican
leadership has blown all that up.
We should not do this. There are no hearings on this bill, no markup,
no semblance of regular order. And for what--to stick it to the working
poor yet again? We should be doing everything we can to end hunger now.
The Republican bill just makes hunger worse, and it should be soundly
defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I urge and I plead with both Democrats and Republicans
to stand together, to come together in a bipartisan way, and to demand
to end hunger now.
Please, please, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, reject this
Republican leadership bill that is coming to the floor tomorrow. It is
cruel. It is immoral. We are much better than this. Reject the
leadership bill.
____________________
END HUNGER NOW
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) for 5 minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, although this hall is empty, there are a
lot of people watching it, and I wonder how many of them have ever
actually gone hungry. How many of the people watching this have had to
go without a meal so their kids could eat? How many have had to wonder
how they'll get through a summer without subsidized school lunches?
It's easy to talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps when
you've had designer shoes on your whole life.
Tomorrow, we will be voting on whether or not to cut $40 billion from
SNAP. That's a nutrition program for people who do not have access to
adequate nutrition. It's a program that helps one out of seven
Americans to put food on the table. If this seems familiar, it's
because it is familiar. Republicans tried just exactly this before the
August recess, a couple of months ago, and not surprisingly, for the
most unproductive Congress in decades, this bill had to be pulled at
the last minute because of a lack of support. Even some of the
Republicans saw it was too much.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that symbolic votes to
nowhere are the bread and butter for this Congress, but the Republicans
couldn't even get their own support on the bill--$20 billion of cuts
that primarily help children and the elderly wasn't enough for them.
They had to hurt people more, so here we are again with a new, improved
plan that doubles the cuts to $40 billion. On top of making 2 million
people ineligible for benefits, they are also going to take away our
States' ability to provide temporary benefits in times of high
unemployment. As a result, the CBO predicts that this will add an
additional 1.8 million hungry Americans to the ``ineligible'' list.
Why are we attempting to inflict another needless wound on the
working poor?
Republicans will tell you that the program has grown too much over
the last few years, as though the need for food stamps were unrelated
to a dragging economy. They see no connection between the economy and
the fact that people don't have food. That's exactly what the program
was designed to do--quickly help people who are in need. When
unemployment is high and people can't pay their bills, that's exactly
the time they need the SNAP program. Caseloads rose dramatically when
the recession hit. We laid off 700,000 people a month in 2007, but that
growth has also slowed as the economy has recovered slowly. The CBO
projects that, in just a few years, SNAP spending will be back down to
1995 levels as a share of the GDP, and since it's shrinking on its own,
it isn't adding to the long-term deficit problems.
The rhetoric is simply empty and stupid. Conservatives can try and
push this tired welfare abuse narrative. It's a talking point. Every
time they come out here, ``Welfare abuse. Welfare abuse. People are
getting money for food. That's welfare abuse,'' but as usual, the
reality is not in their corner. Studies show that food assistance has
some of the lowest rates of fraud of any benefit program. If you go to
one of those food banks and talk to the people who are there, you'll
find some surprising people there, people who thought they would never
have to go there, but they are short on money and can't feed their
kids, so they're getting some money.
So I ask you again: Why are we doing this--wasting time to satisfy
the furthest right-wing of the Republican Party?
We are again catering to a fringe agenda thought up by partisans who
are obsessed with the deficit bogeyman. That bogeyman has been roaming
around here for 4 years. ``We're going to have a terrible collapse.
We're going to have inflation. We're going to have terrible things.''
It has never happened. The President has done a miraculous job in
keeping us on an upward track in spite of the resistance of the other
side. What it does is it makes it harder for 4 million people to put
food on the table.
So be it. That's their attitude. I'm in. At least they won't risk
facing a primary in the next election. They are all worried about
somebody further on the right. We've already got one Member over here,
Mr. Speaker, who is worried about somebody coming from the right, and
he's about the furthest right I can imagine on the floor.
Senate Democrats and Republicans appointed conferees to negotiate a
farm bill back at the beginning of August. Quit worrying about scoring
points with the Heritage Foundation, and let's focus on the American
family and vote this bill down.
____________________
{time} 1015
SNAP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I think each one of us 435 has to ask
ourselves, Is this really what we were sent here to do, to take food
out of the mouths of hungry people, nearly half of them children?
That's what's at stake this week when we are asked to vote on
legislation that would cut $39 billion from one of our Nation's most
successful and important programs, the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, SNAP. It used to be called food stamps.
As a Jew, we just came through the Jewish holidays, and we talked
about what it means to be a human being in this world, in this country.
Every major religion in this world and represented in this House
teaches that you feed the hungry. Not as charity, but as a mandate,
because that's what it is to be a human being in our world. All the
religions have written letters and implored us not to do this.
I participated three times in the congressional food stamp challenge
in which we eat on $31.50 for an entire week. I'm not complaining about
it because I knew it was just a week and it would end, but that's the
average SNAP benefit. You know what? You can get the calories. That's
pretty easy if you're lucky enough to live near a grocery store and not
in a food desert. The reality for 48 million people is that you can get
the calories, but it's really hard to get the nutrition. By the time
you get to the fruits and vegetables, which are quite expensive, it's
hard to do it. It's not comfortable to rely on SNAP benefits, and many
people line up at the end of the month at food pantries that are
everywhere in this country, including some of the richest districts.
But the SNAP program, which has a bipartisan history, is the last line
[[Page 13796]]
of defense between 48 million Americans and chronic hunger.
The House already voted down a farm bill that included $20 billion in
SNAP cuts, and it would have taken benefits away from up to a million
children and would have prevented 200,000 hungry children from getting
the school lunches that they rely on so much. Now this bill is back but
on steroids. In addition to all of the devastating cuts that have been
proposed, those that were rejected earlier, the new bill would prevent
any able-bodied adult from getting more than 3 months of SNAP benefits
during a 3-year period, even if they're unable to find work. Up to
170,000 of those who are veterans who served our country would be
denied. This is at a time when unemployment among low-income Americans
is over 20 percent and the average time of unemployment is about 9
months. Those numbers don't add up. It means that passage of this bill
could nearly starve those looking for work, and no one can deny that
fact.
I know how SNAP benefits my constituents, and I know what would
happen if those benefits were lost. I've attended several events at
food pantries and community centers, and each time I've heard
resounding support for SNAP. In just one day, I received 242 postcards
from my constituents urging me to oppose these dangerous cuts to the
SNAP program. They have my vote, and I'm imploring my colleagues that
it should have the vote of every Member of this body to reject those
cuts.
A constituent who previously wrote to my office summed up her
thoughts about the importance of funding the SNAP program this way.
Here's what she said:
Hungry thoughts every waking day are my constant companion
here in the supposedly wealthiest country on Earth. Please
have compassion for your low-income and fixed-income
constituents who are loyal, patriotic Americans and who are
in dire need of nutritious and affordable food.
A former SNAP beneficiary, a woman named Dresden Shumaker, described
the program as a trampoline rather than a safety net. Because of SNAP,
she was able to make ends meet for her young family during a period of
time of great need. Her story is similar to most SNAP beneficiaries who
no longer need food assistance within one year of receiving benefits.
I'm begging my colleagues, please, don't support these cuts. Let's be
the value-driven country that we are and vote ``no'' to the $40 billion
cut to SNAP.
____________________
SNAP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the
ongoing Republican war on the poor--and that's what this is--and their
attempt to gut our Nation's critical safety net against hunger one more
time.
This past June, the Republican leadership failed millions of farmers
and millions of struggling families when they could not pass a farm
bill. They allowed the extremist Tea Party fringe of their party to
poison the farm bill with amendments and so-called reforms that, in
fact, would only increase hardship and hunger in America.
Yet instead of working across the aisle to find a better solution
that would create jobs and protect families, the Republican leadership
has chosen to bring an even more hurtful, toxic, and heartless
nutrition bill to the floor. This new bill includes all of the
extremist amendments that killed the first farm bill. It also piles on
even more restrictions and so-called reforms that only serve to
increase hardship for hungry families, children, seniors, and veterans.
These false reforms will dramatically reduce access to vital
nutrition assistance all across America--rural and urban--in every
single one of our congressional districts.
This bill would also end critical flexibilities for our States and
would cripple smart and targeted programs that allow States to
efficiently deliver nutrition assistance to the neediest. For example,
the Republican nutrition-only bill would end categorical eligibility
for all of our States.
We created this to streamline the delivery of social services so that
we can lower administrative costs and put more of these dollars
directly into the hands of needy families. This Republican bill would
end those efficiencies, raise costs for our States, and make it harder
for families to get the help they need.
This bill also claims to create work requirements for able-bodied
adults. Let me remind my colleagues that the SNAP program already has
very restrictive work requirements. The current SNAP program cuts off
able-bodied adults after just 3 months of benefits right now. We only
allow States to adopt waivers for when unemployment in their States
rises high enough that this restriction is clearly unreasonable. The
new so-called ``reforms'' would cut everybody off, no matter what the
unemployment rate is in their State. This is just heartless. These cuts
would come at a time when the Republicans have blocked every single
effort to pass a real jobs bill in the House and cut job-training and
job-placement assistance. Let me tell you, as a former food stamp
recipient myself, I know that people don't want to be on food stamps.
They want to work. If we're going to put work requirements on people,
why in the world don't we pass a jobs bill so they can work?
At a time when our Nation should be creating opportunities for all,
the House Republican leadership proposed to cut SNAP by $40 billion.
This will surely create a bleaker future for our children, our seniors,
and our overall economy. If this bill ever becomes law--and I hope it
doesn't--at least 4 million to 6 million low-income children, seniors,
and families will be cut from this economic lifeline and pushed into
poverty.
Similar to about 29 of my colleagues, I have taken the food stamp
challenge about three times and ate off of $4.50 a day. It was
unhealthy and very difficult; yet I knew it would only last a week for
me. Yet millions of Americans see no end in sight. And now, mind you,
they have to worry that this meager benefit, this pittance, is going to
be cut even more.
Instead of gutting SNAP, we need to strengthen it. Not only does SNAP
help put food on the table for struggling families; it also helps
stimulate economic growth. For every $1 in SNAP benefits, we generate
$1.70 in economic activity. So Congressman Conyers and I have
introduced new legislation that would extend the SNAP benefits that
were increased as a part of the stimulus package. Otherwise--and many
don't know this--on November 1, every single family or individual who
receives SNAP benefits now will see an automatic cut of about $29 per
month for a family of three. This will happen regardless of this $40
billion nutrition cut.
In 2011, SNAP lifted 4.7 million Americans out of poverty. Without
SNAP, millions more would fall into poverty, millions more of Americans
would suffer hunger, and our economy would create even fewer jobs and
be worse off.
I just have to say, our values as Americans and who we are as a
country recognize that these despicable cuts are immoral and un-
American. We need to provide opportunities to help lift families out of
poverty, grow the economy, and create economic stability for all. Let's
restore a unified farm bill, and let's put an end to these draconian
cuts to SNAP.
____________________
SNAP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Veasey) for 5 minutes.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, there's a cruel war being waged on the poor
and hungry in America. I stand today as a voice for more than 1.6
million Texas households who depend on SNAP. Cuts to SNAP, our Nation's
first line of defense against hunger, are immoral. I will not stand by
as my Republican colleagues continue to balance the budget on the backs
of the most vulnerable Americans.
House Republicans unveiled on Monday a plan to cut over $40 billion
in SNAP over the next 10 years. This proposed package would eliminate
basic
[[Page 13797]]
food assistance for over 4 million Americans, including poor jobless
adults in areas of high unemployment, working-poor families, children,
seniors, and even struggling veterans.
Some might say that the proposal is an attempt to reduce fraud or
waste in the program. Some say benefits are going to adults who don't
want to work. I have news for people who say that: you try earning
minimum wage, working hard every day, and you will still, after working
40 hours a week at the end of the year, only make around $15,000.
All of these claims are misleading to the public. SNAP fraud has been
reduced to about 1 cent per dollar spent on the program, according to
one of the most recent USDA statistics. In fact, the cuts will come
from benefits that many Americans need to survive. These cuts will take
food out of our seniors' refrigerators and food out of the mouths of
our babies. This new legislation unfairly targets millions of
unemployed adults who want to find work; but due to a bad economy and a
sluggish recovery, they cannot find a job.
{time} 1030
This includes Republicans, too. I worked at a grocery store in Texas
when I was in high school. And I saw Republicans come in from
Republican strongholds, like Weatherford, Texas, Azle, Lake Worth, and
they were on SNAP.
People need to stop stereotyping the program. Proponents claim that
these cuts represent ``work requirements,'' but that is willfully
misleading, Mr. Speaker. The provisions would callously terminate food
aid to people who are willing to work but just can't find a job.
Just a few short weeks ago, the Republican leadership of this House
tried to eliminate the SNAP benefits entirely when they stripped the
nutrition program from the farm bill. This is a cruel assault against
the most vulnerable and neediest Americans. Those affected by the
bill's harshest provisions even include low-income veterans, putting
food assistance at risk for an estimated 170,000 of the approximately
900,000 veterans who receive SNAP benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I also participated in the SNAP challenge this year and
lived on a budget of $4.50 a day and can attest that it was not easy. I
had to make tough decisions and realized firsthand how difficult it is
to follow a healthy diet on such a limited budget. I made difficult
choices, as families do every day, between purchasing nutritious
options and what's on sale. As a father of a 7-year-old son, I cannot
imagine the decisions many Texans have to make every day, including
skipping a meal to provide nutrition for their kids.
When drafting this legislation, did anyone take the time to think
about how these SNAP cuts would hurt our kids? Nearly half of all SNAP
participants are kids. This represents close to one in three children
in the United States. Without access to nutritious meals, our children
are put at risk of developmental delays, poorer physical health, and
many other ailments.
Mr. Speaker, we need to do everything that we can to keep the SNAP
program going. The conditions that I have talked about are very serious
when you think about it affecting a child's ability to learn and
perform well in school. These long-range implications have dire
consequences for our entire economy.
I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who support these
cuts, these kids that I just talked about, what did these kids do to
deserve these cuts?
This past year, some 49 million Americans lacked access to adequate
food because they didn't have enough money or other resources to meet
their basic food needs. Many of these hungry Americans skipped meals or
took other steps to reduce what they ate to make ends meet.
I represent a constituent in my district who is elderly, disabled,
and lives on a fixed income. She received $93 a month in SNAP benefits,
but recently, those were cut to only $52 a month. That's only $1.73 a
day. And if this bill is passed, she will be cut off from the program
entirely. I ask the proponents of this program, where is she to find
assistance for her nutrition needs? I refuse to stand silent as some
propose we take food out of the mouths of the hungry.
SNAP is also a very powerful antipoverty program that has helped make
our economy stronger. In 2011, SNAP kept 4.7 million people out of
poverty, including 2.1 million children.
____________________
SAFE CLIMATE CAUCUS AND HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it's time for Congress
to work together on a commonsense solution to address the impacts of
climate change.
As we begin Hispanic Heritage Month, it's important for us to
recognize the impact climate change is disproportionately having upon
minority communities across the country. Whether it's farmers and
ranchers in my home State of New Mexico struggling through devastating
drought conditions or communities that are being impacted by recent
flooding as a result of more severe weather, millions of Americans have
been impacted by the effects of climate change.
Released earlier this year, a survey conducted by Public Policy
Polling found 74 percent of Latinos believe climate change is a serious
or a very serious problem, a higher level than the 65 percent among all
American adults; 68 percent of Latinos support the President using his
authority to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, including 60 percent of
all American adults; 69 percent of Latinos agree with the President's
statement that ``for the sake of our children'' and our future, we must
do more to combat climate change, compared to 62 percent of all
American adults.
Combating climate change and preserving our land, water, and air is a
top priority for many Americans, especially those in minority
communities. For years, a coalition of stakeholders, including Hispanic
farmers and ranchers, tribal communities, conservation groups, hunting
and fishing organizations, and local governments came together to lay
the foundation that led to President Obama establishing the Rio Grande
del Norte National Monument earlier this year. This is an example of
the type of leadership and advocacy that can make a real difference in
addressing climate change and preserving our precious resources. By
establishing the Rio Grande del Norte, we have created economic
certainty for farmers and ranchers, increased recreation and tourism
opportunities, and, most importantly, protected our land, water, and
air for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I have also come to the floor today to express my
concern for the House Republicans' plan to slash funding for the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This program is vital to
many in New Mexico, especially our children. Sadly, New Mexico ranks
near the bottom when it comes to childhood well-being and ranked worst
in childhood hunger.
The Republican plan to cut $40 billion from the SNAP program caters
to the most extreme views. Earlier this year, they tried to cut $20
billion, only to have the Tea Party revolt. So the new plan goes even
further at a time when many communities are still struggling from a
slow economy, even including a provision that prevents high
unemployment areas from receiving additional assistance.
Today we have 47 million Americans living in poverty. And while we
should be doing more to address the root causes, we should not turn our
backs on those struggling to make ends meet by cutting benefits that
help put food on the table for working families.
I believe we all share the goal of seeing a stronger economy that
creates jobs and reduces the need for this kind of assistance. But
until that time, let's not make the most vulnerable among us pay the
steepest price.
[[Page 13798]]
____________________
SNAP BENEFITS FOR VETERANS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Enyart) for 5 minutes.
Mr. ENYART. Mr. Speaker, during the 35 years I spent in the military,
it was my privilege to lead the outstanding men and women in our Armed
Forces. Many are still serving today. They served with honor and
distinction, yet here we are talking about treating the lowest paid of
them like second-class citizens, unworthy of basic assistance in these
difficult times.
I was elected to Congress to represent everyone in the 12th
Congressional District of Illinois. I represent the poorest county in
the State of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, 100,000 people in my district, most
of them children or seniors, live below the poverty line. My district
has a higher proportion of veterans than any other district in this
State.
I answer to Active Duty military and veterans who rely on SNAP
benefits to make ends meet. They exist in my district and in every
district represented in this House. Mr. Speaker, does anyone in this
Chamber wish to tell them that in this hour of need, their country is
turning its back on them? Who among us wants to decide which of these
veterans deserve assistance and which do not? I know I don't.
According to the Census Bureau, about 7 percent of people who report
prior military service also report receiving SNAP benefits. Census data
indicates that some 1.5 million households with a veteran are receiving
SNAP benefits.
The base pay of most recent enlistees, from corporals on down, is at
or below the $23,050 poverty rate for a family of four. At military
commissaries nationwide, nearly $88 million in SNAP benefits were
redeemed. Stars and Stripes reported that in 2011, food stamp purchases
at military commissaries tripled during the preceding 4 years.
Just last month, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported
that approximately 900,000 veterans currently receive food aid and that
proposed cuts would impact around 170,000.
According to The Hill newspaper, more than $98 million in SNAP
benefits were redeemed by veterans in 2012. The Huffington Post reports
that in 2011, ``both Active Duty members and retirees, together, used
more than $100 million in Federal food aid in the past year.''
Sixteen percent of SNAP recipients are disabled, many of them are
veterans. SNAP benefits are already scheduled to go down. On November
1, families of three will lose $29 a month. Now, that doesn't sound
like very much, but the daily per person per meal benefit will be less
than $1.40.
Recently, one Illinois veteran was quoted, saying, ``I relocated, and
the job I was supposed to get fell through. I lived off my savings but
found myself needing to apply for emergency assistance to sustain until
I found a job. I, like many others, was only receiving assistance for a
time (5 months) but don't know what I would have done without it.''
They served us with honor and distinction, Mr. Speaker. Some are
still serving. Now it is time for us to serve them with a measure of
honor and distinction of our own. I urge my colleagues to reject these
shameful proposals which would cut this basic level of assistance to
deserving recipients who need it now more than ever.
____________________
A SAD DAY IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I probably don't need 5 minutes to say what
I would like to say.
This is a very sad moment for the most powerful Nation in the history
of this planet. We are on the verge of a government shutdown over
ideology. I can remember in 1995, I was the mayor of Kansas City when
the government shut down and the impact was Herculean, not just here in
Washington, but around the country and around the world. And if we are
proud to be Americans, it means that we pay our bills.
We are the only nation that still allows a vote by a legislature on
paying our bills. Most countries won't do that because they don't need
any disruption in paying their debts. We are close to declaring to the
whole world that we don't pay our bills.
The other part that's troublesome is this whole issue of SNAP, or
food stamps. And there are so many myths that roll around that it just
turns my stomach.
I lived in a house with no running water or electricity until I was 7
years old. We moved into public housing. My father worked three jobs.
He eventually was able to buy a home.
I know what it's like to be poor. I know what it's like to struggle.
My father was able to send my mother to college when I was in the
eighth grade, and then all four of his children graduated from college,
too, with postgraduate degrees. So I am always insulted when I hear all
of these irreverent and nasty comments about poor people. And we spread
this stuff around the country to the point of absurdity.
We spread lies. ``Well, people go into stores and they buy alcohol
with food stamps.'' Well, we don't have food stamps anymore. We have
cards, Economic Benefit Transfer cards. And in spite of the lies that
people tell, you can't buy alcohol with cards. You cannot buy lottery
tickets. I heard Members of Congress--this Congress--tell people that
they know that people in prison are getting food stamps, and they've
seen people buy alcohol with food stamp cards. It doesn't work. And it
divides and damages this Nation.
The other lie, over 70 percent of the people receiving SNAP benefits
are the elderly, the disabled, and children. And we are against helping
them? Another 25 percent are people who work every day, it's just that
they can't make enough to survive.
I remember growing up and my mother would say, Eat everything on your
plate; there are starving kids in Africa. Well, I'm not sure how eating
everything on my plate helped them--I'm still struggling with that--but
there are starving people not far from here, and the government of the
United States is saying we'd rather shut down than to have a program
that deals with the people who are in trouble.
I just heard a few moments ago about a 101-year-old person whose
daily Meals on Wheels had been reduced. 101 years old, and people are
celebrating that, Mr. Speaker? This is a sad, sad day. And by the end
of next week, when we are shut down, it's going to be much sadder.
____________________
UNITED STATES FINANCIAL CRISIS: 5 YEARS LATER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the meltdown of Lehman
Brothers, and the 5-year anniversary of the greatest financial crisis
in a generation that struck our country. This economic disaster nearly
caused the destruction of our country's entire financial infrastructure
and led to what we now call the Great Recession.
However, Wall Street, during the last 5 years, has actually profited
greatly from this crisis and, in the process, has caused continuing
financial failures of millions of Americans. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of
America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have
all reported record profits during the recession.
{time} 1045
Wall Street, in the last 5 years, has regained all of its pre-crisis
wealth with interest. Wouldn't the American people like to be in that
position?
Meanwhile, Main Street has yet to see a real robust recovery.
The roots of the recession began in the late 1990s, when a majority
in this Congress first overturned something called the Glass-Steagall
Act, which separated speculative banking from prudent banking and then,
in 2000, refused to regulate the trading of derivatives.
By hamstringing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the
Securities Exchange Commission, Wall Street turned once stable
investments
[[Page 13799]]
into the toxic assets that brought down our economy.
American taxpayers were then asked to bail out these same banks
responsible for trashing our economy and facilitating the single
greatest redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the
rich in American history. Our middle class has shrunk.
And guess what?
The ranks of the poor shot up. It's no wonder people can't afford to
pay for food. American citizens continue to struggle to recuperate
their lost wealth from a clever banking system that stole their equity.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas recently reported that the cost of
the collapse to the United States economy was up to $14 trillion. Is it
any wonder we have rising debt levels?
It could be more when you factor in potential permanent losses in
earning power by Americans who aren't paying taxes anymore because
they're not working yet.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, from 2000 to 2011, the
median income for working-age households fell from approximately
$64,000 a year to $55,000. This is a decline of nearly 13 percent.
The U.S. Census Bureau paints a similar bleak picture of the
precipitous decline in American household income. It shows that the
overall median income of households has continued to fall since the
start of recession, and now, people are earning--guess what--similar to
what their median income was in 1988. That's right. They've lost
decades of income growth.
Income inequality has only widened during the crisis, where only the
top 5 percent of income earners in our country saw an increase in their
earnings between 2010 and 2011. The top is doing fine. Everybody else
is not.
In addition, a GAO report earlier this year estimated the total loss
in household equity from the crisis to be $9 trillion. Those are some
of your neighbors and mine. Indeed, what a property-taking that is.
Losses on this level prevent Americans from owning their own homes,
opening their own businesses, or going to college and, ultimately,
creating their own American Dream.
Meanwhile, on Wall Street, we see the enormous accumulation of
banking assets and vast financial power in a handful of institutions.
JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, all of them are making
enormous profits, in fact, the highest profits in the nation, along
with the oil companies.
Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six-largest banks were
approximately 17 percent of gross domestic product. Today, estimates
for the assets of those same banks are equivalent to over half of our
gross domestic product. So six institutions, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of
America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley
control an enormous percentage of our banking system and, in turn, your
future and our nation's future. That is too much power in the hands of
the big six.
America is currently in the midst of the slowest recovery from a
recession since World War II, and it's important that this Congress not
sit idly by. In the 5 years since the recession, our economy has only
managed to put more money in the pockets of the top 1 percent, ignoring
the difficulties of the bottom 99 percent.
One way to begin rectifying this situation is to reinstitute the
Glass-Steagall Act. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 129, the
Return to Prudent Banking Act to restore the distinction between
prudent banking and speculation. In addition, the executive branch
should prosecute the predatory practices of those financial
institutions that have led to this harm to the American people.
There should be no statute of limitation on the justice that is owed
to the American people.
____________________
THE REPUBLICAN SNAP PROPOSAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the deep cuts to nutrition programs that are being
proposed this week by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides critical food
and nutrition support for hardworking families in cities and towns all
across my home State in Rhode Island. The United States Department of
Agriculture estimates that more than 180,000 Rhode Islanders rely on
this important program every day.
Once again, House Republicans have decided, rather than working to
come to a bipartisan agreement on the farm bill, that they will instead
pander to the far right of their party and, in doing so, impose real
hardships on America's working families and put many children at risk
of going hungry all across our country.
While protecting generous subsidies for agricultural corporations, my
Republican colleagues are threatening the food security of our most
vulnerable neighbors. So let's review this package of cuts to the
nutrition program and consider its impact on children, seniors,
veterans and families.
First, the Congressional Budget Office estimates this proposal would
cut SNAP funding by at least $40 billion. Some of these cuts would be
particularly devastating for seniors and low-income families.
For example, this bill would eliminate categorical eligibility,
putting working families at greater risk of going hungry and
eliminating the incentive to find work.
Currently, a working mother who makes a little more than $24,000 a
year qualifies for SNAP if her disposable income falls under 130
percent of the poverty line due to the rising cost of child care or
rent. This bill would eliminate this provision and deny some working
mothers and children in 40 States from receiving necessary nutrition
assistance.
Make no mistake: this places a cruel burden on working families who
can least afford it.
But it gets worse. Another provision would require the mother of any
child a year of age to work or participate in a training program or
risk losing their nutrition assistance. At a time of high unemployment
and dwindling resources for job training, this bill means that a 2-
year-old could go hungry if the child's mother can't participate in job
training or find work.
Of course these provisions don't only impact working families. Even a
veteran receiving disability compensation could lose their exemption
and have their nutrition assistance terminated if they can't find a job
under this bill.
These cuts imposed on the backs of disabled veterans, children
younger than 6, and working moms are bad enough. But to compound these
cuts, the Republican farm bill makes it more likely additional
beneficiaries will be hurt as well.
This legislation would actually encourage individual States to kick
people off nutrition assistance by promising them 50 percent of the
savings.
Of course, some of this is old news. We're here debating this issue
again. Shockingly, the immoral, outrageous cuts I've already outlined
weren't enough for the conservative fringe. They weren't satisfied with
cutting funding for SNAP. They demanded even deeper cuts that would
force more children and more unemployed workers to go hungry. They've
insisted that more seniors and veterans, the people who helped build
this country, should be turned away at their local market.
The House Republican leadership was happy to comply, and they decided
to make a bad bill worse. They doubled the cuts imposed on the SNAP
program and chose to slash nutrition assistance by a total of $40
billion. These newer cuts target jobless adults without children who
live in areas with high rates of unemployment.
The National Association of Evangelicals said they were ``especially
concerned'' about this proposal.
Let's not mischaracterize this as a new work requirement. The changes
proposed in this bill tell people who are struggling to find work in a
difficult economy that if their job search goes
[[Page 13800]]
on longer than 3 months, they should go hungry too. But the bill does
not provide additional workforce training resources, and it doesn't
invest in job creation to help individuals find work.
This sends a clear message. If you're struggling to find a job in an
area hard-hit by the recession, get ready, because in a few months
you're also going to struggle to eat.
Let's not forget the context in which this particular bill is
drafted. It comes after House Republicans stripped out the nutrition
title and passed the rest of the farm bill.
In other words, they were happy to provide agricultural companies
with extremely generous subsidies to purchase crop insurance. They were
happy to spend $40 billion on commodity programs. But nutrition
assistance for children and the underemployed was apparently a bridge
too far.
Dozens of religious groups and other leaders have strongly opposed
this bill. Earlier this week, the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops reminded us that ``how the House chooses to address our
Nation's hunger and nutrition programs will have a profound human and
moral consequence.''
The Jewish Federation argued that this bill ``would constitute
untenable trauma to millions of Americans and their families.''
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, a Republican, warned ``this
is no time to play politics with hunger.''
They've sent a clear message. This bill is wrong, it's immoral, and
does not reflect our values as a country. I strongly urge my colleagues
to oppose this proposal.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 55 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
Reverend Dale Ribble, Oak Lake Church, Lincoln, Nebraska, offered the
following prayer:
O Lord, You have been our dwelling place from the foundation of our
country. We ask for wisdom from You, the all-wise God, for these
leaders as they seek to lead our country.
Your word tells us that ``wisdom from above is first pure, then
peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits,
impartial, and sincere.''
You have said that a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by
those who make peace. May these men and women be united in wisdom that
leads to peace.
O Lord, may we, as a Nation who has known the greatness of Your mercy
and grace, not stray from seeking You and Your righteous ways, for You
have said, ``Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.'' Keep us in
the shelter of your wings and turn our hearts to You.
In Jesus' name, amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. WALBERG led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
WELCOMING REVEREND DALE RIBBLE
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ribble) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am the youngest son of six sons, all
children of an ordained Baptist minister. I have five older brothers,
four who are still alive today. Three of them have responded to the
call of ministry and are pastors. One of my own sons, Clint, is also a
pastor. It's impossible to separate my faith heritage from my daily
life. My brother, Dale Ribble, who is our guest chaplain today, is
exactly the same.
From my earliest childhood memories, Dale was destined for ministry.
As a child, I observed him countless times reaching out to people
around him, both young and old, with a spirit of compassion and
concern. He has a gift given to him by God for this purpose. The work
that churches do in our communities change and affect lives for the
positive. They reach out to the poor, the sick, and the hungry,
improving the lives of whom they touch and enriching our communities.
I've watched Dale do these things his entire life. I'm proud of his
work and thank him for being with us today.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The Chair will entertain 15
further requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
IF YOU CAN'T HELP EVERY CHILD, YOU CAN'T HELP ANY CHILD?
(Mr. WALBERG asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when the Southern Poverty
Law Center was a laudable civil rights organization, boldly combating
bigotry and extremism. Such noble pursuits have been cast aside for
partisan politics, and today the SPLC is better known for their attacks
on Judeo-Christian groups.
Recently, the SPLC has targeted the Alabama Accountability Act, a
school choice law passed earlier this year. Under this act, Alabama
provides tax credit scholarships for students at failing schools so
that they can attend better-performing schools--private, religious, and
nonfailing public schools.
Rather than allow students a chance at a good education, the SPLC has
filed a lawsuit that would trap students in schools the State's own
accountability system has graded D or F. In other words, if you can't
help every child, you can't help any child? How absurd.
Mr. Speaker, it's time for this intolerance to end, and it's time
that Congress and the American people embrace policies that allow
parents and students the opportunity to choose the type of education
that fosters success.
____________________
GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION
(Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, 9 months after the tragedy at Sandy Hook
Elementary School in Connecticut, our country is once again facing the
terrible reality of another horrific mass shooting. In this case, 12
innocent men and women were murdered at the Washington Navy Yard just 2
days ago. I know that all of us are keeping the victims and their loved
ones in our thoughts and prayers today.
All of us in this Chamber should ask ourselves whether there is
anything that we could have done to prevent this tragedy. According to
the Associated Press, the person who carried out this cowardly attack
had previously complained about serious mental health issues, including
paranoia, sleep disorder, and hearing voices in his head. And despite
all of this, he legally purchased a shotgun from a firearms dealer in
Virginia just last week.
[[Page 13801]]
Mr. Speaker, there is something seriously wrong in this country when
someone with such serious mental illness is able to purchase a firearm
without even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
We owe it to the victims of the Navy Yard and their families to
finally close loopholes that allow criminals and the seriously mentally
ill to purchase firearms. How many tragedies should we witness before
we finally enact commonsense gun violence prevention?
____________________
OBAMACARE IS A THREAT TO SECURITY
(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, this morning South
Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson testified before a joint
committee on Capitol Hill warning that the health care takeover
legislation is a threat to the security and safety of citizens.
The attorney general cited:
Despite the President saying last month, ``We're well on
our way to fully implementing the Affordable Care Act,''
important deadlines are being routinely missed. In order for
the ACA to adequately determine the eligibility . . . it must
create a data hub that connects databases from seven
different agencies. However, the hub has not been beta
tested, independently verified, or properly audited. When it
goes live on October 1, it will be a con-man's all-you-can-
eat buffet overflowing with a gold mine of sensitive
information from the agency databases.
Attorney General Wilson summarized as follows:
Until HHS rectifies safeguarding Americans' personal
information, Congress must suspend implementation of ACA.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.
____________________
MONTH OF THE HISPANIC CHILD
(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
celebrate not only Hispanic Heritage Month, but to celebrate the next
generation of Hispanic leaders.
I applaud the national PTA for naming September the Month of the
Hispanic Child.
With the Hispanic population totaling 53 million people in the U.S.,
Hispanic children and youth are the fastest growing population in
America. By 2060, it is projected that Hispanics will be about 128
million people in the United States.
In order to produce the next generation of leaders that are capable
and equipped to work and to tackle our future challenges, we must
invest in every Hispanic child. Education and equal opportunity are
what will ensure that these students fulfill the American promise.
I will continue to advocate for programs like Head Start and fight to
make college more affordable for all children.
As we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, let us keep in mind that the
younger generation will be our leaders of the future.
____________________
RENEWING THE CLINTON-GINGRICH PARTNERSHIP
(Mr. McCLINTOCK asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I was deeply saddened to see the
President begin the sixth year of our Nation's economic malaise by
renewing his partisan name-calling and finger-pointing on Monday.
Fortunately, we have a model for bipartisan economic cooperation. In
1995, when President Clinton realized that his policies weren't
working, he reached across the aisle to work with the Republican House;
and despite their political differences, they did some amazing things:
They reduced Federal spending by a miraculous 40 percent of GDP;
They produced the largest capital gains tax cut in American history;
They reformed entitlement spending by abolishing the open-ended
welfare system we had at the time;
They delivered 4 years of budget surpluses.
These bipartisan policies produced a period of prolonged economic
expansion and unprecedented prosperity for America's middle and working
classes.
Republicans have been eager to repeat these successful bipartisan
policies of the Clinton years. Why isn't the President?
____________________
THE REPUBLICAN NUTRITION REFORM AND WORK OPPORTUNITY ACT
(Mrs. BEATTY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of H.R.
3102, the Republican Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
America should be uncomfortable because this bill would cut $40
billion in critical nutrition assistance programs, denying SNAP
benefits to at least 4 million low-income Americans, affecting
children, seniors, the disabled, and veterans.
America should be uncomfortable because this Republican deal affects
unemployed adults with an average income of just $2,500 per year who
would immediately lose their SNAP benefits.
America should be uncomfortable because this bill hurts Americans
living in rural, urban, and suburban areas. For many, SNAP benefits are
the only thing that keeps them from living with hunger and malnutrition
and sickness.
America should be uncomfortable. We should not cut these funds. These
are extreme cuts of one of the most effective programs we have
combating hunger.
____________________
SNAP
(Ms. BASS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 3102, the
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
Contrary to the rhetoric of my Republican colleagues, the
overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP
households with an able-bodied adult, more than 50 percent work while
receiving SNAP benefits. They just do not earn enough money to provide
food for their families. In my district in Los Angeles, nearly 77
percent of families receiving SNAP benefits are working families.
The Republican attack on SNAP is a sad example of not understanding
the struggles faced by so many Americans, including many of their own
constituents. SNAP benefits help low-wage working families make ends
meet as they try to get back on their feet. Millions of families rely
on SNAP as they struggle with unemployment and low wages in the wake of
the recession. The House Republican proposal would recklessly cut
assistance for at least 4 million to 6 million people who need help,
and we cannot let this happen.
____________________
NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH
(Mr. HIGGINS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, September is National Preparedness Month,
and preparedness includes making sure that the public has access to
timely information in cases of emergency. For many Americans, public
broadcasting is a vital source of important emergency announcements.
Over 98 percent of the American population has access to public radio
or a television signal. In times of emergency, public broadcasting is a
go-to source of information for emergency management officials and
first responders. We have a responsibility to ensure that stations that
are damaged in a disaster are repaired and operational as quickly as
possible.
That's why I've introduced the Emergency Information Improvement Act.
My bill clarifies that local public radio and television stations are
eligible for assistance to rebuild their facilities when they are
damaged in a federally designated disaster such as a storm or terrorist
attack.
[[Page 13802]]
This legislation will help ensure that this important informational
resource will be available to Americans in times of need.
I invite my colleagues to support this legislation.
____________________
SNAP
(Mr. GARCIA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for the SNAP program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
SNAP is a critically important program. It helps struggling families
put food on the table while they work to get back on their feet. It
helps our Nation's most vulnerable, as nearly two-thirds of recipients
are children, elderly, and disabled. And according to new census data
just released yesterday, the SNAP program helped lift 4 million people
out of poverty in 2012. Additionally, this is a multiplier of 2\1/2\
times in our economy.
Unfortunately, it is my understanding that the House of
Representatives may soon consider legislation that cuts $40 billion in
funding from SNAP. This is the wrong approach. At a time when many
families and communities are still struggling to get back on their feet
from the Great Recession, we should be working to strengthen, not
undermine, the SNAP program.
____________________
{time} 1215
CUTTING $40 BILLION FROM THE NUTRITION PROGRAM
(Ms. KUSTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart because this
body will soon consider a bill that will cut 4 million children from
their nutrition benefits. Americans will go hungry. In my district and
across this country, these are our friends, our neighbors, our fellow
parishioners. They are children and veterans and seniors.
One of my constituents wrote to me recently about how Federal
nutrition assistance is essential to feeding her family. She is 28
years old, disabled, and an orphan, so she has no family to fall back
upon. And she is the mother of a toddler. On top of all that, she's in
college, working to get her undergraduate degree, and has a double
major, no less. But right now, she depends on the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program to feed her toddler, and that assistance
doesn't even go far enough. She still has to rely on our local food
bank and other community assistance.
This is who we are talking about when we debate cutting $40 billion
from the nutrition program. We can and should do better.
____________________
SNAP AND THE FARM BILL
(Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to the
seriousness of the proposed $40 billion cut to the nutrition bill. As a
member of the House Agriculture Committee, I am gravely concerned with
this bill, as it circumvented proper deliberation before the
Agriculture Committee. This bill lacks the transparency required by the
American people and is outside the custom and practice of all past farm
bills this House has passed.
I am ready to vote for a farm bill, but we are no closer to finding a
compromise than we were 6 months ago. This issue is about Americans'
ability to eat, as our country struggles to come out of the greatest
financial crisis since the Great Depression.
SNAP is a vital tool in empowering Americans in a challenging economy
and should not be the sole factor in solving the Nation's long-term
fiscal problems. Costs for the program will shrink as the economy
improves and people are able to do exactly what Americans want to do:
put food on the table.
____________________
RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE
(Ms. WILSON of Florida asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we wonder why people need
nutrition assistance in the first place. Well, it's because our minimum
wage is inadequate, and it's because the government has given up on
creating jobs. A parent working full-time at minimum wage will simply
not earn enough income to cover basic needs.
SNAP recipients are not lazy. It's this Congress that is lazy.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to cut $40 billion in nutrition funding, I
have a two-part plan for you. Raise the minimum wage so workers can
feed themselves, and pass the American Jobs Act so Americans can find
work in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, the working poor, seniors, and children are suffering
now, and you plan to cut nutrition assistance? Not only will they
suffer, but some may die.
It's time for this Congress to address the real issues: raise the
minimum wage, and jobs, jobs, jobs.
____________________
OPPOSITION TO THE REPUBLICAN NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PLAN
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I'm not one to go on and on about a lot of
statistics, but as we debate the nutrition bill, there is one that
struck a chord with me. One in four, yes, one in four children go to
bed hungry every night. And I'm not talking about in Africa, China, or
India. I'm talking about one in four children who live right here in
the United States going to sleep without adequate nutrition.
For me and the 1 million New Jerseyans on SNAP, this is a complete
and total outrage. We live in the greatest country on Earth, yet 17
million children in this country do not get the nutrition they need.
Last year alone, SNAP lifted 4 million people out of poverty. The
bill on the floor this week, which would cut SNAP by nearly $40
billion, will only ensure that these people are pushed right back into
poverty.
That's why I strongly oppose the nutrition assistance bill; and I
urge my colleagues to examine their conscience and remember that, when
they cast their vote, they are casting their vote for or against one in
four children who still go to bed at night hungry.
____________________
THE ATTACK ON POOR, DISADVANTAGED, AND HUNGRY PEOPLE ACT
(Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express strong
opposition to H.R. 3102, what I call the Attack on Poor, Disadvantaged,
and Hungry People Act. This bill will cut food stamps by $40 billion;
and, as a result of that, at least 4 million low-income individuals
will no longer be eligible to receive nutrition assistance.
I say shame on whoever concocted this draconian idea, whoever put
this proposal together, and certainly shame on us if we vote for it.
____________________
WEIGH OUR OPTIONS BEFORE CUTTING SNAP
(Ms. SEWELL of Alabama asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to H.R. 3102, calling for a $40 billion cut in critically
needed funding for nutrition assistance programs.
You know, Mr. Speaker, struggling to encourage my Republican
colleagues to take a walk in the shoes of those who suffer from food
insecurity has become uncomfortably common in this Chamber. In this
House, we have moved beyond poor economic doctrine and immoral social
policy, and we're now dealing with the very dangerous
[[Page 13803]]
mindset that the weakest in our society are to blame for their
condition.
Instead of taking away food stamps, we should be encouraging jobs.
That we should be encouraging smaller assistance for those who are in
need is not, I think, the way that this policy should go. We should be
incentivizing companies to provide a living wage. And I think it's
hypocritical for us to value the sanctity of life while neglecting
policies that ensure all Americans have a better quality of life.
Mr. Speaker, 54 percent of the households in my district receive
SNAP. I think that it's really important that we remember the people
that we're sent here to represent.
____________________
PANCREATIC CANCER RESEARCH
(Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have
recently met with some constituents from New Mexico whose lives have
been impacted by pancreatic cancer, the deadliest of all major forms of
cancer. It's not easy to hear a woman talk about losing her husband, a
sister talk about losing her brother, or even a father talk about
losing his daughter.
It's not easy to listen to their stories, but it's important, and
here's why: pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer
deaths in this country; the 5-year survival rate is just 6 percent; and
there are still no early detection tools or lifesaving treatments.
Last year, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the
Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act, which requires the National Cancer
Institute to develop a scientific framework for combating both
pancreatic cancer and lung cancer. Unfortunately, the much-needed
progress we stand to make is in serious jeopardy. Largely because of
sequestration, the National Cancer Institute's budget has been
drastically cut.
This is simply unacceptable, and it's yet another reason why I
continue to call for a permanent fix to sequestration. The country
deserves it; those constituents I met with deserve it; and everyone who
has lost a loved one to pancreatic cancer deserves it.
____________________
THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(Ms. HANABUSA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we use words like ``SNAP,'' and
people don't know what it means. SNAP means Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program. It's supplemental to what people receive.
Nutrition, that's its main purpose, and it just gives assistance.
What we are proposing to vote on is a bill that would cut $40 billion
from SNAP. What it means--and this is something that's very important
for us to recognize--is it means children will lose access to things
like free school lunches. For some children, that's the best meal of
the day that they have. We know hundreds of thousands will lose that.
Mr. Speaker, 1.7 million people, 850,000 households will be reduced
by $90 a month. Think about your own budgets and think about what $90
will mean for a family that needs assistance. And in addition, this
bill will ask disabled people to work 20 hours a week before they can
even qualify for supplemental nutrition assistance.
Mr. Speaker, this is a mean-spirited measure, and Congress should not
be defined by that.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 761, NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND
CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 347
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 761) to require the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop
domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of
strategic and critical importance to United States economic
and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5
legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 761, the National Strategic
and Critical Minerals Production Act. It provides one hour of general
debate, equally divided between both sides. It provides for five
amendments, four of which are Democrat amendments and one is a
Republican amendment. So this rule is fair to a fault and it is totally
generous, and it will provide a balanced and open debate as long as we,
as Members, structure our remarks to the merits of this particular bill
and don't go off on tangents.
{time} 1230
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand before the House and
support this rule. It's a good rule.
I also support the underlying bill, H.R. 761, and I want to
congratulate the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), as sponsor of this
particular piece of legislation, as well as the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for
his leadership in this particular effort.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is blessed with an abundance of resources,
which has made us a leading world economy and industrial power, and we
have only scratched the surface, literally, of what we can potentially
develop.
We have energy potential such as coal, oil shale, and natural gas
deposits, as well as various critical minerals that we, as a Nation,
need and should be developing.
[[Page 13804]]
But unfortunately, much of this development of our domestic mineral
resources has actually been stymied by a combination of special
interest politics, as well as bureaucratic red tape, particularly under
this administration. It is a pain we have all seen coming.
Twenty-five years ago, 20 percent of all money that was spent for
development and production of critical minerals was spent here in the
United States. Today that's down to only 8 percent, as other nations
have replaced our efforts, unfortunately.
This has meant an increase in our trade imbalance, dollars going
overseas, escalating prices here at home for both energy and
commodities. It means job losses here in the United States. And
ironically, these jobs that we are losing are some of the highest-
paying middle class jobs that are available. Bureaucratic delays are
causing this, and they are causing us to see a change, both for
manufacturing and defense.
Twenty-five years ago, there were 30 minerals that we actually had to
import to this Nation that were considered critical minerals. Today
that number has gone from 30 to 61.
Twenty-five years ago, there were 16 minerals that we imported a
great majority of. Today that number that has gone to 24.
It affects manufacturing, such as electronics and metal alloys,
ceramics, glass, magnets, catalysts, everything. It affects our defense
as well, as our Defense Logistics Agency tries to stockpile these
minerals so the demands are there when we actually need them.
Unfortunately, as we've illustrated, more and more of these are being
purchased from overseas. They are critical to our weapons development
system, including such things as night vision equipment, advanced
lasers, avionics, fighter jet components, missile guidance systems, and
it goes on and on.
Look, the Constitution tells us that our first responsibility is to
provide for a common defense. This bill steps us into the right
direction so we actually can provide for a common defense and do it
intelligently and avoid unnecessary and frivolous delays.
There are some that will criticize us for the kinds of minerals that
we are placing in this restriction area. There was a study in 2009 that
was done called the Great California ShakeOut, which was a mock of what
could happen if the big earthquake actually hit that area, and it found
out that, in an effort to try and rebuild the infrastructure that would
be necessary, there's a whole list of things we normally don't consider
as critical that would, in that situation, be critical, including sand
and gravel, that we simply would have a frightful deficiency of if we
were trying to rebuild under those types of critical situations.
This bill anticipates that, and makes sure that we will not be found
lacking, either in defense, or in manufacturing, or in critical
civilian needs in case of disaster.
This bill doesn't predetermine anything. It simply says, make a
decision, yes or no, on whether this project should go forward; simply
make a decision, and do it in a timely fashion.
We still, today, average between 7 and 10 years in which those
decisions are made. This bill says that that is unrealistic, and it
simply says, you've got 30 months--2\1/2\ years--to make a decision,
yes or no. If you have to have an extension, it provides for that on
common agreement, which is only rational to do. But for heaven's sakes,
finally make a decision.
It is based on not only what we are talking about here, but it's
based on what we are doing in our transportation area. It's based on a
Presidential concept; when the President established an Executive Order
No. 13604, which talked about the importance of trying to streamline
reform and reference our process.
This is the basis of what we are attempting to do in this particular
bill as well. This implies that whenever there are agencies, multiple
agencies involved in a project, that there must be a lead agency which
must take the responsibility of actually getting the job done, so that
any kind of environmental statement should be being done currently, not
sequentially, that we can make sure that any kind of lawsuit does not
stop the process of making a decision.
Once again, this is one of those things that simply is logical. Just
make a decision. You have plenty of time to do it. Make a decision.
There is no reason we cannot make a decision on whether to go forward
on a project in 2\1/2\ years, none, none whatsoever.
The fact that we are dragging our feet is simply done from
bureaucratic excess that is illogical and irrational. We have done this
in other areas. This is the time to do this in this area as well.
If, indeed, we could do this process, it would be very clear that
this Nation would prosper. We could have good-paying jobs, and we could
make the desert blossom.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the
gentleman from Utah, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and, Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such time as I deem necessary.
Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that
everybody in America knows that we should be addressing. Instead, we
are here today on H. Res. 347, a structured rule, and the underlying
bill, H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production
Act of 2013.
I get it that my friends from areas that have these minerals in
public spaces would like for us to proceed apace to extract them. I
understand their feelings. I come from yet another of the critical
areas of our country that we have to protect much of the space of, and
that would be the Everglades.
I don't understand why Congress is trying to provide even more breaks
to the United States mining operations when we do have these urgent
domestic issues that we are confronted with and, somehow or another,
that we were unable to undertake.
We haven't done all of our appropriations. We are having difficulty
getting a continuing resolution. We will soon be faced with lifting the
debt ceiling. And somehow or another, we are dealing with something
that, I might add, we have voted on before, that came out of the House
of Representatives, that did not pass the Senate, and H.R. 761 is not
going to pass the Senate either.
So H.R. 761 guts important environmental protections offered through
the National Environmental Policy Act, referred to as NEPA. It fails to
require adequate financial assurance, and I will have an amendment on
the floor that will address that subject, and offers other benefits to
mining companies.
Mining operations in the United States benefit already from multiple
Federal tax breaks, exemptions to regulation under existing
environmental laws, and no royalty payments to the United States for
mining operations, even on U.S. land.
Mining companies limit their liability for environmental restoration
and cleanup by operating with U.S. subsidiaries to foreign parent
companies. This relationship shields the parent company from liability
and has allowed parent companies to draw profits from United States
mining operations.
So what happens when companies do not pay for environmental damage
caused by their operations?
The people of the United States pay. They pay through a contaminated
environment. They pay through sickness, including cancer. They pay
through taxes, because taxpayer dollars are ultimately needed to clean
up these sites.
It would seem that we should have learned from our mistakes with the
1872 General Mining Law. Mining companies should be held accountable so
that their operations will not impose additional burdens on the
American people.
H.R. 761 not only takes away valued natural resources for hiking,
fishing, canoeing and other recreational activities, it shifts the
burdens of mining cleanup and restoration to the American taxpayer.
Furthermore, H.R. 761 classifies domestic mining operations for
strategic and critical minerals on Federal lands as infrastructure
projects. Using a
[[Page 13805]]
broad definition that encompasses virtually every type of mine, this
legislation allows mines to take advantage of a Presidential order from
2012 which requires Federal agencies to streamline the permitting
process for infrastructure projects.
However, building a mine is not the same as building roads and
highways that are much needed in this country, or replacing rotted
sewerage that is much needed in this country, which is, in fact, the
country's infrastructure.
Bills like this are why, in my opinion, the American people are so
frustrated with us here in the United States Congress. We have a number
of issues that we could--no, not that we could, that we should be
working on--and, yet, we are rehashing a bill that went nowhere last
Congress, ain't gonna go nowhere this Congress and, most importantly,
is bad for the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I just want to make a couple of comments before we go on with the
discussion of this particular rule, which, once again, is a fair rule
and is a good rule.
This bill is one of those bills that has no significant cost to the
budget. At no time does this stop any of the NEPA requirements. All it
says is, do your job and do it on time. Nothing big about that, simply
what those regulations are.
And it is obviously one of those things that takes place that we
desperately need, both for the manufacturing sector, as well as for
defense.
Look, I'm old. I still use legal pads. I trust those. They never
crash on me. But if you have an iPhone or an iPad or any of that other
kind of new stuff that my kids like to have, you're going to have these
critical minerals. And if we are not proposing and developing them here
in the United States, we are paying more to develop them out of
country, and we're putting ourselves, manufacturing-wise, in a
significant deficit situation. And obviously, with the defense, what is
happening is even more critical.
This is simply taking the executive order and saying, yeah, it's good
for infrastructure; it's also good for our critical mineral development
system, and saying, do the job. Do it well, do it quickly, get it done
in a reasonable period of time, and don't drag this stuff out by
sequencing the issues and the actions one after the other. You have a
period of time. Do your job.
It's an amazing concept of asking the bureaucracy of this Nation to
actually do their job, but it's important.
Yes, it was passed in the last session by an overwhelming bipartisan
vote. It's a bipartisan bill. The fact that the Senate did not take it
up is another indictment to Senate leadership, admittedly, an oxymoron,
but it's another indictment for the Senate leadership for ignoring the
significant issues that we have to face in this Nation. It's another
indictment that they should actually do their job.
Just because the Senate leadership decides to sit on these type of
issues does not mean we have to sit on them as well. This is something
we have to have, and it needs to go over to the Senate. If it has to go
over every week to the Senate until the Senate finally decides to
actually do something, then that is our responsibility, and we should
do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
improper characterizations of leadership of the other body.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3
minutes to my good friend from Oregon, (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
Great name. We're really good at messaging around here, particularly
on the Republican side. It's got a great name: National Strategic and
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013.
Now we've heard just earlier that this is about things that are in
critical short supply, vital for our national security and for
emergencies.
{time} 1245
None of those things are true. They could be a miniscule part of
this.
But what this bill does is say that any mining project anywhere on
any public lands in the United States of America does not constitute a
significant Federal action. No matter how large, no matter how
sensitive the area, no matter how proximate to the Grand Canyon and
national treasures or how proximate to Yellowstone or how proximate to
some critical watershed, that's not a major Federal action. So it's
exempt from NEPA. That's one very big problem with this legislation. I
think there's a lot of members of the public even living in very
conservative areas of the country who would find that a little bit of
overreach.
And then, again, these critical minerals are not critical. Sand and
gravel are now critical. Anything is critical that you can find on
public land. Any dirt of any sort, you are going to get an expedited
process. That's a little bit of overreach.
We're going to have a great amendment by Mr. Lowenthal, who will use
an actual definition from the National Research Council for strategic
and critical minerals. So if this is on the up-and-up, the other side
will accept that amendment and we will have these expedited processes,
which still cause us some anxiety; but they will only be for truly
strategic and critical materials, not everything and anything on any
public land.
Secondly, most Americans would be appalled--those who don't already
know--to learn that we give away all of the minerals on our public
lands: gold, uranium, platinum. No matter what it is, we give it away.
We do not charge. Unlike many western States, unlike Native American
tribal lands, unlike private lands, unlike most foreign countries, we
don't charge a royalty for extracting minerals from our lands, no
matter how valuable, no matter how many billions of dollars that that
load might be worth of platinum or gold or uranium. No charge. Give it
away.
Twice this body has passed, on a bipartisan basis, historically, a
modest royalty on the extraction of depletable valuable minerals from
Federal lands. I've been very involved in that in the past. In the
summer, I went to the Rules Committee when this bill was first going to
come up.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. DeFAZIO. They admit there are no parliamentary issues, no scoring
issues. In fact, with my amendment, an 8 percent royalty would raise
hundreds of millions of dollars. And those hundreds of millions of
dollars would be used to remediate hundreds of thousands of mines in
the West that are polluting the environment, polluting our rivers.
I have a foreign company in my district that, yeah, they put up their
million-dollar bond. Unfortunately, they left the country, and it's a
$14 million cleanup. The public is going to get stuck with that. It's
polluting the river, killing fish, and the taxpayers are going to have
to pay for it.
My amendment would have raised the resources necessary to deal with
hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines in the western United States
that need remediation and mitigation, but the Republicans were afraid
to vote on that amendment.
Some in the West know it's a problem. They didn't want to vote
against fixing the problem. Others just say you should run the
government like a business, except when it comes to valuable minerals.
We want to give them away. We don't really care about the deficit.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If we defeat the previous question, I'm
going to offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to
hold a vote on the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill will help to boost
the economy by encouraging businesses to bring more jobs to America and
discourage companies from shipping jobs overseas.
[[Page 13806]]
To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Hastings.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill before us today, H.R. 761, the National Strategic and
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013. I just think it goes too far.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and take up this
legislation, which we've worked on for a full year now, the Bring Jobs
Home Act, a bill which, for the first time, makes sure we promote
insourcing of jobs and stop the corporate welfare business for
outsourcing jobs.
The underlying legislation would set a dangerous precedent by waiving
mining projects from environmental reviews and eliminating public
access to the justice system itself. Pushing mining projects through
the permitting process is sure to continue to degrade our environment
and create workplace situations which are definitely unsafe. But it
won't solve the employment problem.
Since that's been injected into the discussion, the legislation will
simply allow our Nation's resources to be used to pad the pockets of
the same international corporations who ship jobs overseas; and, by the
way, that process of shipping jobs overseas is subsidized by the
Federal Government. We have for years helped corporations send jobs
overseas. What we should be doing is helping them get jobs back to
America, particularly since we see an upgrading of the past 16 months
in the manufacturing sector of our economy.
With this bill we're going to end the tax breaks that encourage
companies to ship their jobs overseas and use that to pay for tax
credits for patriotic companies that want to bring jobs back home. Do
you want to have real job improvement? This is the way to do it.
Over the last decade we've lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs--more
than during the entire Great Depression. Our trade deficit increased by
$300 billion. During the recession, the manufacturing workforce
plummeted to a near 60-year low.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. PASCRELL. More troubling, Mr. Speaker, is that recent studies
estimate that one-quarter of American jobs are at risk of being
outsourced in the coming years. We're not talking about chump change
here. This is a lot of jobs.
So let's defeat this motion so we can actually debate a bill that
will end corporate welfare that allows companies to continue to engage
in outsourcing and then get a tax cut for doing so. Instead, let's
provide incentives that will grow good-paying manufacturing jobs in the
USA.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend if he's
prepared to close. I have no further speakers at this time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Obviously, I am prepared to close. It depends on
how long your closing goes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I can make it go as long as you want it to
go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Picking up where Mr. Pascrell left off, which I wasn't intending to
do until my good friend from Utah mentioned the timeframe. Tomorrow, we
are going to vote on whether or not to cut $40 billion from the
supplemental nutrition program for people of this country. One of the
measures included in that is going to be that people can only qualify
for 3 months during a specified period of time if they are able-bodied
people.
Well, if you vote for the previous question that Mr. Pascrell
offered, there may be some jobs for those people. Otherwise, what we're
getting ready to do is put more people in a position of needing the
food stamps. And we continue to talk about jobs, but we haven't done
anything on the infrastructure.
I predict even if this measure before us today were to become law,
which it is not, but if it did by chance become law, we would be lucky
if in the course of time we had the kind of jobs and the number of jobs
that are desperately needed in this country.
What is wrong with this institution? Don't we understand that we have
college kids that are graduating and they can't find a job? We hire
kids up here at lower than the minimum wage because they can't find
jobs in the private sector. This is crazy.
We can't continue doing nothing when in fact the people are suffering
in this great country of ours. We have not only the natural resources
that my friends would have us extract from even public lands without
paying royalties, but we have the resources as a people to do the
things creatively to assist us in bringing jobs here rather than
sending them all over the world and causing a diminution of jobs here
at home.
Again, for the life of me I don't understand why we are considering
this bill today. We're considering virtually every mine on public land,
including uranium and coal mines, to operate without adherence to
Federal environmental laws, which protect public safety. Our priorities
are truly in the wrong place.
As I asked before, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
rule and the underlying legislation, and I ask unanimous consent to
insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous
material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the opportunity we have of presenting this particular
rule to the body. I've always appreciated the opportunity of sharing
this time with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is a good
friend and a very colorful orator. And I always like to hear his
orations here on the floor.
You'll forgive me if I want to try and refocus on the matter that is
at hand, for, indeed, I recognize the statements that have been made by
the last two speakers that deal with the significance of jobs. What we
simply have to have is a policy in this country that promotes private
sector jobs, not just government sector jobs.
By promoting private sector jobs, we actually expand the economy and
build upon that concept. That is one of the reasons why this particular
bill is here. But all of a sudden you go from 30 minerals that we had
to import from other areas to 61 minerals that we now have to import
from abroad. That means there are a bunch of minerals that we used to
be producing in good, high-paying jobs that no longer are there.
So this is one of the areas that we can move our country in the
proper direction and not just simply say, Okay, let's create some kind
of make-work program that actually adds particular jobs. It needs to be
the right kind of jobs to move our country forward.
One person once told me the people sitting here is the entire
universe with which we talk. We will not make ourselves rich by paying
each other to take vacations. At some time, someone has to add real
wealth into the equation. That's what this bill is trying to do. We
have critical mineral wealth in this country. It needs to be added to
the equation so that we can create those good-paying mining jobs that
will spin off into good-paying manufacturing jobs in the private
sector. That's everything we are attempting to do.
I would like to take one issue and try to put it to rest as to the
idea that these companies who would be receiving benefit from this are
somehow getting off and not paying taxes or royalties. They are not
paying Federal taxes, but sometimes we forget that we're not the only
equation out there.
[[Page 13807]]
Every one of these pays significant royalties and severance taxes to
State and local governments.
{time} 1300
The Federal tax that is proposed by some of the amendments to this
bill would be on top of that. It would be a form of double taxation.
Its goal would be to raise money, which is a nice goal, but simply
because you found a potential effort for the Federal Government to try
and raise more money doesn't mean you need to rush into that,
especially when it has a negative aspect somewhere else. It would have
a negative aspect on State and local governments. It would also have a
negative aspect on those companies that some people don't want to have
any empathy for the situation they're in.
If you actually put an additional Federal royalty on top of the State
and local royalty which they are paying and the severance tax that you
are paying, in a traditional company you could pass that tax burden on
to the consumer. In a world market, you cannot. That just doesn't
happen. It has to come out from the company itself.
The companies who are involved in here have clearly said that they
are not opposed if we could put some kind of net proceeds up. But these
kinds of proposals that we will be hearing in the debate today are not
net proceeds tax; they are an unparalleled, unprecedented gross tax.
Nothing has ever gone to that level in which the amendments would try
to put on this program.
So once again, what we're trying to ask you to do is look at this in
the overall view of what we are trying to do to develop real and good
private sector jobs.
The underlying element still goes back to the fact that, look, what
we need is to go through the permitting process but to do it in a way
that is legitimate. It should not have to wait 7 to 10 years to
actually permit something. That is just unrealistic.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am an old schoolteacher. As a
schoolteacher, we had 9 months to do something. If you couldn't get it
done in 9 months, you didn't get it done. There was no idea of just
postponing it to a future date. If a principal came to me and said
we're going to have to have our testing done on Tuesday for the
standardized test, I couldn't say no, I can't do that; let's wait for 2
weeks and maybe--maybe--I will be ready to help you with the testing
data. In any education system, when the time is up, the time is up. You
have to do the work, and you back-schedule to make sure that you
actually do the work. That happens in almost every element of society
except for here in government.
When I was in the State legislature, we had a constitutional end of
that State legislative date. We had 45 days to make a decision. Often
those decisions are not easy and you make the better of the bad choices
that you have, but we had to make a decision.
I contrast that with what is happening here in the United States
Government in which the Forest Service was asked to do a study on a
potential bridge that we could transfer from Federal ownership over to
State ownership. They said yes, in about 4 years we would be able to do
that study. Four years to do a simple study? We give ourselves these
unreasonable and inexcusable time references, and we do it all the
time.
I had a bill that we passed a couple of years ago and which mandated
that a certain agency of government had to give a piece of property
over to the local entity of government. Congress passed it. They
mandated it. Now here, 2\1/2\ years later, the agency still has not
transferred that land. They are going through their surveys. They are
taking their time. Even the local government had to pay for all these
time-consuming surveys. What Congress mandated, 2 years later, still
has not happened. That is unrealistic. In the private sector, no one
would tolerate that. In our State government, no one would actually
tolerate that. In the education community, no one would tolerate that.
Yet we look at that as the norm, 7 to 10 years, as an average, to
actually permit these things?
That is why what this bill is trying to do is say, look, go through
the process, use the NEPA process, but do it in a fair and rational way
and make a decision. You don't drag things out just for the fun of
dragging things out. If the decision is yes, fine; if the decision is
no, fine; but for heaven's sake, make a decision.
Some elements of government, whom I will not make caricatures about
even if it's true, some elements seem to like to drag out decisions.
This is an area that should not be. So this simply says, if you're
going to deal with this area, you've got 30 months to make a decision.
You can do that in 2\1/2\ years. There is no reason why it cannot be.
We are doing this in other areas of the government. The President, in
his executive order, said this has to be the way we move forward. This
bill moves us forward.
This bill does a good thing. It was right that it passed in the last
session by a huge bipartisan vote because it's the right thing to do.
It's the right message. It's the right program. It moves us forward.
It's the right thing to do this year. And we will continue to push this
until at some point we have succeeded in making sure that we are moving
forward with hard deadlines so that decisions are made and we're not
just piddling and piddling and waiting and delaying time after time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill. It was a good bill last time
we passed it. It's still a good bill. We need to pass this bill again.
It's also a very good rule. It's a fair rule. It's a rule for which we
can be proud.
I would urge my colleagues to make sure that we vote for this rule so
we can move forward on a bill that should have been passed by both
bodies a long time ago. But we need to, once again, start this process
and continue going forward because it is the right thing to do. It will
provide us with resources; it will provide us with jobs; it will
provide us, more importantly, with decisions. Finally, we can actually
have an agency that makes a decision in a timely manner.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 347 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage
domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 851 as specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
____
the vote on the previous question: what it really means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's
[[Page 13808]]
ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal
of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question
passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in
order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of
the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House
defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition
rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 347, if
ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 301.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 192, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 463]
YEAS--229
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--192
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Courtney
Diaz-Balart
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Nadler
Perlmutter
Polis
Rangel
Rush
Waters
{time} 1338
Mr. VARGAS, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr.
BARBER, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs. VEASEY, CUELLAR, and Ms. LOFGREN changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 190, not voting 11, as follows:
[[Page 13809]]
[Roll No. 464]
AYES--231
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--190
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Cardenas
Cassidy
Diaz-Balart
Herrera Beutler
Himes
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Perlmutter
Polis
Rush
Waters
{time} 1345
Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL ENVOY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 301) to provide for
the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of
Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia, as
amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402,
nays 22, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 465]
YEAS--402
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
[[Page 13810]]
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--22
Amash
Broun (GA)
Collins (GA)
Graves (GA)
Hudson
Jones
King (IA)
Lummis
Massie
McClintock
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Neugebauer
O'Rourke
Posey
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Sanford
Stutzman
Westmoreland
Woodall
Yoho
NOT VOTING--8
Cassidy
Diaz-Balart
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Perlmutter
Polis
Rush
{time} 1353
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 761.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 347 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 761.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1355
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 761) to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the
minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to
United States economic and national security and manufacturing
competitiveness, with Mr. Fortenberry in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 761, the National Strategic
and Critical Minerals Production Act.
Not a day goes by when Americans don't use a product that is made
from critical minerals. In fact, life as we know it in the 21st century
would not be possible without these minerals. There would be no
computers, no BlackBerrys or iPhones. There would be no MRI, CAT scan,
or X-ray machines. There would be no wind turbines or solar panels. Mr.
Chairman, the list is exhaustive of these things that depend on
critical minerals that make modern life possible.
Rare-earth elements, a special subset of strategic and critical
minerals, are core components of these products in the 21st century.
Yet despite the tremendous need for rare-earth elements, the United
States has allowed itself to become almost entirely dependent on China
and other foreign nations for these resources.
America has a plentiful supply of rare-earth elements, but roadblocks
to the development of these crucial materials have resulted in China
producing 97 percent of the world's supply. Our current policies are
handing China a monopoly on these elements, creating a dependence that
has serious implications on American jobs, on our economy, and on our
national security.
Burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous lawsuits, and
onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects here in the U.S.
for more than 10 years. These unnecessary delays cost American jobs as
we become more and more dependent on foreign countries for these raw
ingredients. The lack of America-produced strategic and critical
produced minerals are prime examples of how America has regulated
itself into a 100 percent dependence on at least 19 unique minerals. It
has also earned the United States the unfortunate distinction of being
ranked dead last when it comes to permitting mining projects. In 2012,
the U.S. was ranked last, along with Papua New Guinea, out of 25 major
mining countries on the pace of permitting. Mr. Chairman, I can't speak
for Papua New Guinea, but the reason the U.S. Government is so slow to
issue new mining permits is very simple: government bureaucracy.
H.R. 761, introduced by our colleague from Nevada, Mr. Amodei, will
help us to end the foreign dependence by streamlining government red
tape that blocks America's strategic and critical mineral production.
Instead of waiting for over a decade for mining permits to be approved,
this bill sets a goal of total review process for permitting at 30
months.
{time} 1400
Now this isn't a hard deadline, Mr. Chairman. It can be extended. But
it is a goal to push the bureaucrats into action on these important
infrastructure projects. It shouldn't take a decade to get a project
built for minerals that we need in our everyday life and for our
national security.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, above all, this is a jobs bill. The positive
economic impact of this bill will extend beyond just the mining
industry. For every metal mining job created, an estimated 2.3
additional jobs are generated. And for every nonmetal mining job
created, another 1.6 jobs are created.
This legislation gives the opportunity for American manufacturers,
small businesses, technology companies, and construction firms to use
American resources to help make the products that are essential to our
everyday lives.
As China continues to tighten global supplies of rare-earth elements,
we should respond with an American mineral mining renaissance that will
bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to America. The National
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act is important to our jobs
and to our economy. We must act now to cut the government red tape that
is stopping American mineral production and furthering our dependence
on foreign minerals.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page 13811]]
Today we are considering H.R. 761, the so-called National Strategic
and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013. Now, despite the bill's
title, it has almost nothing to do with national strategic and critical
minerals production. In fact, under the guise of promoting the
development of minerals critical to the United States' national
security, this legislation would reshape mining decisions on public
lands for almost all minerals.
Mr. Chairman, the bill's classification of ``critical minerals'' is
so broad that even sand and gravel and other such things can fall under
its definition. Critical and strategic minerals? The Democratic
amendments we will consider today will attempt to tailor this
legislation to cover only minerals that are truly critical and
strategic and will address the egregious provisions that would truncate
important environmental review.
Make no mistake, this bill is a giveaway. It is free mining, no
royalties, no protection of public interest, exemption from royalty
payments, near exemption from environmental regulations, near exemption
from legal enforcement of the protections. And it's unnecessary.
There is a real debate that we could be having about the mining laws
in this country. It should start with reforming the mining law of 1872,
which is as archaic as its name suggests--the mining law of 1872. We
should be discussing abandoned mine reclamation. We should be
discussing ensuring taxpayers a fair return on industrial development
of our public lands.
Mr. Chairman, in the Natural Resources Committee markup on May 15 of
this year where H.R. 761 was reported out on a nearly party line vote,
the committee also reported two other bills on a bipartisan basis, two
other bills that would lay the groundwork for developing critical and
strategic mineral production. Those bills, H.R. 1063, the National
Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013, and H.R. 981, the
RARE Act, were unanimously reported out of the Natural Resources
Committee and legitimately would be worth debating here in the House as
part of any serious effort to improve our understanding of critical
strategic mineral deposits and to aid in their development.
We reported out bills on a bipartisan basis that would do what this
legislation purports to do. We could be discussing those bills.
Instead, we're taking up legislation which is a giveaway. The
legislation we could be dealing with would actually deal with strategic
and critical minerals. Now, if the majority were to bring it to the
floor, I'm sure it would pass in an overwhelming, bipartisan way and
would likely be passed by the other body and signed into law. In fact,
in the last Congress, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals
Policy Act--not to be confused with the Production Act that we are
considering today--was supported by the National Mining Association.
The president and CEO of the National Mining Association issued a
statement when that bill passed out of committee last Congress, and he
said: ``The House Natural Resources Committee took important bipartisan
action today to ensure U.S. manufacturers, technology innovators, and
our military have a more stable supply of minerals vital to the
products they produce and use.'' He went on to say that legislation,
``will provide a valuable assessment of our current and future mineral
demands and our ability to meet more of our needs through domestic
minerals production.''
We could be considering legislation like that.
We should be able to work in a bipartisan fashion when it comes to
improving our supply of rare-earth minerals and other strategic
minerals and ensuring that we are not dependent on China and other
nations for their supply. But the majority seems to be not interested
in that. Evidently, they don't want to work in a bipartisan fashion to
produce legislation that all sides out there in the country, in
industry, people who look after public lands and the environment could
agree on. Instead, they're moving this bill, H.R. 761, which has almost
nothing to do with strategic minerals, is really about giveaways to the
mining industry.
This bill would be a Trojan horse if it were to become law; however,
it has no chance of becoming law. Maybe the American people should be
grateful we won't pass this giveaway, that the American people--I say,
those American people who don't stand to get rich by this mining
giveaway.
But can the American people really feel good that we're wasting time
and actually not looking after the critical and strategic minerals that
American products, American defense depends on? Why are we playing
these games? Why, I should say, are they playing these games with our
legitimate needs to develop strategic minerals? We should be working in
the kind of fashion that led to last year's bill.
The majority should shelf this giveaway to the mining industry and
bring to the floor serious proposals that we could honestly debate as
part of a legitimate bipartisan discussion regarding rare-earth policy
and supply.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), the author of this
legislation.
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, having a real debate on this issue is
something that I wholeheartedly support.
We probably ought to start with the facts. First of all, you've heard
much about the overly broad definition. H.R. 761 deliberately contains
a broad definition of strategic and critical minerals. Here are some of
the reasons why:
In 2006, prior to the worldwide economic downturn, there was great
concern over the future availability of platinum, group metals, and
copper. At the time, projections in demand for copper indicated that by
2016, 30 large-scale copper deposits would have to come online to meet
worldwide demand. At the time, there were not enough copper deposits in
the permitting pipeline to make up for the projected downward curve.
And you have heard much about sand and gravel. Even sand and gravel
and other construction mineral materials can be in short supply or not
available, as the USGS discovered in 2009 during the great California
shakeout. What they discovered during that was that, in its assessment
of scope and damage and materials needed for construction in the event
of a large-scale earthquake, USGS discovered there were not enough
sand, gravel, and other construction materials available in the region
to meet the affected area's reconstruction needs.
So when you talk about the ability to foretell the future and you
say, well, we should just limit things to the i-u-m ending minerals, I
say you probably ought to think about what it takes to get a bill
through Congress to respond to those things because it's less timely
than the Federal permitting process.
Much has been made about getting rid of NEPA review. You know, when
all else fails, read the bill. Take a look at page 7. And when you look
at lines 4 through 9 there, these are not the words that you would be
using if you were trying to get rid of the NEPA process. Starting up at
page 6, line 24, it says, ``The lead agency with responsibility for''
permitting. Then you go down to page 7, line 5, it says, ``if the
procedural and substantive safeguards of the permitting process
alone,'' they must find that those are there. Look at line 5, ``if the
procedural'' are found. That is unlimited discretion in an executive
branch agency.
So don't tell me that we're getting rid of NEPA, because the bill
would have been written differently if we were trying to get rid of
NEPA.
I want to also point your attention to the base of this is an
infrastructure executive order from the current administration that
talks about avoiding duplication of efforts. I also want to point out
some words in there. It says, ``infrastructure projects in sectors,
including surface transportation''--oh, by the way, I think that has
something to do with sand and gravel--``aviation''--runways I think
have some of those elements that people don't think are critical--
``ports, waterways, water resource projects, renewable energy
generation, electricity transmission,
[[Page 13812]]
broadband, pipelines''--hello, Keystone. See how good it's done them.
If this is an attempt to skirt environmental regulations, somebody
probably should have written it differently. We didn't. It is simply
not the truth.
And I want to talk about fair return on all this taxation stuff. In
my State, which is 85 percent owned by the Federal Government, the
Federal Government gives $22 million a year to the rural counties in
Nevada for PILT. And I know some of my colleagues from east of the
Mississippi don't understand what that acronym means. It's payment in
lieu of taxes, $22 million. What this bill is really about is about
jobs.
The final piece is this. This does not require anybody in the Federal
permitting agencies to say, Yes, you can have your permit in 30 months.
It requires an answer in 30 months. Nobody seeks to apply this to get a
nice, crisp ``no'' in 30 months, which is why the language is in there,
Mr. Chairman, that says, by the way, if both sides agree, you can have
longer to process it.
Now, when you bounce that off the claims of 3\1/2\ and 5 years, under
existing administration permitting timelines, asking them to set a 30-
month timeline is not something which undoes environmental
responsibility, rapes the landscape, and outdoes the taxpayers out of
their normal revenues that are there.
Mr. HOLT. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 23\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the Chair, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Well, I will repeat. This bill is a giveaway. It is free mining, no
royalties. I referred to the archaic legislation that goes by the
archaic name of the Mining Act of 1872 which excuses miners from
royalty payments. That would apply here.
And as for excusing the miners from environmental regulations, the
legislation says that the lead agency shall determine that a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of human environment
has not occurred or is not occurring. In other words, the mining
activities are excluded from, excused from, the triggering language of
the Environmental Policy Act. No significant environmental policy
review would be undertaken under the National Environmental Policy Act
if the agency can say, Well, the State is doing something; the State is
doing something, whatever that may be, however adequate that may turn
out to be.
So I call that a relaxation, if not an exemption, of environmental
protection. And I repeat, these mining activities do not allow for a
fair return to the taxpayer, the owners of this land, for the use of
this land.
{time} 1415
And under this, we could call anything at all strategic and critical.
Yeah, sometimes the military might need to build a runway or extend a
runway, but to say that the sand and gravel that's necessary to do that
becomes strategic is a real perversion of the idea of strategic and
critical.
So let's deal with those things that we need for aircraft engines and
powerful magnets, lanthanum and neodymium and gadolinium and dysprosium
and these other so-called rare-earth elements, some of which are
actually not so rare, but they're dispersed and, therefore, hard to
mine and hard to get adequate quantities of them and some of which are
truly rare.
Let's deal with the legislation that makes those available for
manufacturing needs, for national security needs, rather than having a
catch-all mining definition that excuses any kind of mining from
royalties and from environmental regulation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), a new member of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Congressman for
recognizing the need to correct a major supply chain vulnerability in
the United States, that of critical and strategic minerals.
Many of us in Congress only heard of the concept of strategic
minerals after we became lawmakers. Most of the time, we hear about
exotic elements at the bottom of the periodic table like neodymium and
europium, but the fact is that we are facing down potentially
devastating supply disruptions for a much more familiar material, lead.
In my district, we know a lot about lead because my district produces
more lead than any other district in the Nation. We rely on lead for
everything from bullets, missiles, ships and tanks, to batteries for
vehicles and energy storage, to TV and computer screens, to storing
nuclear waste. Almost every one of us drives a car powered by a lead-
acid battery.
It may be hard to believe that lead could be a strategic
vulnerability for the United States because we have used it in so many
products for over a century. Over the past generation, we have taken
lead out of things like gasoline and paint to help protect human
health.
But the fact is lead is still crucial as a critical material that we
use safely in a vast number of American-manufactured technologies.
There is only one primary lead producer remaining in the United States
today, and that facility is scheduled to close at the end of 2013. And
environmental regulations are making it more and more difficult for
lead producers to extract and process economically.
Today, China produces three times the lead that the United States
produces, and our global market share is shrinking. At the same time,
global demand for lead is expected to grow by 5 to 6 percent a year,
increasing prices and competition for our domestic resources.
American innovators are working hard to improve the efficiency of
lead production and make sure as many lead-acid batteries as possible
are recycled so their contents can be repurposed. But the U.S. simply
cannot meet its national security needs and commercialize important new
technologies without a more robust, secure supply.
I hope that H.R. 761 will open doors for lead production in the
United States, and that any future legislative efforts on critical
minerals will also account for lead supplies.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This legislation is fundamentally a solution in search of a problem.
Now, according to analysis of data provided by the Bureau of Land
Management for hardrock mines on public lands, for which there is
complete data, the average time it takes to approve a plan of operation
for a mine has actually decreased under the Obama administration. We do
not need a relaxation of regulations in order to speed things up.
According to the BLM data, plans of operation for hardrock mines are
being approved roughly 17 percent more quickly under the Obama
administration than under the previous administration. Thank you,
President Obama.
And despite the majority's claims, 82 percent of plans of operation
for hardrock mines are approved within 3 years under the Obama
administration.
Now, the mining company will say, oh, 3 years, that's so long. Well,
according to the BLM ``it takes, on average, 4 years to approve a
mining plan of operation for a large mine, more than 1,000 acres on
public lands.''
Now, my colleagues on the other side have asked repeatedly what the
problem is with their legislation that would truncate and eviscerate
proper review of all mines on public lands if the majority of plans are
approved within 3 years.
Well, it's because a little more than 15 percent of hardrock mines
take more than 4 years to approve. For these mines, where mining
companies may not have submitted a complete application, or may not
have posted sufficient bond to ensure that the mine is cleaned up after
the work, or where additional environmental review is required because
the mine is large or potentially damaging to our environment and to
public health, this bill would prevent proper review.
We're already approving hardrock mines more quickly under the current
[[Page 13813]]
administration than under the previous administration. We should not be
eviscerating proper review of virtually all mining operations on public
lands, including sand and gravel, I repeat, as this Republican bill
would do. We should certainly not be doing it under the pretense of
developing critical and strategic minerals.
Now, the other side likes to cherry-pick. They cherry-pick one
statistic out of a report, without having, apparently, read the rest of
the report.
If you look at the full report by the international consulting firm
Behre Dolbear, it states that ``permitting delays are a global issue''
and that ``the business environment will likely favor firms that
aggressively take a proactive stance concerning societal and
environmental issues.''
Plans under the current administration, under the current BLM, plans
of operation for hardrock mines are being approved roughly 17 percent
more quickly than previously.
They say that the United States is last, ranked last, in mining. No.
What they fail to note is this very report says that the United States
is one of the most attractive countries in the world for mining, sixth,
to be precise, sixth most attractive. We are number six in the world
when you take all factors into consideration and all countries into
consideration.
Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to cherry-
pick and say that the United States is so unfair to the mining
interests that we have to give them a break, that we have to give away
all of these mining resources on the public's lands, with no royalties
and very few questions asked.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Missouri) assumed the chair.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States was
communicated to the House by Mr. Sherman Williams, one of his
secretaries.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee will resume its sitting.
____________________
NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, only in Washington would we be having a
debate about whether 4 years is okay or 2\1/2\ years is okay when we're
talking about a jobs bill. And only in Washington would we talk about
cherry-picking when we're talking about the vast majority of the
production that is sought for permitting, and the vast number of jobs
that is created is not--I want to make this very clear so the record is
clear--is not handled within 3 years.
Now, it may be true that it's less than the Bush administration,
which is fine. Let's assume that it is.
But when you're talking about primarily issues that deal with Western
lands whose States are at or near a majority of Federal ownership, and
you want to talk about the middle class, and you want to talk about
generating jobs, and you want to say, hey, by the way, you can take as
long as you want; we don't know if you're going to have a job in that
industry or not because there are no rules.
Only in Washington would we be defending no time limits whatsoever.
To say 30 months is a bad idea, with language that says, if both sides
agree, you can take longer, is not an unreasonable environmental or
administrative stance.
Nobody wants a nice, crisp denial in 30 months; and by the way, if
the application should be denied, then I presume that it will be
denied.
But what we're seeing now, and you can find no legislative history
for this anywhere in any of the applicable environmental regulations
and statutes, of which all still apply, there is nothing that says, by
the way, if nothing else works, just see if you can drag it out as long
as possible and hope that that capital goes away. Because when you talk
about permitting attractiveness, it's not what these folks are those
folks say, it's where the capital goes. And the capital isn't going
here.
And the strategic interest of having to go to China for your rare-
earths or having to go to other countries to produce those is not
apparent.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
My friend on the other side of the aisle says that, evidently, the
agencies that are reviewing these massive projects, projects that can
permanently degrade the environment, permanently degrade the
environment, hurt public health, affect communities, they're doing it
just to be mean to the mining interests.
No, I don't think so. They are charged with protecting the lands that
belong to Americans, the health of Americans, and the long-term welfare
of the communities.
Now, as for China, let's talk about China. We should be talking about
China. We should be concerned about what happens to the rare-earth
minerals around the world and in this country being locked up by China.
Talk to any business searching the venture capital community for
start-up funding, and one of the first things that they will be asked
is, what is your China plan, because if you don't have a China plan,
you won't be very successful.
The bill that we're considering today, once again, shows that
Republicans, in their eagerness to have giveaways for the mining
industry, are wandering in total darkness when it comes to developing a
strategy for dealing with China.
In the Findings section of the bill before us it says:
The industrialization of China and India has driven demand
for nonfuel mineral commodities, sparking a period of
resource nationalism exemplified by China's reduction in
exports of rare-earth elements.
True. And these are the rare-earth elements that are necessary for
telecommunications and military technologies and health care
technologies and conventional energy and renewable energy technologies.
So what would this bill do about China's export restrictions?
What would this bill do to ensure that China not restrict exports of
rare-earths to us, or that we keep the rare-earth elements in this
country to be used as strategic input to these strategic industries?
Nothing.
I have news for my colleagues. We do, in the United States, produce
rare-earth. We mine and concentrate rare-earth elements. The Molycorp
facility in California mines one of the richest rare-earth deposits in
the world. They're ramping up to 40,000 tons of production by next
year. That will be a quarter of the global production.
{time} 1430
But guess what? Guess where they are sending much of that production?
Yes, China. That's right. Our rare-earths will go to China to be
refined into alloys and metals. And there they will stay, if the
Chinese Government so determines, for Chinese high-tech manufacturers.
What are we doing about that in this legislation? Nothing.
So why are we doing this legislation first when the bigger problem is
how are we going to have a reliable supply of these strategic minerals.
The Republican solution is, China, we waived our environmental laws.
We're going to turn these out faster and faster from these public lands
that belong to the American people. We'll send them to you, China, so
you can refine them. And please send them back to us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from
New Jersey if he has any further speakers. I'm prepared to close if the
gentleman is prepared to close.
Mr. HOLT. I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the
remaining time.
In closing, let me just repeat what we've heard over and over. This
is unnecessary. It's not dealing with the
[[Page 13814]]
real problems first. It is a giveaway to the mining industry to exempt
them from regulations, to exempt them from paying a reasonable royalty
to the American people for use of the American people's lands. It would
alter nearly all mining operations on public lands in the United States
by reducing or even eliminating review under the National Environmental
Policy Act. It would change these mining operations not just for these
rare-earth elements but for copper, uranium, sand, and gravel.
The Interior Department testified this legislation would remove many
of the environmental safeguards for almost all types of hardrock mines
on public lands, bypass evaluation of potential impacts under the
National Environmental Policy Act, and limit public involvement in
agency decisionmaking.
Can that be a good idea--to eliminate all those things and not
actually deal with the production and supply and availability of
strategic minerals?
The authors of the bill say it's needed ``because it could take a
developer years to get all government permits in place.'' Well, that's
up to the developer to get those in. And it's up to the government
agencies to make sure they do it in a way that protects the public
health, protects the public lands, protects the future of communities
that would be affected by this.
This bill is not about fixing delays, but really about preventing
proper environmental review and safety and public health reviews.
We should be updating the Mining Act of 1872. We are a century or a
century-and-a-half late in updating that mining law. Maybe there was a
time in the 19th century where we wanted to send people out to develop
the great expanses of the western United States and give them carte
blanche. We've come a long way since then.
We should get up to date here in the House of Representatives. We
should be dealing with the hundred thousand known abandoned mines that
are a danger to people and to the environment. Promoting the
development of minerals that are critical to core national priorities
and that are genuinely susceptible to disruptions should be an area
where both sides, Republicans and Democrats, can work together.
Instead, we're dealing with special interests, giving them free rein in
a handout.
I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, before I make my closing remarks, I want to thank
Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee for his cooperation in
helping schedule this bill for consideration. We have an exchange of
letters to that effect.
Mr. Chairman, much has been debated here on the floor about what is
strategic and what is not strategic. Let me posit a suggestion here on
the fact that there are two ways that you could define this. You could
define it by making a definition so narrow that in effect the
legislation picks winners and losers. Or you could write statutory law
that says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be
the driver of what is strategic. That means the marketplace is the one,
then, that decides what is strategic. I think that's a much better
approach because when I talk about this, I recall hearing that in the
late 1890s the U.S. Patent Office issued a statement--and I could be
off a little bit--saying that we ought to close down the U.S. Patent
Office because everything that has been invented, has been invented.
This is in the 1890s. This is before we were flying airplanes. This is
before the car became commercially available. This means all the
minerals that go into those things weren't even thought of at the time.
So what we do then in this bill is just very straightforward. We say
that the strategic minerals will meet these criteria. By the way, you
can find this on page 5, section 3, ``Definitions'':
(A) For national defense and national security.
That is so self-evident, it hardly needs to be debated.
Second:
For the Nation's energy infrastructure, including
pipelines, refining.
That's from an energy standpoint. That certainly should not be
debated because we have to have a good energy source if we're going to
have a growing economy.
And:
(C) To support domestic manufacturing.
Of course, that includes agriculture and housing. In other words, to
support our economy. Doesn't that make good sense to have a source of
strategic minerals for that?
Finally:
(D) for the Nation's economic security and balance of
trade.
That makes eminently good sense because we are seriously out of
balance now with China, as has been brought up.
So this approach is more of a long-term solution because I dare say
that 25 years from now there will be a mineral that somebody will find
that will be used for new technology. But if we have defined it so
narrowly that we don't know what that technology is, we have in fact
been picking winners and losers. That's the wrong approach. The right
approach is what's embodied in this bill to say that these conditions
will be the ones that will define strategic minerals.
Finally, let me close on this: everybody likes to make fun of sand
and gravel as being strategic. I guarantee you that after the
earthquakes in northern and southern California, when the freeways
collapsed, I can tell you very, very strategically that cement and sand
and gravel fit that category.
So under the conditions, I think this fits what we are attempting to
do in the long term.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 28, 2013.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hastings, I am writing with respect to H.R.
761, the ``National Strategic and Critical Minerals
Production Act of 2013,'' which the Committee on Natural
Resources reported favorably. As a result of your having
consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 761 that fall within
the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I
agree to discharge our Committee from further consideration
of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the
House floor for consideration.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 761 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our
Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the
bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may
address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our
Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an
appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate
conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks
that you support any such request.
I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 761, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during Floor
consideration of H.R. 761.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 3, 2013.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn HOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production
Act of 2013. As you know, the Committee on Natural Resources
ordered reported the bill, as amended, on May 15, 2013. I
appreciate your support in bringing this legislation before
the House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand
that the Committee on the Judiciary will forego action on the
bill.
The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 761 at
this time, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or
similar legislation. In addition, should a conference on the
bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the
Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference
committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter
and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee
on Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional
[[Page 13815]]
Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our
understanding.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Doc Hasting,
Chairman.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support efforts to enhance
our domestic security by reducing our reliance on foreign sources of
strategic and critical minerals, but aside from its short title, the
pending legislation has nothing to do with that goal.
In fact, this legislation provides relief to any and all types of
minerals on public lands--minerals such as gold, silver and copper
produced under the Mining Law of 1872.
These are minerals that are mined for free, with no royalty charged
in return for their removal from lands owned by all Americans.
Yet, the pending legislation would provide multi-national
conglomerates with even more relief in their pursuit of mining free
gold from federal lands.
It is not limited in scope to, for instance, rare earth minerals used
in fuel cells and solar panels among other applications. Rare earths
are certainly strategic and critical.
Instead, the bill provides relief to any ``mineral exploration or
mine permit'' with plans of operations issued by the BLM under its 3809
regulation and the Forest Service under it counterpart regulations.
Read the bill. Look up those regulations.
The BLM 3809 regulations are clear, they apply to ``all operations
authorized by the mining laws on public lands where the mineral
interest is reserved to the United States.''
The Forest Service regulations referenced in the bill state they
apply to ``the surface of National Forest System lands in connections
with operations authorized by the United States mining laws . . .''
So I say to my colleagues, understand what you will be voting on.
Understand that this bill provides additional relief to mostly foreign
owned companies who are extracting gold, silver and other hardrock
minerals from our lands, our public lands, without paying a royalty in
return.
Mine coal on federal lands, you pay a royalty. Drill for oil and
natural gas on public lands, you pay a royalty. But not gold, not
silver, and not copper.
I oppose this legislation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called
``National Strategic and Critical Minerals Protection Act,'' a bill
that has very little to do with development of rare earth elements or
minerals that are vulnerable to supply disruption.
The bill before us today is so broadly drafted that it would reduce
or eliminate environmental review for almost all type of mines on
public land, including common materials like sand, clay, and gravel. It
needlessly limits judicial review of mining activities. And it
arbitrarily prioritizes mining over every other use of public lands,
including hunting, fishing, grazing, and conservation.
If the majority would like to encourage production of truly strategic
and critical minerals on public lands, we should work together on a
targeted solution that develops our natural resources while protecting
our environment. Today's bill is not that solution. I urge a no vote.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill,
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 761
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 ``National Strategic and
Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The industrialization of China and India has driven
demand for nonfuel mineral commodities, sparking a period of
resource nationalism exemplified by China's reduction in
exports of rare-earth elements necessary for
telecommunications, military technologies, healthcare
technologies, and conventional and renewable energy
technologies.
(2) The availability of minerals and mineral materials are
essential for economic growth, national security,
technological innovation, and the manufacturing and
agricultural supply chain.
(3) The exploration, production, processing, use, and
recycling of minerals contribute significantly to the
economic well-being, security and general welfare of the
Nation.
(4) The United States has vast mineral resources, but is
becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of these
mineral materials, as demonstrated by the following:
(A) Twenty-five years ago the United States was dependent
on foreign sources for 30 nonfuel mineral materials, 6 of
which the United States imported 100 percent of the Nation's
requirements, and for another 16 commodities the United
States imported more than 60 percent of the Nation's needs.
(B) By 2011 the United States import dependence for nonfuel
mineral materials had more than doubled from 30 to 67
commodities, 19 of which the United States imported 100
percent of the Nation's requirements, and for another 24
commodities, imported more than 50 percent of the Nation's
needs.
(C) The United States share of worldwide mineral
exploration dollars was 8 percent in 2011, down from 19
percent in the early 1990s.
(D) In the 2012 Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment,
out of 25 major mining countries, the United States ranked
last with Papua New Guinea in permitting delays, and towards
the bottom regarding government take and social issues
affecting mining.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Strategic and critical minerals.--The term ``strategic
and critical minerals'' means minerals that are necessary--
(A) for national defense and national security
requirements;
(B) for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including
pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and
transmission, and renewable energy production;
(C) to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture,
housing, telecommunications, healthcare, and transportation
infrastructure; or
(D) for the Nation's economic security and balance of
trade.
(2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means any agency,
department, or other unit of Federal, State, local, or tribal
government, or Alaska Native Corporation.
(3) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term ``mineral
exploration or mine permit'' includes plans of operation
issued by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 3809 and 36 C.F.R. 228A or the
authorities listed in 43 C.F.R. 3503.13, respectively.
TITLE I--DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC SOURCES OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL
MINERALS
SEC. 101. IMPROVING DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL
MINERALS.
Domestic mines that will provide strategic and critical
minerals shall be considered an ``infrastructure project'' as
described in Presidential Order ``Improving Performance of
Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects''
dated March 22, 2012.
SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD AGENCY.
(a) In General.--The lead agency with responsibility for
issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit shall appoint a
project lead who shall coordinate and consult with
cooperating agencies and any other agency involved in the
permitting process, project proponents and contractors to
ensure that agencies minimize delays, set and adhere to
timelines and schedules for completion of the permitting
process, set clear permitting goals and track progress
against those goals.
(b) Determination Under NEPA.--To the extent that the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applies to any
mineral exploration or mine permit, the lead agency with
responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine
permit shall determine that the action to approve the
exploration or mine permit does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment within the meaning of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if the procedural and
substantive safeguards of the permitting process alone, any
applicable State permitting process alone, or a combination
of the two processes together provide an adequate mechanism
to ensure that environmental factors are taken into account.
(c) Coordination on Permitting Process.--The lead agency
with responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine
permit shall enhance government coordination for the
permitting process by avoiding duplicative reviews,
minimizing paperwork and engaging other agencies and
stakeholders early in the process. The lead agency shall
consider the following best practices:
(1) Deferring to and relying upon baseline data, analyses
and reviews performed by State agencies with jurisdiction
over the proposed project.
(2) Conducting any consultations or reviews concurrently
rather than sequentially to the extent practicable and when
such concurrent review will expedite rather than delay a
decision.
(d) Schedule for Permitting Process.--At the request of a
project proponent, the lead agency, cooperating agencies and
any other agencies involved with the mineral exploration or
mine permitting process shall enter into an agreement with
the project proponent that sets time limits for each part of
the permitting process including the following:
(1) The decision on whether to prepare a document required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(2) A determination of the scope of any document required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(3) The scope of and schedule for the baseline studies
required to prepare a document required
[[Page 13816]]
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(4) Preparation of any draft document required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(5) Preparation of a final document required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(6) Consultations required under applicable laws.
(7) Submission and review of any comments required under
applicable law.
(8) Publication of any public notices required under
applicable law.
(9) A final or any interim decisions.
(e) Time Limit for Permitting Process.--In no case should
the total review process described in subsection (d) exceed
30 months unless agreed to by the signatories of the
agreement.
(f) Limitation on Addressing Public Comments.--The lead
agency is not required to address agency or public comments
that were not submitted during any public comment periods or
consultation periods provided during the permitting process
or as otherwise required by law.
(g) Financial Assurance.--The lead agency will determine
the amount of financial assurance for reclamation of a
mineral exploration or mining site, which must cover the
estimated cost if the lead agency were to contract with a
third party to reclaim the operations according to the
reclamation plan, including construction and maintenance
costs for any treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal,
State or tribal environmental standards.
(h) Application to Existing Permit Applications.--This
section shall apply with respect to a mineral exploration or
mine permit for which an application was submitted before the
date of the enactment of this Act if the applicant for the
permit submits a written request to the lead agency for the
permit. The lead agency shall begin implementing this section
with respect to such application within 30 days after
receiving such written request.
(i) Strategic and Critical Minerals Within National
Forests.--With respect to strategic and critical minerals
within a federally administered unit of the National Forest
System, the lead agency shall--
(1) exempt all areas of identified mineral resources in
Land Use Designations, other than Non-Development Land Use
Designations, in existence as of the date of the enactment of
this Act from the procedures detailed at and all rules
promulgated under part 294 of title 36, Code for Federal
Regulations;
(2) apply such exemption to all additional routes and areas
that the lead agency finds necessary to facilitate the
construction, operation, maintenance, and restoration of the
areas of identified mineral resources described in paragraph
(1); and
(3) continue to apply such exemptions after approval of the
Minerals Plan of Operations for the unit of the National
Forest System.
SEC. 103. CONSERVATION OF THE RESOURCE.
In evaluating and issuing any mineral exploration or mine
permit, the priority of the lead agency shall be to maximize
the development of the mineral resource, while mitigating
environmental impacts, so that more of the mineral resource
can be brought to the market place.
SEC. 104. FEDERAL REGISTER PROCESS FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION
AND MINING PROJECTS.
(a) Preparation of Federal Notices for Mineral Exploration
and Mine Development Projects.--The preparation of Federal
Register notices required by law associated with the issuance
of a mineral exploration or mine permit shall be delegated to
the organization level within the agency responsible for
issuing the mineral exploration or mine permit. All Federal
Register notices regarding official document availability,
announcements of meetings, or notices of intent to undertake
an action shall be originated and transmitted to the Federal
Register from the office where documents are held, meetings
are held, or the activity is initiated.
(b) Departmental Review of Federal Register Notices for
Mineral Exploration and Mining Projects.--Absent any
extraordinary circumstance or except as otherwise required by
any Act of Congress, each Federal Register notice described
in subsection (a) shall undergo any required reviews within
the Department of the Interior or the Department of
Agriculture and be published in its final form in the Federal
Register no later than 30 days after its initial preparation.
TITLE II--JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS RELATING TO EXPLORATION AND
MINE PERMITS
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE.
In this title the term ``covered civil action'' means a
civil action against the Federal Government containing a
claim under section 702 of title 5, United States Code,
regarding agency action affecting a mineral exploration or
mine permit.
SEC. 202. TIMELY FILINGS.
A covered civil action is barred unless filed no later than
the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the
final Federal agency action to which it relates.
SEC. 203. RIGHT TO INTERVENE.
The holder of any mineral exploration or mine permit may
intervene as of right in any covered civil action by a person
affecting rights or obligations of the permit holder under
the permit.
SEC. 204. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION.
The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered
civil action as expeditiously as possible.
SEC. 205. LIMITATION ON PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.
In a covered civil action, the court shall not grant or
approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that
such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than
necessary to correct the violation of a legal requirement,
and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct that
violation.
SEC. 206. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES.
Sections 504 of title 5, United States Code, and 2412 of
title 28, United States Code (together commonly called the
Equal Access to Justice Act) do not apply to a covered civil
action, nor shall any party in such a covered civil action
receive payment from the Federal Government for their
attorneys' fees, expenses, and other court costs.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 113-
214. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, strike lines 3 through 16 and insert the following:
(1) Strategic and critical minerals.--The term ``strategic
and critical minerals''--
(A) means--
(i) minerals and mineral groups identified as critical by
the National Research Council in the report entitled
``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy'', dated
2008; and
(ii) additional minerals identified by the Secretary of the
Interior based on the National Research Council criteria in
such report; and
(B) shall not include sand, gravel, or clay.
Page 5, strike lines 21 through 26 and insert the
following:
(3) Mineral exploration or mine permit.--The term ``mineral
exploration or mine permit''--
(A) means a mineral exploration or mine permit for
strategic and critical minerals; and
(B) includes any plan of operation for strategic and
critical minerals that is issued by the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I was puzzled when I read the bill title,
the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, and then
went on to read the bill text. Surely there must have been a mistake
when drafting this bill. Strategic and critical minerals were certainly
not meant to include sand, gravel, and clay.
But right now, section 3 of this bill is written so broadly that it
would include very common nonstrategic and noncritical minerals--even
going so far, as I mentioned, to encompass materials such as sand,
gravel, and clay.
The Interior Department recently testified before my colleagues on
the Natural Resources Committee and confirmed that this is, in fact,
exactly the case. The bill that we are now considering is written
expansively beyond critical minerals.
The Interior Department testified:
This legislation would remove many of the environmental
safeguards for almost all kinds of hardrock mines on public
lands, bypassing evaluation of potential impacts under NEPA,
and limit public involvement in agency decisionmaking.
That's why I introduce an amendment that would simply narrow the
bill's definition of purported strategic and critical minerals to
actual strategic and critical minerals, as defined by the National
Research Council.
Why is my amendment critical? It is because instead of ostensibly
fast-tracking only strategic and critical minerals, which this bill I
think does poorly, this legislation appears to be a guise for mining
interests to loosen public review, judicial review, and environmental
protections not just for
[[Page 13817]]
strategic and critical minerals, but for all hardrock mining.
We could have a debate about how to ensure America's supply of
strategic and critical minerals, but first we have to get the
definition right.
I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment really picks up on what my arguments
were at the end of the general debate because the effect of this
amendment would be to pick winners and losers by narrowly defining a
use. And as I stated in my closing remarks, we have four categories
that I think are very broad and change over a period of time.
So what this amendment does is try to restrict what may be decided as
a critical mineral. Of course, that will change over time. If this
amendment is adopted--and I, obviously, urge rejection of this
amendment--but if it were to be adopted, I can make a prediction that I
know would come back, and that is we'll be back here in the future
saying there's another set of critical minerals that we need to define.
And we keep doing that over and over and over. Isn't it much better to
define the categories and then apply those minerals to those
categories? Because they will change.
I find it kind of interesting, too, Mr. Chairman, because I closed my
general debate remarks by talking about sand and gravel. My good friend
from southern California, I guess, alluded to the fact that sand and
gravel don't fit into that category. I'm not going to ask him to answer
me, but I'll just ask the question rhetorically, I wonder if he felt
that way after the earthquake collapsed freeways in southern
California. Would he have liked to wait maybe 4 years for the
permitting process to get sand and gravel in order to build those
freeways that are so important to southern California?
I asked that question rhetorically, of course, Mr. Chairman.
{time} 1445
But I just want to say that this amendment would do exactly opposite
of what the intent of this bill is about, and that is that it picks
winners and losers. I urge its rejection, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I welcome those comments, but let's be real clear what
I'm talking about. I am talking about eliminating a giveaway of almost
all hard rock mining, to really defining what is strategic and critical
as defined by the robust methodology in the National Research Council's
report.
Now, what do I mean by a robust methodology? It says if we look at
all the mining that we have, if we look at what we have to define as
strategic, we have to look along two dimensions in a scientific way. We
have to know: What is the impact of this mineral or this mining if
there was a supply restriction? What would be the impact if there was a
supply restriction? Would it impact defense? Would it impact national
security? If it does have an impact, then it has a high rating on that.
Also, what about the supply risk? We need to measure, if we do not
develop this mine at this place, are there other places that we can?
If, in fact, a mineral has high supply risk, high impact, not only are
those minerals defined now, but the Secretary of the Interior, using
this methodology, will define. This clearly defines what is needed in
terms of strategic and critical, and not just everything.
I remind you that right now we are loosening in the bill the
environmental protections, public participation, judicial review for
everything. We're doing it, as was pointed out, for national defense,
he said, anything that meets national security requirements, for energy
infrastructure, pipelines, refining capacity, power generation,
domestic manufacturing--which includes everything, whether it's
important or not--health care, telecommunications, transportation. What
we're doing is we're gutting protections for everything, not those that
are just needed.
I present a methodology which will allow a real clear definition, not
just of what's in the bill now, but include a methodology that the
Secretary of the Interior can include if the material is really needed
to be mined.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. China is not trying to lock up the world's sand and gravel.
We do have to worry about the supply of yttrium and gadolinium and
these other things that are necessary for jet engines and magnets and
hard drives in laptops and so forth.
Let me just address the point that has to do with this definition
that my friend from Washington talks about, winners and losers. Yes,
this bill has winners and losers. The winners would be the mining
companies. The losers would be local communities, the environment,
water quality, wildlife, and the American taxpayers.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close if the gentleman
is prepared to close.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Again, I introduced this amendment that would narrow
the bill's definition to not what is purported to be strategic but
actually what is strategic, that if we're going to give benefits, they
must be strategic, and my amendment provides for an actual way of
measuring that.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have remaining, Mr.
Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I think the gentleman from New Jersey did say this picks winners and
losers--at least he didn't deny it--and then he tried to turn it around
and say that we pick winners and losers. I will acknowledge that from
this standpoint: the winners will be those States that have huge, huge
swaths of Federal land. The winners will be the communities in those
States that have large swaths of Federal land that want to create jobs,
because jobs are created because of the natural resources in those
States. So from that sense, yes, we are picking winners and losers,
and, frankly, I am proud of that.
But I have to say this, Mr. Chairman. In listening to my friend's
argument on this, keep in mind what this bill does. This bill tries to
provide certainty for those that would want to get into the mining
business by saying that you have to have a decision made in 30 months.
Now, the decision doesn't have to be affirmative, but there has to be a
decision.
What this gentleman is saying, what the effect of this amendment is,
as I hear his argument, is there is one more layer we have to go
through before it is strategic, and that's the Secretary of the
Interior. Does that not suggest that that might be a political problem,
then, rather than a problem based on what is needed? No. The four broad
categories is a much, much better way to do it.
I think the gentleman's amendment is misplaced. I urge its rejection,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. 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 California will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Veasey
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page 13818]]
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, after line 26, insert the following:
SEC. 4. PUBLICATION OF CRITICAL MINERALS.
The Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal
Register--
(1) by not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a list of the minerals that are
strategic and critical minerals for purposes of this Act; and
(2) every 5 years thereafter, an updated list of such
minerals.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Veasey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to offer this amendment because, Mr. Chairman, mineral
exploration and mining have a deep history in our country. We have vast
resources in America that we have been able to use for our own
security, innovation, and economic benefit. This is why we must
continue to explore these resources in a smart, environmentally
sensitive manner.
It is dangerous for America to depend on countries like China for
rare-earth elements and rare metals. These elements are necessary for
telecommunications, military technologies, health care technologies, as
well as conventional and renewable energy technologies. But the
underlying bill goes far beyond these specific minerals in defining
what constitutes ``strategic and critical.''
While the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act
gives four characteristics for what should be a strategic and critical
mineral, it leaves the exact minerals open to interpretation. The
majority has stated that their purpose in leaving the definition so
broad is to allow for flexibility over time. This bill would cover
virtually all hard rock mining on Federal lands.
I think most Americans will agree that sand and gravel are important
to our economy, but how many would be willing to go on Federal lands,
places such as the Grand Canyon, in order to mine these two elements?
That is why I have proposed my amendment to H.R. 761. My amendment
would give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to specifically
list what are strategic and critical minerals and make this information
available to the public. After a given number of years looking at the
global and national landscape for mineral exploration, the Secretary
would have the authority to change this list as factors dictate. This
allows for flexibility in responding to global mineral markets while
protecting our public resources.
Mr. Chairman, I know both Democrats and Republicans strongly support
the development of rare-earth elements and other critical minerals
necessary for our national security and national competitiveness, but
we must refrain from allowing the mining industry to define what is
critical solely in accordance with their economic needs. That is why I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to define what
minerals are of national public interest and to protect the prestige of
our public lands.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Clearly, with the last amendment and this amendment, my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle are really disturbed about what strategic
is. I guess I can understand that. I obviously disagree with that.
This is very similar to the last amendment, except it specifically
gives the Secretary of the Interior that power to decide what is
critical or not.
Now, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think from a policy standpoint
we should give that much power to anybody to say what is critical and
not as far as minerals concerned that support our economy. Let me just
give you a case in point of how we run into problems with this.
Less than 10 years ago, people were concerned about platinum group
metals used in computers and electronics and the pending shortfall of
copper. So because we hadn't defined these broad categories--see, if we
had this bill in place 10 years ago, this category would have taken
care of itself because the market would have suggested we need new
minerals in order to support a certain sector of the economy. But no,
when you pick winners and losers, then you have to go through the whole
process and the hand-wringing and the high prices and all of those
things that slow down the economy.
So, once again, in deference to my good friend that offered this
amendment, in a bill that is trying to add certainty to the regulatory
process, this adds another layer of uncertainty by giving it to the
Secretary of the Interior. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that
is good policy.
This goes along again with the last amendment. By voice vote, that
was rejected. This should be rejected in a like manner. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from
Washington, in this bill, who would decide what is a strategic and
critical mineral?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be more than happy to tell you.
And I made this. If you look on page five, under Definitions: Strategic
and Critical Minerals. The term ``strategic and critical minerals''
means minerals that are necessary--and there's four categories--for
national defense and national security requirements. I can't predict in
25 years which mineral will support our weapons, for example, but that
is a category in which that would be a critical mineral.
B, for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines,
refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and
renewable energy production. Now, I have no idea what, in the future,
critical minerals we will need to support those activities, but I know
before wind and solar took hold, nobody was worrying about those
minerals. But this category, if you had it by category, you would not
have to go through the hand-wringing to find out where that source is.
C, to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing,
telecommunications, health care, and transportation infrastructure.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, I want to ask
the gentleman: Who would decide what is strategic and a critical
mineral? I mean, I listened to the gentleman in his explanation, and I
never heard exactly who would decide in his explanation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VEASEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Well, just let me finish then because
there's only one more, and I do want to say that.
For the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. So once that
category is defined and somebody wants to refine some element--I don't
know, pick a name; there are all these new names; I can't pronounce
them anyway--and they find out that there's a new industry that wants a
certain element, if an entrepreneur wants to mine for that, they make
the permit and it's decided by the Federal agency. Very simple. And if
it fits this category, he gets the permit. That's the beauty of it.
Mr. VEASEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the answer to that
would be the Secretary of the Interior.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
I just want to say that we have somewhat exhausted this; but the
difference between this gentleman's amendment and the broad categories
I say is that he--he--or I should say the Secretary of the Interior--
picks that. The Secretary picks it.
[[Page 13819]]
Under the underlying bill, yes, the Secretary picks it; but if it
meets these broad categories, then, of course, he has to pick that
mineral. That makes perfectly good sense because it responds to the
marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Veasey).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VEASEY. 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 Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Connolly
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. CONNOLLY. 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:
Beginning at page 6, strike line 22 and all that follows
through page 7, line 9, and insert the following:
(b) Determination Under NEPA.--The lead agency with
responsibility for issuing a mineral exploration or mine
permit shall determine any such action would constitute a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment within the meaning of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).
Beginning at page 7, strike line 24 and all that follows
through page 9, line 7.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Here we go again. Another week, another attempt by the House majority
to gut critical environmental protections that we know save lives and
communities. Right before we left for the August recess, a break I
urged the Republican leadership to forego, the House passed a reckless
offshore oil drilling bill that risks our shoreline communities along
the Atlantic, Pacific, and gulf coasts. And for what? To continue our
dependence on fossil fuels.
H.R. 761 is not unknown to Congress. In fact, we had passed a rule
and were set to consider it only a few weeks ago before the House
majority abruptly pulled it from the floor and rammed through a
partisan farm bill instead--a bill that protected farm subsidies, crop
insurance guarantees, and handouts for Big Agribusiness, including some
Members of this very body, at the expense of the neediest among us,
including more than 210,000 children.
Yet here we are today. Once again, the House majority is attempting
to not only remove environmental safeguards provided under the National
Environmental Policy Act, but to set arbitrary deadlines for its
approval process.
I am pleased to once again offer this commonsense amendment that will
preserve NEPA protections and ensure that a thorough safety review is
conducted.
In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, a
bipartisan act with strong Republican support, including President
Richard Nixon, who understood then that environmental impacts on large
projects must be explored, understood, and eventually mitigated.
Under NEPA, any infrastructure project that could have a significant
impact is now subject to an environmental impact statement, which
outlines the purpose of the project, possible alternatives, the
affected environment, and the consequences of completing the project.
The findings are then considered prior to final project approval.
Projects with less environmental impact may be subjected to a less
detailed environmental assessment instead. Some projects, like the
construction of a foot trail, may be deemed to have no significant
environmental impact and can receive a categorical exclusion.
Make no mistake, the bill before us today has no foot path. We are
talking about major mining projects that could devastate entire
communities. There are many aspects of mineral exploration policy for
which statutory changes should be considered, such as closing Clean Air
Act and Clean Water Act loopholes. Unfortunately, that's not what we're
doing here.
As I've noted before, considering that all other major projects, even
transit projects with clear environmental benefits, must still go
through an environmental impact statement, it is absurd to turn around
and exclude from such analysis activities or put an arbitrary time
limit on it that has such potential to actually destroy ecosystems and
regional economies.
My commonsense amendment, Mr. Chairman, would simply restore that
process so that there can be peace and comfort of mind to affected
communities, and I urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, if you like the current 7- to 10-year
timeframe to do mining permits in this country, then you will love this
amendment; but this bill is all about making it possible to do mining
in this country and use our natural resources in a reasonable,
commonsense way.
Other countries, like Australia and Canada, have a 2-year time cycle
from beginning to end to get your application and permit done so you
can begin mining. In this country, it's 7 to 10 years. That's why we
have declining activity of the well-paying jobs that mining produces,
the resources that are available from mining so we don't have to rely
on countries like China.
This amendment would eviscerate, this amendment would gut, what this
bill is trying to do. It's unnecessary because NEPA already applies.
NEPA remains in force. This just allows needless and endless
bureaucratic delays by allowing NEPA to do an environmental impact
statement at almost every step in the whole process.
It is important to have a certainty of when the process is over so
you know whether or not you can invest in a long-term project like
this. Seven to 10 years is beyond any of our economic cycles. It is not
feasible from a business standpoint to wait that long in a commodity
market like minerals and metals to make these investment decisions. You
have to have certainty, you have to have closure, you have to have a
time certain that you're done.
So the 30-month timeframe is critical. We respect and uphold NEPA. It
remains in effect, but we get rid of the ability to do it at every step
in the process.
This amendment would be a backward step and back to the current
status quo which makes it harder to have mining projects in this
country with the jobs that they create, with the benefit to our economy
that these minerals allow for.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge a strong ``no'' on this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time is left on
this side.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I certainly respect my friend and his point of view about the mining
industry. I wish it were true that the other side of the aisle respects
the NEPA process; but, frankly, we've had bill after bill and amendment
after amendment in excess of 100 that actually attack everything from
the Clean Water Act to the Clean Air Act that have resisted regulation
even when it comes to public health and particulate matter, for
example. They have assaulted the NEPA process every step of the way.
In this bill, there's a huge carve-out for one industry--the mining
industry. It is not true that the average is 7 to 10 years. It may be
true that some have had that. But it is also true that a NEPA process
protects communities. It answers questions. It answers the very
uncertainty my friend talked about.
[[Page 13820]]
But sometimes it answers that uncertainty in a way that the industry
and its supporters don't like.
I think our job here is not so much to protect wealthy advocates of a
particular industry who may also positively influence the financing of
campaigns. I think our first duty is to protect public health and
safety, those communities that have found themselves devastated because
proper environmental analysis, in fact, had not been done. We have seen
that all across America from Appalachia to southern Illinois to in the
West.
I, too, want to make sure we unlock strategic minerals and that the
United States has them available when it needs it. But I don't believe
that the tradeoff has to be at the expense of every community that
could potentially be the site of a mine.
Mr. Chairman, I actually strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
for this commonsense amendment to restore an environmental analysis
process that, in fact, has worked.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to remind my colleague from Virginia that this
administration has streamlined NEPA for several uses during its time in
office for renewable energy projects, for highways, for the so-called
``stimulus'' that we had in 2007. So this administration at times,
anyway, sees the need to balance the creation of jobs with protecting
the environment, but not allowing environmental regulations to be used
to endlessly delay projects.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I'm afraid, would endlessly delay the
production of the projects that we need to produce critical and
strategic minerals. For that reason I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and
friend from New Mexico, Representative Pearce.
Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would make a comment to my friend from Virginia that
we in the West are being protected from ourselves, we are being
protected from jobs. The devastation is in our jobs.
I have one county--I have 18 counties--one county is 7,000 square
miles. That is three times the size of Delaware. It is six times the
size of Rhode Island. It has a population of 3,725 people. The jobs
have gone away. There used to be 11 rare-earth mineral mines in the
southern district of New Mexico. Today there are none. All of those
jobs have gone to China.
This is just a commonsense bill that says we are going to go through
the process. We have economies that are being devastated, but it's not
an environmental devastation. It is from the environmentalist who will
sue to stop every single job in the West. We've lost our mining jobs;
we've lost our timber jobs. These are areas that are not sitting out
here making life unlivable and unhealthy; these are areas that are
looking for jobs.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment with respect to my
friend.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time
and say that if you think it's a good situation for the United States
to be lumped in with Papua, New Guinea, dead last among mining
countries in this world, as shown by a recent study, in that it takes 7
to 10 years to get mining projects off the ground, then you would like
this amendment. But if you don't, if you think we can protect the
environment at the same time as creating jobs and strike that balance,
which this bill does, then you will vote ``no'' on this amendment and
``yes'' on H.R. 761.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. 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 Virginia will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 9, line 14, before ``The lead agency'' insert the
following:
(1) In general.--
Page 9, line 21, before the period insert ``, the cost of
cleanup in the event of any release occurring at such site,
and the costs incurred by the United States to implement this
subsection''.
Page 9, after line 21, insert the following:
(2) Form.--Such financial assurance shall be in the form of
a surety bond, letter of credit, or other instrument that
would routinely be accepted in commerce.
(3) Amount based on type of operation.--The amount of such
financial assurance shall be based on the type of mining
operation to be conducted.
(4) Inspections.--The lead agency shall conduct annual
inspections and reviews of financial insurance required under
this subsection.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me read the amendment. It's very short:
The lead agency with responsibility for issuing a mineral
exploration or mine permit may not issue such permit until
the applicant for the permit has fully reimbursed the United
States, each State, and each Native American tribe for all
costs incurred by the United States and such State and such
tribe respectively for issuance of the permit. Such
reimbursement shall include costs of all Federal, State and
tribal reviews and approvals required for the permit,
contracting costs and salaries, including benefits for State
and Federal employees and the conduct of reviews by State, a
State that under authority delegated to the State under
Federal law.
{time} 1515
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today to H.R. 761 would
reimburse the costs of permitting in order that the National
Environmental Policy Act requirements be met. Those who complain about
the National Environmental Policy Act permitting--and it has been said
here repeatedly on the floor, and when I was managing the rule earlier
today, it was said--often cite timing as a concern. With budget cuts,
furloughs, and other competing work, it is not possible to meet all the
demands. The reimbursement of any and all costs will help to resolve
this issue and provide for meaningful public participation in the
decisionmaking process for the use of Federal lands.
Mr. Chairman, I would ultimately ask that my amendment be made in
order.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intention behind this
amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. I do want to
reassure him, though, that the bill and current law already satisfy
what he is after, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Let me read specifically from the language of the bill. This is on
page 9. I'm going to read a paragraph, and, hopefully, this will
alleviate your concerns:
(g) Financial Assurance. The lead agency will determine the
amount of financial assurance for reclamation of a mineral
exploration or mining site, which must cover the estimated
cost if the lead agency were to contract with a third party
to reclaim the operations according to the reclamation plan,
including construction and maintenance costs for any
treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal, State or
tribal environmental standards.
So, in case the company goes bankrupt--in the worst case scenario--it
[[Page 13821]]
has to post a bond, and I believe it's equal to 140 percent of what the
reclamation cost would be.
We already have comprehensive regulations in addition to the bill
language from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
Service. These regulations have been revised during both the Clinton
and Bush administrations so that, today, both BLM and Forest Service
regulations require that exploration and mining activities have the
resources necessary to ensure reclamation after it's over even if the
company goes bankrupt.
I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, but I believe it is
completely unnecessary. So, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge
a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I need to make a correction.
I had two amendments in the Rules Committee last night. The one that
I just read into the Record and that my friend and colleague just
responded to was the one that was not made in order, but I will be very
brief because the one that was made in order, amendment No. 4, which we
are addressing, requires financial assurance in the form of a surety
bond, a letter of credit, or other instrument that would routinely be
accepted in commerce.
In the interest of time, I would only offer, Mr. Chairman, that my
full statement on amendment No. 4 be placed in the Record. I am sure my
colleague has time to respond to amendment No. 4. If he does not, I
would be prepared to yield to him whatever time I have in order for him
to respond.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today to H.R. 761, would
reimburse the cost of permitting and order that the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements be met. Those who complain
about NEPA permitting, often cite timing as a concern. With budget
cuts, furloughs, and other competing work, it is not possible to meet
all demands.
Reimbursement of any and all costs will help to resolve this issue,
and provide for meaningful public participation in the decision-making
process for the use of Federal lands.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge the Committee to make my amendment in
order.
At the end of title I (page 12, after line 2) add the
following:
SEC. _01. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF MINERAL
EXPLORATION OR MINE PERMIT.
(a) Recovery of Costs.--
(1) In general.--The lead agency with responsibility for
issuing a mineral exploration or mine permit may not issue
such permit until the applicant for the permit has fully
reimbursed the United States, each State, and each Indian
tribe for all costs incurred by the United States, such
State, and such tribe, respectively, for issuance of the
permit.
(2) Costs included.--Such reimbursement shall include--
(A) costs of all Federal, State, and tribal reviews and
approvals required for the permit; and
(B) contracting costs and salaries (including benefits) for
State and Federal employees.
(b) Conduct of Reviews by States.--A State that, under
authority delegated to the State under Federal law, performs
any function required for the issuance of a mineral
exploration or mine permit shall perform such function in
accordance with all requirements that would apply under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) to performance of such function by a Federal agency.
(c) Extension of Time Limits.--Any period of time
established by Federal law for the issuance of a mineral
exploration or mine permit shall be extended by the period of
any delay in such issuance that is attributable to a failure
of the permit applicant to timely complete any action
required for such issuance, including any failure to timely
submit any request or payment.
Mr. LAMBORN. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have
remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, let me just summarize by saying that we
already have it in current law and that it's already addressed in this
bill that there must be adequate financial assurances given, including
the posting of bonds to ensure that the reclamation can take place by
contract for third parties if the company goes bankrupt or, for
whatever reason, can't follow through. All of our western public land
States also have comprehensive regulatory and bonding programs covering
hard rock mining. That's in addition to the Federal laws and
regulations. In many of these States, the Federal and State agencies
work together to jointly manage the reclamation and bonding projects.
As of June of 2013, BLM, in conjunction with its State partners,
currently holds more than $2.2 billion in financial assurances to
reclaim potential mining sites around the U.S. So you can see this is
an active and well-funded program that is in place. Under regulation,
these holdings are reviewed and adjusted annually to make sure that
costs won't spiral out of control if we have inflation or unforeseen
contingencies. In some instances, mining companies are required to
establish trust funds and to build them over the course of the mine
life to ensure adequate funding for any long-term treatment facilities
that might be necessary to meet Federal, State, or tribal environmental
standards.
So I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there are already in place
appropriate and adequate protections and regulations and that the bill
respects that also. I respect the gentleman for his intentions on this
amendment, but I believe that it is unnecessary, and for that reason, I
would urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would just say to my colleague that there
are deficiencies and inadequacies of funding in the measures that you
cited, and they do not cover the cost of cleanup and accidents. That's
why we are addressing it.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask and urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on
this measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 Florida will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Pearce
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 113-214.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. SECRETARIAL ORDER NOT AFFECTED.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to affect any
aspect of Secretarial Order 3324, issued by the Secretary of
the Interior on December 3, 2012, with respect to potash and
oil and gas operators.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 347, the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment today to H.R. 761, the
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
My amendment is very simple. It only serves to clarify the scope of
the bill by stating that it does not impact the rules put in place by
Secretarial Order No. 3324, issued by the Secretary of the Interior
late last year. That order sets in place buffer zones between potash
mines and oil and gas drilling, among other requirements. The Permian
Basin's potash reserves are some of the purist in the world, and our
oil and gas drilling plays a key role in the current energy boom that
the country is experiencing.
There is a very long history between potash and drilling operators in
the region, and the secretarial order helped to clarify some of those
issues. I've spent the better part of my career in Congress working to
facilitate an agreement between these two industries to ensure both are
able to thrive simultaneously. While some have criticisms of the
secretarial order, it is an important step in the process of assuring
the safe extraction of mineral resources.
[[Page 13822]]
My amendment simply clarifies that the text of the bill cannot be
used by the Bureau of Land Management to show favoritism for either
potash or oil and gas leases within the area laid out in the
secretarial order. It does not affect the underlying bill, and it does
not cost the American taxpayers a single dime. It brings economic
stability to the Permian Basin and ensures that these two mineral
resources can be safely and properly developed side by side.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time that is allotted to
the opposition to this amendment, although I do not intend to oppose
it.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak
on this amendment because it makes a point very well that I was making
earlier today.
We have criticized this bill because, while it is being sold as
necessary for critical and strategic minerals, the definition is so
broad that it would cover virtually all mining on public lands. Mr.
Pearce shares our concern. The gentleman is worried that, if H.R. 761
is enacted, the definition is broad enough that it would cover even
potash.
Now, potash is important as fertilizer for crops and for other
purposes, but let's be clear--it is not used very much in high-tech
manufacturing; it is not used in manufacturing items that are important
for our national defense; and it is not scarce. It is one of a long
list of minerals that produces money for miners, but it should not be
covered under this very broad definition in the underlying bill.
I agree with Mr. Pearce that potash could be covered under this
legislation, and we agree that elevating mining for potash on public
lands under this bill could impact other uses of those lands, including
the development of oil and gas, so I am happy to support this amendment
to clarify this overly broad definition.
I would like to note that we had an amendment a few moments ago,
offered by our colleague Mr. Lowenthal, which would fix the definition
in this bill by limiting the bill to truly strategic and critical
minerals determined to be, as the gentleman Mr. Lowenthal described, a
really thorough and, let's say, academic definition of those minerals.
It would address not only Mr. Pearce's concerns, but it would solve one
of the overall problems of this bill.
I am happy to support the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for
making our case for us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to differ with the gentleman
from New Jersey, my friend.
He said that potash is not very high-tech. When you use a scoop
shovel to follow the cows around and use the byproduct from the cattle
to fertilize with, potash is extremely high-tech.
So, with that one exception, I yield 30 seconds to the chairman of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, nothing in this bill impacts the important multiple use
mission of our Nation's public lands. One of the great stories of
America is that our Nation recognizes the importance of balancing our
land use for many different needs, including mineral and oil and gas
development, renewable energy projects, grazing, timber harvests,
hunting, fishing, recreation, and other important activities that bring
economic vitality to our public lands.
This legislation doesn't change that. It simply addresses the long
bureaucratic and burdensome permitting timelines required for mineral
exploration and mine development by building on executive orders
requiring coordination by regulatory agencies to process permits for
infrastructure projects in a timely manner and without compromising
environmental safeguards.
Mr. HOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have no other comments, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1530
Mr. LAMBORN. 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.
LaMalfa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fortenberry, 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. 761) to
require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture
to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and
mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to United States
economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A further message in writing from the President of the United States
was communicated to the House by Mr. Brian Pate, one of his
secretaries.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess.
{time} 1631
____________________
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Ohio) at 4 o'clock and 31 minutes
p.m.
____________________
NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2013
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 347 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. 761.
Will the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) kindly take the chair.
{time} 1631
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. 761) to require the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources
of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical
importance to United States economic and national security and
manufacturing competitiveness.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 113-214 offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) had been disposed of.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments printed in House Report 113-214 on which further
proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Lowenthal of California.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Veasey of Texas.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lowenthal) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page 13823]]
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 241, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 466]
AYES--187
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--241
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Polis
Rush
{time} 1659
Messrs. NEUGEBAUER, POE of Texas, ROKITA, GRIFFIN of Arkansas,
BILIRAKIS, BARR, Mrs. BACHMANN, and Mr. McINTYRE changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. TIERNEY, GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr.
PERLMUTTER, and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Veasey
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Veasey) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 237, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 467]
AYES--189
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--237
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
[[Page 13824]]
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waters
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Herrera Beutler
Johnson (GA)
Lamborn
McCarthy (NY)
Polis
Rush
{time} 1706
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Connolly
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly) 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 240, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 468]
AYES--186
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--240
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Bachus
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Rush
{time} 1712
Ms. ESHOO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were
[[Page 13825]]
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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 235, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 469]
AYES--191
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--235
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Hahn
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Meng
Polis
Rush
{time} 1717
Mr. COSTA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Collins of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holding, 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. 761)
to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the
minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to
United States economic and national security and manufacturing
competitiveness, and, pursuant to House Resolution 347, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CICILLINE. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cicilline moves to recommit the bill H.R. 761 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of title I (page 12, after line 2), add the
following new sections:
SEC. 105. PROHIBITIONS REGARDING CHINA AND IRAN.
(a) Prohibition on Export.--Each Federal mineral
exploration or mine permit issued pursuant to this Act shall
include provisions that prohibit export to China or Iran of
strategic and critical minerals produced under the permit.
(b) Prohibition on Issuance of Permits.--No Federal mineral
exploration or mine permit may be issued pursuant to this Act
to any company in which China or Iran has an ownership
interest.
(c) Presidential Waiver of Prohibitions With Respect to
China.--The President may waive the prohibitions under
subsections (a) and (b) with respect to China upon
certification that the Government of China has removed its
export restraints on strategic and critical minerals.
SEC. 106. PROHIBITION ON ISSUANCE OF PERMITS TO PERSONS,
CORPORATIONS, AND SUBSIDIARIES CONVICTED OF
VIOLATING SANCTIONS LAWS.
No Federal mineral exploration or mine permit shall be
issued pursuant to this Act to a person, corporation,
partnership, trust,
[[Page 13826]]
or other form of business organization that has been
convicted of violating the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (50
U.S.C. 1701 note), the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8501 et
seq.), the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act
of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), or the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
Mr. AMODEI (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that we dispense with the reading of the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Nevada?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Much of the debate today has properly focused on the importance of
rare-earth elements to our national security and our economic
competitiveness.
Globally, the demand for mineral materials continues to grow. These
resources are critical for a wide range of products that help ensure
the long-term viability of our manufacturing sector, public health, and
our defense capabilities.
New technologies and emerging American industries rely on rare
minerals. For example, a diverse set of less abundant heavy rare-earth
elements are essential to the production of cell phone and laptop
screens. Hybrid engines and advanced vehicle technologies similarly
rely on these rare minerals. In addition, patients and health care
professionals regularly use medical devices and equipment that require
rare-earth elements during production.
Finally, our defense capabilities for manufacturers of jet fighter
engines to satellite and antimissile systems rely on a consistent
supply of rare-earth minerals.
This is an important subject for many business leaders and
manufacturers in my home State of Rhode Island and all across our
country. In order to plan for the future and to hire additional
workers, businesses need to be certain that the supply chain for
essential minerals remains consistent and predictable.
So it should be clear that we all understand the strategic and
economic importance of these minerals. Some of us disagree on how we
should manage the extraction of these elements.
I believe that thoughtful management of these natural resources,
instead of undermining important environmental protections, would
actually help ensure a supply chain that is sustainable in the long
term.
But this amendment addresses a different concern. Today, China has a
near-monopoly in the global rare-earth element production market.
According to recent estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey, China
possesses 97.3 percent of the world's mine production and 55 percent of
the world's rare-earth elements reserves.
At the same time, in an attempt to manipulate the world market for
minerals and raise prices, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce has
established strict export quotas and tariffs. Obviously, this has a
real impact on the mineral supply chain for American manufacturers and
businesses.
China is not acting alone. Iran is also one of the largest mineral-
producing countries in the world. The director of the Persian Gulf
Mining and Metal Industries Special Zone in southern Iran has said that
China is their largest commercial partner. Recently, according to
international reports, senior Chinese officials have engaged with Iran
on various geological research projects as they look to expand this
relationship. In other words, China is already stockpiling various
minerals upon which American manufacturers and our defense capabilities
rely, and they may even be working with Iran to gain a larger market
share. This is a real threat to our national security; but it's also a
real concern for local businesses and manufacturers, technology
companies, and defense contractors who rely on rare-earth elements
every day.
Despite these concerns, the underlying bill fails to protect these
strategic and critical minerals from exposure to foreign influence or
control. That's why I rise today offering an amendment to ensure that
minerals produced under this act do not become available to China,
Iran, or any entity that has violated existing sanctions laws.
Specifically, the amendment would ensure mine permits issued pursuant
to this act include provisions prohibiting the export of the strategic
and critical materials produced under the permit to China or Iran.
The amendment also prohibits issuance of permits to any company in
which China or Iran has an ownership interest.
Finally, the amendment prohibits issuance of permits to any entity
that has been convicted of violating the Iran Sanctions Act and related
laws.
In the end, the amendment accomplishes three important goals. First,
it guarantees that our own domestic resources aren't used to promote or
increase Iranian or Chinese business interests at the expense of the
American taxpayer. Second, it makes sure we continue pressuring Iran
with economic sanctions in a sector critical to their local economy.
This is a vital bipartisan national security interest. And, third, it
provides more certainty for domestic manufacturers by ensuring that
American minerals stay here and help make our domestic supply chain
more predictable.
I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment and to protect
our country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Rhode
Island for the eloquent description of what the underlying bill does. I
tend to agree with his description on how critical this legislation is.
I am surprised at the tone, though, when we already have multiple
rules, regulations, statutes on the books that talk about import and
export.
I am surprised at the tone when we talk about the danger of producing
these materials in this country when right now we're not producing many
of them, and we are entirely reliant upon those with whom we compete
globally and militarily to attain these.
I would suggest to you that while well-intentioned, that this matter
is, in fact, already taken care of under existing law; but let's not
forget the underlying purpose of the bill. It's about jobs.
You want to talk about the middle class? You want to talk about the
economy? You want to talk about the western half of this country where
over 40 percent of many of those States are owned by the Federal
Government, where people who are elected by nobody within the State are
making decisions about permitting? You want to talk about permitting
times and how long it takes to do that? By the way, did you hear that
if it isn't grown, it has to be mined?
The purpose of this bill is to put people to work and put us back in
control of supplying those minerals for the building industries, the
communications industries, the manufacturing industries, all of that.
By the way, not that anybody wants to trade with any of the folks
mentioned in here specifically and you have the whole executive branch
to take care of that, but there is that thing called ``balance of
trade,'' which is something we could use some help with.
Mr. Speaker, I urge your vote against the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1730
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page 13827]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for an electronic vote on the
question of passage.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 229, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 470]
AYES--197
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--229
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Brady (TX)
Herrera Beutler
Jeffries
McCarthy (NY)
Polis
Rush
{time} 1735
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 178, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 471]
AYES--246
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Horsford
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--178
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
[[Page 13828]]
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Blumenauer
Carney
Herrera Beutler
Jeffries
McCarthy (NY)
Meeks
Polis
Rush
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1742
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERMISSION FOR MEMBER TO BE CONSIDERED AS FIRST SPONSOR OF H.R. 1507
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I
may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 1507, a
bill originally introduced by Representative Markey of Massachusetts,
for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings
pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
____________________
ELECTING A MEMBER TO A CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I
offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 349
Resolved, That the following named Member be and is hereby
elected to the following standing committee of the House of
Representatives:
(1) Committee on energy and commerce.--Mr. Yarmuth.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1745
WATER FOR THE WORLD
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in developing countries, access to
clean water isn't as easy as walking over to the kitchen faucet.
Communities suffer and die from diseases they contract from bad
water. And in their search for life's basic need, they put themselves
in harm's way.
In Third World countries, women walk miles to wells to find clean
water; but some wells are controlled by criminals who brutally assault
these innocent women right in front of their own kids. And then they
must then buy the water.
We have the ability to help these countries that don't have access to
clean water. We can help them dig wells, for example. That's why
Congressman Earl Blumenauer and I have introduced the Water for the
World Act. This bill uses existing taxpayer money more effectively by
making water available and a priority in Third World countries.
I'd like to thank Congressman Blumenauer for his relentless efforts,
and the groups who advocate for Water for the World.
No one on Earth should be assaulted just to obtain clean water on a
daily basis.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
CUTS TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to point out the near-universal
condemnation that the majority's wrong-headed plan to cut $40 billion
from food stamps has received from advocates, researchers, and American
families.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has noted how 170,000
veterans could lose access to food aid because of this act.
The National Education Association said this plan will ``result in
more than 210,000 children losing access to nutritious meals, which
help children be more attentive in class.''
AARP condemns this bill saying ``hungry children, seniors and
families cannot and should not have to wait on the economic and
political sidelines for access to an effective nutrition safety net.''
Homeless organizations have said this act will ``worsen the lives of
up to 4 million Americans who are either homeless already or whose risk
of homelessness would become even more severe.''
The Catholic Bishops have said this bill will ``harm hungry children,
poor families, vulnerable citizens, seniors and workers who are
underemployed and unable to find employment.''
The list of opposition to tomorrow's bill goes on, even from
Republican leaders like Senator Bob Dole.
I urge all members of conscience in the majority to join with us
tomorrow to vote down this cruel legislation.
____________________
WE MUST REFORM ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS TO SAVE THEM
(Mrs. LUMMIS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office informed us
again yesterday what we already know about our job here in Congress,
which is that we must reform entitlement programs in order to save
them.
We must save them so we can save ourselves from this unsustainable
debt and deficit which faces us; and further, that if we are to do it
by raising taxes, it will erode the economic recovery that we're
already just beginning to have.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Senate Democrats to adopt the House Republican
budget which will balance in 10 years, which will address our
unsustainable debt and deficit, and put us on the road to recovery.
____________________
SEQUESTRATION
(Mr. BARBER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BARBER. Mr. Speaker, because of the proposed sequestration cuts,
the Air Force is considering the complete
[[Page 13829]]
retirement of entire fleets of aircraft, including the A-10 Warthog.
The A-10 is unsurpassed in its ability to provide close-air combat
support for our troops on the ground.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the A-10 performed one-third of the combat
sorties. One Army commander told me that whenever he heard the Warthogs
overhead, he knew that their day was going to get better.
The A-10 is a multi-role plane that assists in combat search-and-
rescue operations, escorting helicopters through the toughest combat
zones. Its wings and electronics package have been completely refitted
so that its mission can continue for at least another 15 years.
Sequestration is a disgrace. I never supported it, and I implore my
colleagues to work with me to end it. Our national security and the
protection of our servicemembers in combat areas must be paramount as
we fund the Department of Defense.
Mr. Speaker, we must stop the irresponsible sequestration cuts and
keep the A-10 flying.
____________________
BENGHAZI ATTACK INVESTIGATION
(Mr. PERRY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, Under Secretary Kennedy made this statement
at the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting today:
The Department has demonstrated an unprecedented degree of
cooperation and engagement with the Congress on these issues,
especially following the attack in Benghazi. To date, the
Department has provided to the Congress the classified ARB
report and more than 25,000 pages of documents.
Secretary Kerry, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs
Committee in April, also pledged coordination with the Benghazi
investigation when he stated:
I'm determined that this will be as accountable and open
State Department as it has been in the past and we will
continue to provide answers.
So the question I have for each of them is this: Why do I have to
hold in my hands a handwritten transcript of an email?
Why is it that congressional investigators must hand-copy them under
supervision from the other side, so to speak?
Why can't we get the documents and copy themselves?
Why must we subpoena everything?
And why are they not in compliance with any of the subpoenas?
____________________
PROPOSED SNAP CUTS
(Mr. TONKO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, more than 30,000 families in New York's
capital region rely on SNAP benefits to put dinner on the table every
night. Nationally, about 87 percent of families on food stamps include
a child, a senior citizen, or a disabled person. These members of the
American family are hungry. They are not criminals.
Yet House Republicans are trying to cut $40 billion from this
critical program, 10 times the amount the Senate has proposed, without
first looking at closing tax loopholes for major corporations or
cutting subsidies to profit rich oil companies.
These benefits are not luxuries, Mr. Speaker. These are basic,
sustainable meals that will keep our unemployed and underemployed
nourished until they find a job that lets them support themselves and
their families on their own.
If House Republicans truly want to reduce food stamp rolls and
decrease how much our Nation spends on the SNAP program, then they need
to join the Democrats and get serious about creating quality, well-
paying jobs instead of trying to balance the budget on the backs of our
country's most vulnerable.
____________________
HONORING THE LIVING CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS
(Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today. It is an honor for me, as a new Member of
Congress, to sit here on the floor of the House with my colleagues to
actually honor all of our living Congressional Medal of Honor
recipients.
I'm proud to work with my colleague, Tulsi Gabbard, from the great
State of Hawaii, in a bipartisan way to make sure that these heroes
that protected our freedoms, that have protected our ability to stand
here and debate the issues that we debate every single day, are honored
by their heroism and by their fight for this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we're going to begin this process through the 1-
minutes, but we're also going to have an hour and a half of a Special
Order that's going to be a bipartisan, unprecedented Special Order to
honor these American heroes. And I stand here today to say thank you to
each and every one of them.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF IMMIGRATION REFORM, CONSTITUTION DAY, CITIZENSHIP DAY,
AND CONSTITUTION WEEK
(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague,
Congressman Cardenas, for bringing everyone together to support
immigration reform and in recognition of Constitution Day, Citizenship
Day, and Constitution Week.
From Angel Island to Ellis Island, from our northern to southern
borders, from the fertile earth of Steinbeck country, to innovation's
epicenter of Silicon Valley, immigration issues and immigrants have
touched every corner and facet of our Nation.
As the Representative of California's 17th District, I have witnessed
how this immigrant spirit is the entrepreneur's spirit. In fact, 40
percent of the largest U.S. companies have been founded by immigrants
or their children.
In Silicon Valley, between 1995 and 2005, more than half of all the
major technology and engineering firms were founded by an immigrant.
People come to our shores with different dreams, aspirations, and
needs. We must support stronger provisions for those guest workers who
toil the earth and harvest food for our dinner tables. We must support
students who come to this country seeking top education and then allow
them to kindle their entrepreneurial spark into our economy.
We must support high-skilled immigrants, as well as their families,
who will strengthen our talented workforce. We must never turn our
backs on our married children and siblings just because they are above
a certain age.
____________________
HONORING COLONEL WESLEY LEE FOX
(Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I join with my colleagues to honor those
recipients of the Medal of Honor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of Colonel
Wesley Lee Fox of the United States Marine Corps. Colonel Fox currently
resides in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Colonel Fox was awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry and
intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty
in the Republic of Vietnam.
Colonel Fox's company came under intense fire from a large, well-
concealed enemy force. Colonel Fox was wounded, along with the other
members of the command group. Colonel Fox personally neutralized one
enemy position and calmly ordered an assault against the hostile
emplacements.
Colonel Fox refused medical attention so he could establish a
defensive posture and supervise the preparation of casualties for
medical evacuation. His indomitable courage, inspiring initiative, and
unwavering devotion to duty in the face of grave personal danger
inspired his marines to such aggressive action that they overcame all
[[Page 13830]]
enemy resistance and destroyed a large bunker complex.
It is for his outstanding heroism and leadership that I am proud and
honored to remember the actions of Colonel Wesley L. Fox.
____________________
HONORING STAFF SERGEANT ALLAN JAY KELLOGG, JR.
(Ms. GABBARD asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I'm so proud to stand here today to join
Congressman Rodney Davis from Illinois and the rest of my colleagues as
we honor the 79 living Medal of Honor recipients, which include U.S.
Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Allan Jay Kellogg, who's lived in Hawaii
for more than 25 years, and who calls my hometown of Kailua his home as
well.
Under the leadership of Sergeant Kellogg, a small unit from Company G
was evacuating a fallen comrade when the unit came under enemy fire
from the surrounding jungle. What he did is the stuff of legend.
After an enemy soldier hurled a hand grenade at the marines, Sergeant
Kellogg quickly forced the grenade into the mud, threw himself over the
grenade, and absorbed the full effects of its detonation with his body,
saving his unit. Although suffering multiple injuries to his chest and
his right shoulder, Sergeant Kellogg continued to direct his men until
all reached safety.
It's for his unwavering devotion to duty and his continued service to
our country that I'm so proud to honor and remember the actions of
Staff Sergeant Allan Jay Kellogg, Jr. here today.
____________________
{time} 1800
HONORING COLONEL OLA LEE MIZE
(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the heroic actions of
Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Ola Lee Mize of Gadsden,
Alabama, who resides in the Fourth Congressional District, which I'm
honored to represent.
Colonel Mize was with the 3rd Infantry Division and was awarded the
Medal of Honor for outstanding courage in action on June 10 and 11,
1953, in Korea. His company was responsible for the defense of a vital
position that was attacked by a well-organized enemy force. Colonel
Mize charged through an intense barrage of fire to rescue a friend who
had fallen. Following the successful rescue, Colonel Mize returned to
his post and dug in. Although under duress, Colonel Mize held the line,
fighting to keep his men safe. Colonel Mize protected his fellow
soldiers, called in artillery support, and led a successful
counterattack.
It is for his unflinching courage and valor that I'm proud to honor
and remember the actions of Colonel Ola Lee Mize. The Fourth District
of Alabama, the State of Alabama, and the United States Congress is
very honored to recognize the work that he did in Korea.
____________________
HONORING COLONEL ROBERT JOSEPH MODRZEJEWSKI AND COLONEL JAY VARGAS
(Mr. PETERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor the heroic
efforts in Vietnam of two veterans of the United States Marine Corps
who today call San Diego their home: Colonel Robert Joseph Modrzejewski
and Colonel Jay Vargas.
Colonel Modrzejewski was the commanding officer of Company K and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action in
Vietnam. Though wounded, he refused to allow his men to be overrun
during an attack on a well-fortified enemy in a superior position.
Though they sustained many casualties, Colonel Modrzejewski and his men
were successful in repelling the enemy.
Colonel Vargas served as commanding officer of Company G and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for his extraordinary heroism in action.
Although wounded, Colonel Vargas led his men in an emboldened attack on
heavily defended enemy forces. On the second day, Colonel Vargas saw
his battalion commander go down and, after advancing to his position,
carried him to safety.
For their unparalleled heroism and gallantry in action, exemplifying
the spirit of the Marine Corps, I'm proud to honor and remember the
actions of Colonel Modrzejewski and Colonel Vargas.
____________________
HONORING SERGEANT DAKOTA L. MEYER
(Mr. WHITFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts
of Marine Sergeant Dakota L. Meyer.
Sergeant Meyer was a scout sniper with the 3rd Marines and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on
September 8, 2009, in Afghanistan. While maintaining security at a
patrol rally point, an element of Sergeant Meyer's team was moving on
foot through a village. When they were ambushed, Sergeant Meyer and a
fellow marine raced to provide additional support for the ambushed
squad.
Despite concentrated enemy assaults, Meyer made two trips into the
ambush area to evacuate two-dozen Afghan soldiers. He was then wounded
by gunfire. After that, he made additional trips into the ambush area
to recover additional wounded soldiers, and provided fire to help the
remaining U.S. and Afghan soldiers fight their way out of the ambush.
For his heroic efforts, Dakota L. Meyer was awarded the Medal of Honor
on September 8, 2009.
When Douglas MacArthur gave his farewell speech to West Point, it was
entitled, ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' I think those three words reflect
the efforts of Dakota L. Meyer and his entire team.
Today, I pay tribute to Dakota L. Meyer of the First Congressional
District of Kentucky.
____________________
HONORING STAFF SERGEANT TY MICHAEL CARTER
(Mr. HECK of Washington asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, four of the 79 living
Congressional Medal of Honor recipients live in the congressional
district that I have the great honor to represent. I will speak on
three tonight.
I rise first to honor the incredible courage and outstanding heroism
of Staff Sergeant Ty Michael Carter of the United States Army--
America's newest Congressional Medal of Honor recipient.
Staff Sergeant Carter was a cavalry scout with Bravo Troop and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for extreme bravery in action on October 3,
2009, in Afghanistan. On the morning of October 3, Sergeant Carter's
outpost came under heavy and intense fire from all sides. Staff
Sergeant Carter charged to an exposed forward position and provided
deadly suppressive fire into the oncoming enemy attack, stalling their
advance. When a fellow soldier was critically wounded, Staff Sergeant
Carter, though wounded as well, courageously charged again through the
enemy onslaught to provide aid to his comrade. Sergeant Carter's heroic
actions and tactical skill were central to beating back the enemy
offensive and saving numerous lives.
It is for his incomprehensible courage that I am proud to honor and
remember the actions of Staff Sergeant Ty Michael Carter, a resident of
Yelm, Washington.
____________________
HONORING COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR ROBERT MARTIN PATTERSON
(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic
efforts of Command Sergeant Major Robert Martin Patterson of the United
States Army.
[[Page 13831]]
Command Sergeant Major Patterson was a fire team leader of the 3rd
Platoon, 17th Cavalry Regiment, and was awarded the Medal of Honor for
conspicuous gallantry in action on May 6, 1968, in Vietnam. When the
3rd Platoon became pinned down by interlocking enemy fire and rocket-
propelled grenades, Command Sergeant Major Patterson led two men in
quickly silencing an enemy bunker with rifle and grenade assaults.
When Command Sergeant Major Patterson noticed the enemy engaging his
men from hidden spider holes, he entered the complex and single-
handedly conducted an assault on their position. In so doing, the
sergeant major successfully destroyed five enemy bunkers, killing eight
and capturing seven enemy weapons.
It is for his dauntless courage and heroism that I am proud to honor
and remember the actions of Command Sergeant Major Robert Martin
Patterson.
____________________
HONORING LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALFRED VELAZQUEZ RASCON
(Mr. WALZ asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Velazquez Rascon of the United States Army.
Lieutenant Rascon was a medic with the 173rd Airborne and was awarded
the Medal of Honor for extraordinary courage in action on March 16,
1966, in Vietnam. The following is directly from his commendation:
Disregarding heavy enemy fire, Lieutenant Colonel Rascon
rushed to the aid of wounded machine gunners and placed
himself as a shield between himself and the enemy. After
saving two men, he entered the line of enemy fire to retrieve
an abandoned machine-gun, allowing for suppressing fire while
he treated the wounded. When the sergeant of the platoon went
down with injuries, Lieutenant Colonel Rascon once again
placed himself as a shield between the wounded man and the
enemy. Although sustaining multiple wounds himself,
Lieutenant Colonel Rascon refused to leave the field until
the last had been treated.
Lieutenant Colonel Rascon came out of retirement and joined the
United States Army Reserves and served this Nation in both Iraq and
Afghanistan in our recent conflicts.
It is for his amazing valor and heroism that I am proud and humbled
to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant Colonel Alfred
Velazquez Rascon.
____________________
HONORING SERGEANT ROBERT EMMETT O'MALLEY
(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Marine Corps Sergeant Robert Emmett O'Malley of Goldthwaite, Texas.
Sergeant O'Malley was a squad leader with Company I, 3rd Marines,
during the Vietnam War, and was awarded the Medal of Honor for supreme
bravery in action on August 18, 1965.
Sergeant O'Malley's unit came under heavy enemy fire while conducting
an amphibious assault on an enemy position during Operation Starlite.
Disregarding his own safety, Sergeant O'Malley charged forward and
killed eight enemy soldiers. Then he directed his men to fire on the
enemy, with deadly effect. He also rallied his squad to help an
adjacent Marine unit suffering heavy casualties.
Although he was wounded, Sergeant O'Malley refused to allow medics to
treat him, insisting instead on helping evacuate wounded marines. After
being wounded a third time, Sergeant O'Malley refused to yield the
engagement until all of his men were accounted for.
It is for his valor, leadership, and courageous efforts on behalf of
fellow marines that I am proud to represent Sergeant Robert Emmett
O'Malley of the 11th Congressional District of Texas.
____________________
HONORING CAPTAIN PAUL WILLIAM BUCHA
(Mr. HIMES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I'm thrilled tonight to join my colleagues in
honoring these extraordinary men and women who have been awarded the
Medal of Honor.
I rise today to honor the manifest bravery and courage of my
constituent, Captain Paul William Bucha of the United States Army,
Ridgefield, Connecticut.
Captain Bucha was awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry in action
during March 16-19, 1968, in Vietnam. For 3 days, on a mission to seek
and destroy enemy positions, Captain Bucha led his 89-man unit through
intense combat. On March 18, a North Vietnamese battalion with
numerical superiority pinned down the forward units of his company.
When Captain Bucha discovered the origins of the heaviest fire, he
maneuvered into position and single-handedly eliminated the enemy
position. Due to his exceptional leadership and guidance during the 3-
day engagement, Captain Bucha's men held their position, refused to
yield, and inflicted considerable casualties upon the superior enemy
force.
It is for his extraordinary heroism and exemplary leadership that I'm
proud to honor and remember the actions of Captain Paul William Bucha.
____________________
HONORING LIEUTENANT COLONEL JAMES MICHAEL SPRAYBERRY
(Mrs. ROBY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lieutenant Colonel
James Michael Sprayberry of the United States Army.
Raised in Sylacauga, Alabama, he joined the Army in Montgomery,
Alabama, in 1967. Lieutenant Sprayberry was just 21 years old and
serving with the 1st Cavalry Division in Vietnam when, on April 25,
1968, he engaged in extraordinary acts of heroism for which he was
awarded the Medal of Honor.
On that day, his company commander and many of his fellow soldiers
were wounded and separated from the unit. When a daytime rescue attempt
was deterred by entrenched enemy machine-gun fire, Lieutenant Colonel
Sprayberry organized and led a nighttime patrol to eliminate the enemy
fire and rescue his fellow surrounded soldiers.
When the patrol came under intense enemy machine-gun fire, he single-
handedly conducted multiple attacks against multiple enemy machine-gun
bunkers and eliminated them one by one with hand grenades. After
destroying bunkers, he was able to direct the isolated men to safety.
The operation was a resounding success and resulted in the safe return
of many fellow soldiers.
It is for his conspicuous gallantry and indomitable spirit that I am
proud to honor the actions of Lieutenant Colonel James Michael
Sprayberry.
____________________
HONORING STAFF SERGEANT HIROSHI H. MIYAMURA
(Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
the heroic efforts of Staff Sergeant Hiroshi H. Miyamura of the United
States Army, who called Gallup, New Mexico, home.
Sergeant Miyamura was with the 3rd Infantry Division and was awarded
the Medal of Honor for extreme bravery in action from April 24-25,
1951, near Taejon-ni, Korea. Staff Sergeant Miyamura's company was
holding a defensive position when a strong enemy force launched a
surprise attack to overrun them. Understanding the severity of the
situation, Staff Sergeant Miyamura hustled to the line and plunged into
the oncoming enemy forces with his bayonet, killing 10 of the
attackers.
During the second assault, he used his machine-gun, taking out the
enemy. He insisted that his men pull
[[Page 13832]]
back while he covered their withdrawal. While unloading on the enemy's
advances, Staff Sergeant Miyamura killed at least 50 and provided a
safe withdrawal of his unit.
It is for his heroism and distinguished service that I am proud to
honor and remember the actions of Staff Sergeant Hiroshi H. Miyamura.
____________________
HONORING CORPORAL RODOLFO PEREZ ``RUDY'' HERNANDEZ
(Mrs. ELLMERS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts
of Corporal Rodolfo Perez ``Rudy'' Hernandez of the United States Army.
Corporal Hernandez was with Company G, 187th Airborne Regimental
Combat Team, and was awarded the Medal of Honor for visible gallantry
in action on May 31, 1951 in Korea. His platoon was in a defensive
position on Hill 420 when it came under heavy attack by enemy forces.
Although his comrades were forced to withdraw, Corporal Hernandez stood
his ground. When his machine-gun jammed, he valiantly charged with
rifle and bayonet straight into the attacking force and he was
seriously injured by a grenade blast. Due to Corporal Hernandez's
heroic charge, the enemy advance was stalled long enough for his unit
to mount a counteroffensive and retake the hill.
It is for this extraordinary courage in action that I am proud to
honor and remember the actions of Corporal Rodolfo Perez Hernandez.
____________________
{time} 1815
HONORING MAJOR FREDERICK EDGAR FERGUSON
(Ms. SINEMA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Major Frederick Edgar Ferguson of the United States Army. Major
Ferguson served in the 1st Cavalry Division and was awarded the Medal
of Honor for supreme gallantry in action on January 31, 1968, in the
Republic of Vietnam. Today he lives in Chandler, Arizona, in the
district I have the honor of representing.
Major Ferguson was the commander of a helicopter monitoring an
emergency call from wounded passengers of a downed helicopter under
heavy attack. Without hesitation, Major Ferguson volunteered to respond
to the call despite warnings to stay clear of the area.
Major Ferguson displayed superior flying skill by landing his
aircraft under heavy fire. And although the helicopter sustained severe
damage as the wounded men boarded, Major Ferguson flew his crippled
aircraft to safety. That day, Major Ferguson saved the lives of five
fellow servicemen with his brave and selfless act.
It is for his outstanding display of bravery that I am proud to honor
and remember the actions of Major Frederick Edgar Ferguson.
Thank you, Major Ferguson.
____________________
HONORING SPECIALIST FOURTH CLASS FRANK A. HERDA
(Mr. RENACCI asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Specialist Fourth Class Frank A. Herda of the United States Army.
Specialist Herda was with Company A, 506th Infantry Regiment of the
101st Airborne Division and was awarded the Medal of Honor for extreme
bravery in action on January 29, 1968, in Vietnam.
When five enemy soldiers charged the position held by Specialist
Herda and two fellow soldiers, one of the attacker's grenades landed
amongst the men. Without hesitating, Specialist Herda threw himself on
it, shielding the blast with his body. Specialist Herda's valiant and
selfless actions saved the lives of his two comrades.
For his extraordinary bravery and commitment, I am proud today to
honor and remember the actions of Specialist Frank A. Herda.
____________________
HONORING STAFF SERGEANT SALVATORE AUGUSTINE GIUNTA
(Mr. ENYART asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ENYART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Staff Sergeant
Salvatore Augustine Giunta of the United States Army. Staff Sergeant
Giunta was with the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team and was awarded
the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on October 25,
2007, in Afghanistan.
Staff Sergeant Giunta and his team were ambushed by heavy enemy fire.
After sprinting for cover and returning fire, Staff Sergeant Giunta
raced to his wounded squad leader to assist him. While disregarding the
withering enemy fire, Staff Sergeant Giunta continued to assist the
wounded and link up with men separated from his unit.
When he observed two insurgents carrying away one of his men, this
staff sergeant charged their position, killing one enemy and wounding
the other. He then carried his comrade away from the exposed position
and began to administer first aid before his squad caught up to provide
security.
It is for his extreme heroism and valor that I am proud to honor and
remember the actions of Staff Sergeant Salvatore A. Giunta.
____________________
HONORING TECHNICAL SERGEANT CHARLES HENRY COOLIDGE
(Mr. FLEISCHMANN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic
efforts of Signal Mountain, Tennessee, resident Technical Sergeant
Charles Henry Coolidge of the United States Army. Technical Sergeant
Coolidge was with the 36th Infantry Division and was awarded the Medal
of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on October 24, 1944, near
Belmont-sur-Buttant, France.
As Technical Sergeant Coolidge led a platoon to cover part of the 3rd
Battalion, they ran into an enemy force and engaged in a fierce
firefight. With no officer present, Technical Sergeant Coolidge assumed
command of the new replacements and led his men through 3 days of hard
fighting. Armed with a bazooka, he advanced within 25 yards of the
tanks before it failed to function. Then, gathering as many hand
grenades as he could, he inflicted heavy casualties upon the enemy.
It is for his superior leadership and bravery that I am proud to
honor and remember the actions of Technical Sergeant Charles Henry
Coolidge.
____________________
HONORING LIEUTENANT COLONEL LEO THORSNESS
(Mr. BROOKS of Alabama asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the story of
a courageous Congressional Medal of Honor recipient living in Alabama's
Fifth Congressional District.
Pilot Lieutenant Colonel Leo Thorsness was on a mission over North
Vietnam when he lost his wingman. As the crew members parachuted to the
ground, Colonel Thorsness destroyed a MIG-17 that was threatening their
safety. Low on fuel, Colonel Thorsness went in search of a refueling
tanker, but upon hearing that the downed men were again threatened--
this time by four MIGs--he immediately returned to their aid. Low on
fuel and perilously close to crashing himself, Colonel Thorsness
attacked the four MIGs, damaging one, driving them away, and saving the
downed men and their rescuers. Then he flew further afield to refuel,
aiding another plane that needed the emergency fueling station.
Lieutenant Colonel Thorsness' extraordinary heroism, self-sacrifice,
and personal bravery saved many lives, and our Nation is forever
grateful for his service.
[[Page 13833]]
____________________
HONORING SPECIALIST FOURTH CLASS JOHN PHILIP BACA
(Mr. COTTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Specialist Fourth Class John Philip Baca of the United States Army.
Specialist Baca was a member of the 1st Cavalry Division, the ``First
Team.'' His Medal of Honor was awarded for extraordinary bravery in
action on February 10, 1970, in Vietnam. On that February day, a
platoon from Specialist Baca's company came under enemy fire. Upon
realizing his team could be of assistance, Specialist Baca jumped into
action. He led his unit through enemy fire to a position within the
patrol's defensive perimeter. But before they were able to attack, an
enemy grenade was thrown directly into their unit. Specialist Baca
covered the grenade with his helmet and fell on it, absorbing its
blast. His quick action bravely saved eight of his fellow soldiers from
death or serious injury.
It is for this brave act and his unwavering courage that I am proud
to honor the actions of Specialist Fourth Class John Philip Baca.
____________________
HONORING STAFF SERGEANT CLINTON ROMESHA
(Mr. CRAMER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the heroic efforts of former
Staff Sergeant Clinton Romesha of the United States Army. Staff
Sergeant Romesha was with the 4th Infantry Division and awarded the
Medal of Honor for his acts of gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of
his own life in Afghanistan on October 3, 2009.
Attacked by an estimated 300 Taliban fighters, Staff Sergeant Romesha
moved uncovered to conduct a reconnaissance and seek reinforcements.
Romesha took out one enemy machine gun team and was wounded attempting
to take out the second. Despite his wounds he continued fighting and
directed air support, resulting in the elimination of over 30 enemy
fighters.
Clint, his wife Tamara, and their three children--Dessi, Gwen, and
Colin--live in Minot, North Dakota, and are the pride of our State.
It is for his extraordinary heroism and resolute commitment to his
fellow soldiers that I am proud to honor Staff Sergeant Clinton
Romesha.
____________________
HONORING CORPORAL DUANE EDGAR DEWEY
(Mr. STEWART asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Corporal Duane Edgar Dewey of the United States Marine Corps. Corporal
Dewey was with the First Marine Division and was awarded the Medal of
Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on April 16, 1952, near
Panmunjom, Korea.
While receiving medical attention for his own wounds after a fierce
night attack by a numerically superior and aggressive enemy force, an
enemy grenade landed close to the position of Corporal Dewey and his
fellow soldiers. Disregarding his own safety and intense pain, Corporal
Dewey pulled his corpsman to the ground, shouted a warning to other
marines, and covered the grenade with his own body, absorbing the
explosion and saving his comrades from possible injury or death.
It is for his indomitable heroism and consummate devotion to duty
that I am proud to honor and to remember the actions of Corporal Duane
Edgar Dewey.
____________________
FORT HOOD HEROES ACT
(Mr. CARTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a nice evening to be introducing
what I have to say. This Roll Call of Heroes is inspiring to any and
all Americans, including myself.
Yesterday I dropped into the hopper a bill entitled Fort Hood Heroes
Act, H.R. 3111. This bill was introduced with 119 original cosponsors
on a bipartisan basis.
This bill declares the shooting that took place at Fort Hood an act
of terrorism that should have been prevented and that Nidal Hasan was
an Islamic extremist. The bill would award Purple Hearts to the
soldiers who were killed or wounded in the attack, and award the
Secretary of Defense Medal of Freedom to civilians who were killed or
wounded in the attack.
This bill would provide benefits to the victims of the attack who
were killed or wounded and their families, deeming the killing or
wounding to have occurred:
For soldiers, in a combat zone and at the hands of an enemy of the
United States;
For civilian DOD employees, by hostile action while serving alongside
the Armed Forces during a contingency operation and in a terrorist
attack.
The possible benefits they will receive will be:
Combat-related special compensation;
Maximum coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance;
Tax breaks after death in combat zone or terrorist attack;
Special pay for subjection to hostile fire or imminent danger;
Unearned portions of bonuses;
Combat-related injury rehabilitation pay; and
Meals at military treatment facilities.
____________________
HONORING MAJOR DREW DENNIS DIX
(Mr. TIPTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Major Drew Dennis Dix of the United States Army who hails from the
hometown of heroes, Pueblo, Colorado. Major Dix was a military adviser
for the Army of the Republic of Vietnam and was awarded the Medal of
Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on January 31, 1968.
Major Dix led a force to rescue trapped civilians from a city. When
the rescue team entered the city, they were greeted with intense
automatic rifle fire and machine gun fire from the Vietcong. Major Dix
personally engaged and killed six Vietcong in a building where two
civilians were trapped. The following day, Dix assembled a 20-man force
to clear the Vietcong out of the city. The group captured 20 and
attacked several who had entered the residence of the deputy province
chief, successfully rescuing the official's wife and children.
It is for this indomitable heroism and supreme bravery that I am
proud to honor and remember the actions of Major Drew Dennis Dix.
____________________
HONORING LIEUTENANT COLONEL RONALD ERIC RAY
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the heroic efforts
of Lieutenant Colonel Ronald Eric Ray of the United States Army.
Lieutenant Colonel Ray, who lives in Tarpon Springs, Florida, was a
platoon leader in the 25th Infantry Division and was awarded the Medal
of Honor for profound bravery in action on June 19, 1969, in Vietnam.
When one of his patrol teams was ambushed, Lieutenant Colonel Ray set
up a defensive perimeter while eliminating multiple Vietcong positions
with grenades and rifle fire. Lieutenant Colonel Ray then began
directing air and medical support into the area. When a grenade fell
between two of his men, he threw himself upon it, shielding them from
the blast, but sustaining multiple shrapnel wounds himself. Though
wounded, Lieutenant Colonel Ray remained on the field and provided
effective fire support until the last of his men were safely extracted.
[[Page 13834]]
It is for his courage and commitment to his men that I am proud to
honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant Colonel Ronald Eric Ray.
____________________
{time} 1830
HONORING SPECIALIST FIFTH CLASS CLARENCE EUGENE SASSER
(Mr. WEBER of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic
efforts of Specialist Fifth Class Clarence Eugene Sasser of the United
States Army.
A native Texan, from Rosharon, Specialist Fifth Class Clarence Sasser
was with the 9th Infantry Division and received his Medal of Honor for
actions of immense gallantry on January 10, 1968, in Vietnam.
While his company was making an air assault, they were surrounded at
the landing zone and suffered 30 casualties in the first few minutes.
In order to assist the wounded, Specialist Fifth Class Sasser ran
through open fire several times. He ignored his own need for medical
attention in order to provide care to his fellow men. When both of his
legs were immobilized, Sergeant First Class Sasser dragged himself into
a position to assist others and then encouraged soldiers to crawl to
safety where he tended to their wounds until evacuation.
It is for his upholding of the highest military values that I am
proud to honor the actions of Specialist Fifth Class Clarence Eugene
Sasser.
I'm Randy Weber, and that's the way it is in America.
____________________
HONORING PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ERNEST EDISON WEST
(Mr. MASSIE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Private First Class Ernest Edison West of the United States Army.
Private First Class West served with Company L, 25th Infantry
Division and was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry
in action in Korea on October 12, 1952.
When Private First Class West's patrol was ambushed, he ordered his
fellow men to withdraw while he braved enemy fire to reach and assist
the patrol leader. In the evacuation process, he and his wounded leader
came under intense enemy attack. Private First Class West used his body
to shield the wounded officer and killed the attacking enemy. Although
Private First Class West lost his eye and was seriously wounded, he
returned again through intense fire to help evacuate more wounded
soldiers.
Because of his valiant efforts and extraordinary military spirit, I
am proud to honor and remember the actions of Private First Class
Ernest Edison West of Kentucky's Fourth District.
____________________
HONORING SPECIALIST MICHAEL JOHN FITZMAURICE
(Mrs. NOEM asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a hero of our country
and the State of South Dakota, Specialist Michael John Fitzmaurice, of
the United States Army. Specialist Fitzmaurice, serving in the 3rd
Platoon, Troop D, was awarded the Medal of Honor for his bravery in
action on March 23, 1971, in Vietnam.
When three enemy explosive charges landed in their bunker, Specialist
Fitzmaurice quickly removed two and smothered the other charge with his
body and flak vest. Despite his injuries, he charged the enemy,
engaging at times in hand-to-hand combat. Fitzmaurice refused medical
evacuation and continued fighting.
It is because of his extraordinary bravery and devotion to duty that
I am proud to honor the actions of Specialist Michael John Fitzmaurice
today.
____________________
HONORING LIEUTENANT COLONEL CHARLES CHRIS HAGEMEISTER
(Ms. JENKINS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lieutenant Colonel
Charles Chris Hagemeister of the United States Army.
Lieutenant Colonel Hagemeister was with the 1st Cavalry Division and
was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on
March 20, 1967, in Vietnam.
When Lieutenant Colonel Hagemeister's platoon came under attack, he
disregarded his own safety and raced through deadly fire to provide aid
to two of his wounded comrades. He then crawled forward to assist and
encourage the platoon leader and other soldiers.
While under fire at close range, the lieutenant colonel took a rifle
from a fallen soldier, killed a sniper, three advancing soldiers, and
silenced an enemy machine gunner.
Unable to move the wounded, he again braved enemy fire and returned
with help. Lieutenant Colonel Hagemeister then continued to administer
aid and help remove his wounded brothers.
It is for his extraordinary bravery and selflessness that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant Colonel Charles Chris
Hagemeister.
____________________
HONORING PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ARTHUR J. JACKSON
(Mr. VALADAO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the valiant efforts
of Private First Class Arthur J. Jackson of the United States Marine
Corps.
Private First Class Arthur J. Jackson was awarded the Medal of Honor
for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of
duty in action against the enemy in Japan.
When Private First Class Arthur J. Jackson's platoon's left flank
advance was held up by the fire of Japanese troops, Private First Class
Jackson charged a large pillbox housing approximately 35 enemy
soldiers. Pouring his automatic fire into the opening of the fixed
installation to trap the occupying troops, he hurled white phosphorous
grenades and explosive charges demolishing the pillbox and killing the
enemies. He advanced two smaller positions and stormed one gun position
after another until he succeeded in wiping out a total of 12 pillboxes
and 50 Japanese soldiers. His gallant initiative and heroic conduct in
the face of extreme peril reflect the highest credit upon Private
Jackson and the U.S. Naval Service.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Private First Class Arthur J.
Jackson.
____________________
HONORING PRIVATE FIRST CLASS DON J. JENKINS
(Mr. GUTHRIE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Medal of Honor
recipient Don J. Jenkins of the United States Army for his brave
service in Vietnam.
Under heavy crossfire, Don Jenkins maneuvered forward to an exposed
position and began placing suppressive fire on the enemy. He exposed
himself to extremely heavy fire when he repeatedly ran and crawled
across open terrain to obtain resupplies of ammunition until he had
exhausted all that was available for his machine gun. Displaying
tremendous presence of mind, he then armed himself with two antitank
weapons and, by himself, maneuvered through the rapid, hostile fire to
within 20 meters of an enemy bunker to destroy that position. After
moving back to the friendly defensive perimeter long enough to secure
yet another
[[Page 13835]]
weapon, a grenade launcher, Don Jenkins moved forward to a position
providing no protection and resumed placing accurate fire on the enemy
until his ammunition was again exhausted.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor the actions of Private First Class Don J. Jenkins of
Morgantown, Kentucky. I have the great privilege of knowing him
personally, and I'm proud to call him my friend.
____________________
HONORING MASTER SERGEANT RICHARD A. PITTMAN
(Mr. VEASEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Master Sergeant Richard Allan Pittman of the United States Marine
Corps.
Master Sergeant Pittman was with Company I, 1st Division and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for consummate gallantry in action on July
24, 1966, in Vietnam.
When the company fell under intense enemy fire, Master Sergeant
Pittman grabbed a machine gun and rushed toward the front to provide
support. Through withering enemy fire, Master Sergeant Pittman rushed
to the front of the patrol and eliminated multiple enemy positions.
Master Sergeant Pittman then charged an additional 50 yards to retrieve
three downed marines. In establishing a defensive position, he was able
to engage and inflict heavy casualties upon an enemy force of 40 and
successfully ward off their advance, saving the lives of many of the
company's men.
It is for his bold fighting spirit and extreme devotion to duty that
I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Master Sergeant Richard
Allan Pittman.
____________________
HONORING SERGEANT ALLEN JAMES LYNCH
(Mr. HULTGREN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today
to honor a true American hero--Sergeant Allen James Lynch of Gurnee,
Illinois.
Sergeant Lynch received the Medal of Honor for his brave actions in
the Vietnam war where he risked his life to save three of his comrades.
On December 15, 1967, Lynch, serving as a radio-telephone operator
for the United States Army, ran through open enemy fire to rescue three
wounded soldiers. As the rest of the company withdrew, he stayed behind
and single-handedly defended their position for 2 hours until
reinforcements could be sent to evacuate them. Sergeant Lynch was just
22 years old at the time.
His meritorious actions extend far beyond his service in Vietnam. He
continues to serve as a staunch advocate for disabled veterans and
remains an inspiration to the community, often visiting with local
schools and challenging students to be the next great leaders in
America.
I commend his actions and his continued service to my community and
to our country--a true inspiration.
I am proud to honor Sergeant Allen James Lynch and his outstanding
courage.
____________________
HONORING MAJOR JAMES ALLEN TAYLOR
(Mr. LaMALFA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Major James Allen Taylor of the United States Army. I have personally
known Major Taylor in the north State for about a decade through
personal involvement with veterans issues and events in the north
State.
I also wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleague,
Representative Jared Huffman, whose district Major Taylor actually
resides in. Also, Major Taylor had been a constituent of mine for
several years when I represented Trinity County.
Major Taylor was with the 1st Cavalry Regiment and awarded the Medal
of Honor for gallantry in action on July 11, 1969, in Vietnam.
His men were engaged in an attack on a fortified position when a
cavalry assault vehicle was hit and all five crew members were wounded.
Major Taylor extracted the wounded despite heavy enemy fire. When a
second vehicle was hit, Major Taylor moved forward again to rescue the
wounded. While evacuating the wounded, Major Taylor engaged the enemy,
killing several. At the evacuation point, a final vehicle was hit.
Again, Major Taylor assisted in removing the wounded men and ensured
that all wounded were safely evacuated.
I've met and known Major Taylor for several years, and it is my
privilege to call him a friend.
It is through his selfless spirit and service to his crew that I am
proud to honor and remember the actions of Major James Allen Taylor.
____________________
HONORING LIEUTENANT MICHAEL EDWIN THORNTON
(Mr. BRADY of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic
efforts of Lieutenant Michael Edwin Thornton of the United States Navy
in Montgomery, Texas.
Lieutenant Thornton was a senior adviser to Vietnamese Navy SEAL
patrols and was awarded his Medal of Honor for extreme bravery in
action on March 6, 1976, in Vietnam.
Lieutenant Thornton and his team snuck behind enemy lines. At sunup,
the team made contact with an enemy force and engaged in a furious
firefight with the enemy, inflicting many casualties before
withdrawing. When some of the men were cut off from the team,
Lieutenant Thornton went back in, through enemy fire, to find the
wounded men and carry them to safety. In killing several enemy
combatants and hauling the wounded out, Lieutenant Thornton saved the
life of his superior officer.
It is for his heroic spirit in service to our Nation that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant Michael Edwin Thornton.
____________________
HONORING SPECIALIST FOURTH CLASS GARY G. WETZEL
(Mr. WENSTRUP asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts
of Specialist Fourth Class Gary George Wetzel of the United States
Army.
Specialist Fourth Class Wetzel served in the 173rd Assault Helicopter
Company and was awarded the Medal of Honor for his extreme heroism in
action in Vietnam on January 8, 1968.
While going to the aid of his aircraft commander, Specialist Fourth
Class Wetzel became critically wounded. Although his left arm was
severed, Specialist Fourth Class Wetzel held his position and engaged
the enemy. After eliminating three, he refused treatment and attempted
to assist his aircraft commander. Due to the severity of his wounds,
Specialist Fourth Class Wetzel lost consciousness. Once he regained
consciousness, he persisted in his efforts to drag himself to the aid
of his fellow crewman and assisted in bringing the commander to safety.
Because of his valiant efforts towards his fellow crewmen, I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Specialist Fourth Class Gary
George Wetzel.
____________________
{time} 1845
HONORING COLONEL JAMES FLEMING
(Mr. OLSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of a
man from Manvel, Texas--an American hero, Colonel James Fleming of the
United States Air Force.
[[Page 13836]]
Colonel Fleming was the pilot of a helicopter in the 20th Special
Operations Squadron. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry in
action on November 26, 1968, in Vietnam.
On that day, Colonel Fleming was ordered to rescue a six-man Special
Forces patrol that was pinned down by enemy fighters. Already aware of
one downed helicopter in the area, Colonel Fleming dropped his
helicopter into the combat zone. Despite a failed first attempt and low
fuel, Colonel Fleming did what every member of the U.S. military is
trained to do--he left no man behind. He came back and hovered with an
open cargo door while his helicopter was being raked by enemy fire. The
six Green Berets jumped into his helicopter with the enemy 10 feet
behind. Thanks to his heroic efforts, the six Green Berets made it out
alive.
I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Colonel James
Fleming.
____________________
HONORING COLONEL WALTER JOSEPH MARM, JR.
(Mr. HOLDING asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
United States Army Colonel Walter Joseph Marm, Jr., of Fremont, North
Carolina.
Colonel Marm demonstrated indomitable courage and was awarded the
Medal of Honor during a combat operation in Vietnam.
As his company was moving to relieve a surrounded friendly unit, he
realized that his platoon was receiving intense fire from a concealed
machine gun. He deliberately exposed himself to draw its fire. Colonel
Marm charged 30 meters across open ground and hurled grenades into the
enemy position. Although severely wounded, Colonel Marm continued the
momentum of his assault on the position, and he killed the remainder of
the enemy, breaking the enemy assault.
It is for his gallantry on the battlefield and his extraordinary
bravery at the risk of his life that I am proud to honor and remember
the actions of Colonel Walter Joseph Marm, Jr.
____________________
HONORING LIEUTENANT COLONEL HAROLD ARTHUR FRITZ
(Mr. SCHOCK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lieutenant Colonel
Harold Arthur Fritz, who served in the United States Army and is a
resident of the 18th District of Illinois.
Lieutenant Colonel Fritz served in Vietnam with the 11th Armored
Cavalry Regiment and was awarded the Medal of Honor for extraordinary
gallantry in action on January 11, 1969.
While in Vietnam, Lieutenant Colonel Fritz' armored unit was
ambushed, and his vehicle took a direct hit. Despite being seriously
wounded himself, he fearlessly ran from vehicle to vehicle,
positioning, providing aid and resupplying his men. The enemy attackers
charged twice, but under Lieutenant Colonel Fritz' leadership, the unit
stood its ground. Following the second charge, he led a brazen
counteroffensive, forcing the oncoming enemy to withdraw. With the unit
free from attack, he selflessly made sure that all of his men were
cared for before allowing his own wounds to be treated.
So I am honored to stand and to recognize Lieutenant Colonel Harold
Arthur Fritz for his undaunted courage, extraordinary bravery and
fearless leadership.
____________________
HONORING SPECIALIST FOURTH CLASS PETER C. LEMON
(Mr. LAMBORN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the valiant efforts
of Specialist Fourth Class Peter C. Lemon of the United States Army.
Specialist Fourth Class Peter C. Lemon was awarded the Medal of Honor
for conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty in action
against the enemy in Vietnam.
When the base came under heavy enemy attack, Sergeant Lemon engaged a
numerically superior enemy with machine gun and rifle fire from his
defensive position until both weapons malfunctioned. He then used hand
grenades to fend off the intensified enemy attack launched in his
direction. After eliminating all but one of the enemy soldiers in the
immediate vicinity, he pursued and disposed of the remaining soldier in
hand-to-hand combat. Lemon carried a more seriously wounded comrade to
an aid station, and as he returned, was wounded a second time by enemy
fire. Disregarding his personal injuries, he moved to his position
through a hail of small arms and grenade fire. Sergeant Lemon
immediately realized that the defensive sector was in danger of being
overrun by the enemy, and he unhesitatingly assaulted the enemy
soldiers by throwing hand grenades and engaging in hand-to-hand combat.
He was wounded yet a third time, but his determined efforts
successfully drove the enemy from the area.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Specialist Fourth Class Peter C.
Lemon.
____________________
HONORING COLONEL DONALD E. BALLARD
(Mr. YOHO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the valiant efforts of
Colonel Donald Everett Ballard of the Kansas National Guard and
formerly of the United States Navy.
Colonel Ballard, a Corpsman Second Class at the time, was with the
3rd Marine Division and was awarded the Medal of Honor for extreme
fortitude and gallantry in action on May 16, 1968, in Vietnam.
Colonel Ballard's company was ambushed as they were evacuating a
landing zone. Upon seeing wounded fellow marines, Colonel Ballard
braved enemy fire to render medical assistance. As they prepared to
move the wounded marines, an enemy soldier hurled a grenade that landed
near the marines. After shouting a warning, Colonel Ballard threw
himself upon the grenade to protect his fellow soldiers from the blast.
When the grenade failed to detonate, Colonel Ballard continued his
treatment and saved countless marines.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Colonel Donald Everett Ballard.
____________________
ROLL CALL OF HEROES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoho). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney
Davis) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
General Leave
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of
my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is again an honor for
me to be here today with my colleagues to honor the 79 living
Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.
To continue what we started earlier, I'd like to yield to my
colleague from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Honoring Captain Howard V. Lee
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for
the recognition and for the opportunity to recognize Captain Howard V.
Lee from Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Captain Lee was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry
[[Page 13837]]
above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy in
Vietnam.
When Lee realized that the unit had suffered numerous casualties,
depriving it of effective leadership, and being fully aware that the
platoon was even then under more heavy attack by the enemy, Major Lee
took seven men and proceeded by helicopter to reinforce the beleaguered
platoon. Major Lee disembarked from the helicopter with two of his men,
and braving withering enemy fire, led them into the perimeter, where he
fearlessly moved from position to position, directing and encouraging
the overtaxed troops. Although painfully wounded by fragments from an
enemy grenade in several areas of his body, including his eye, Major
Lee continued undauntedly throughout the night to direct the valiant
defense, coordinate supporting fire and apprising higher headquarters
of the plight of the platoon. The next morning, he collapsed from his
wounds and was forced to relinquish command.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Captain Howard V. Lee. Semper Fi.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, my good friend Mr. Shimkus.
At this point, I would like to yield to my colleague from the 20th
Congressional District of the great State of New York (Mr. Tonko).
Honoring Sergeant First Class Francis Sherman Currey
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the
gentlewoman from Hawaii for bringing us together in a bipartisan,
spirited way to recognize the living Medal of Honor winners, who are
much applauded and much recognized and deeply loved by this Nation.
I rise this evening to honor the heroic efforts of Sergeant First
Class Francis Sherman Currey of the United States Army.
Sergeant Currey served with the 30th Infantry Division and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for acts of conspicuous gallantry on
December 21, 1944, near Malmedy, Belgium.
While defending a strong point, Sergeant Currey's platoon was overrun
by German tanks, leading to the withdrawal of his platoon. Sergeant
Currey was able to obtain a bazooka despite taking heavy fire from
enemy tanks and infantrymen just a short distance away. Pushing
forward, Sergeant Currey eliminated one tank and cleared three German
soldiers from a house. In discovering five trapped American soldiers,
Sergeant Currey acquired several anti-tank grenades. In driving the
tank men from their vehicles, he provided enough cover fire to free the
five soldiers.
It is for his indomitable heroism and consummate devotion to duty
that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Sergeant First
Class Sherman Currey. I thank you for the opportunity to share with you
this evening on behalf of this wonderful gentleman.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much for
being here to honor a true hero.
I would like to now yield to my colleague from Florida (Mr.
Buchanan).
Honoring Private First Class Hector Albert Cafferata, Jr.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois and the
gentlelady from Hawaii.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Private First Class Hector Albert
Cafferata, Jr., of the United States Marine Corps.
Private Cafferata was awarded the Medal of Honor for his bravery in
action in Korea on November 28, 1950, while serving with the famed 1st
Marine Division.
As the only unwounded member of his squad, he singlehandedly engaged
the enemy while under heavy fire from machine guns, mortars and
grenades. For over 7 hours, he was able to successfully fend off wave
after wave of enemy attacks until reinforcements could arrive. However,
as reinforcements moved in, an enemy grenade landed in his trench. The
private immediately grabbed the grenade and threw it from the trench
before it detonated. Though wounded by the blast, he saved the lives of
many of his men serving with him that day.
It is for his supreme bravery and courageousness in carrying out his
duties that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Private
First Class Hector Albert Cafferata, Jr.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you to my colleague from Florida.
I would like to now yield to my colleague Mr. Heck from Washington's
10th Congressional District.
Honoring Sergeant First Class Leroy Arthur Petry
Mr. HECK of Washington. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my expression of gratitude both to
the gentleman from the State of Illinois and to the gentlelady from the
State of Hawaii for the honor of participating in this.
I rise now to acknowledge the gallantry of a couple of more residents
of Washington State's 10th Congressional District who are recipients of
the Congressional Medal of Honor. I've had the great privilege of
meeting both of these gentlemen.
First, I rise to honor the heroic efforts of Sergeant First Class
Leroy Arthur Petry of the United States Army.
Sergeant First Class Petry was with the 75th Ranger Regiment and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for exceptional bravery in action on May 26,
2008, in Afghanistan.
Though seriously wounded following an enemy attack, Sergeant First
Class Petry was able to move himself and a companion to safety and
communicate the situation to the rest of the squad. When another Ranger
moved forward to assist them, a grenade fell between the men. Sergeant
First Class Petry unhesitatingly sprang for it and attempted to throw
it away. Although he saved the lives of the two men with him, the
grenade exploded and seriously wounded Sergeant First Class Petry.
Indeed, he lost a good part of his right arm, and his right hand is a
prosthetic.
{time} 1900
I've shaken that hand on multiple occasions, and I cannot explain the
magic that it is among the warmest handshakes I've ever experienced.
It is for his extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty thought I'm
proud to honor and remember the actions of Sergeant First Class Leroy
Arthur Petry, a resident of Steilacoom, Washington.
Honoring Master Sergeant Wilburn Kirby Ross
Mr. HECK of Washington. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
the heroic efforts of Master Sergeant Wilburn Kirby Ross of the United
States Army.
Master Sergeant Ross was with the 3rd Infantry Division and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on
October 30, 1944, near Saint-Jacques, France.
After his company had attacked a German company, Master Sergeant Ross
placed his machine gun in front of their line in order to absorb the
initial impact of a counterattack. Master Sergeant Ross then fired with
deadly effect on the assaulting force and repelled it. He continued to
man his machine gun, holding off six more German attacks. Master
Sergeant Ross killed 40 and wounded 10 of the enemy, broke the assault
single-handedly, and forced the Germans to withdraw. Master Sergeant
Ross remained at his post that night and the following day for a total
of 36 hours.
In a coda to his story, he was a careerist in the United States Army
and was inadvertently shipped to Korea after World War II, which was
against Department of Defense policy. Not discovered until he was
halfway to Korea, his commanding officer asked him what he was doing
there. He said, Well, I can hardly swim back now, sir. On the very
first day in Korea, Sergeant Ross was wounded again, for which he
received the Purple Heart.
It is for his extraordinary bravery that I'm proud to honor and
remember the actions of Master Sergeant Wilburn Ross, a resident of
Dupont, Washington.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my good
friend from the great State of New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
[[Page 13838]]
Honoring Colonel Jack H. Jacobs
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor the military
service record of Colonel Jack H. Jacobs of Far Hills, New Jersey.
Colonel Jacobs was awarded the U.S. Army's Medal of Honor for
conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty in action
against the enemy in Vietnam.
Under intense heavy machine gun and mortar fire from a Viet Cong
battalion, Colonel Jacobs called for and directed air strikes on the
enemy positions to facilitate a renewed attack. Due to the intensity of
the enemy fire and heavy casualties to the command group, including the
company commander, the attack stopped.
Although wounded by mortar fragments, Colonel Jacobs assumed command
of the allied company, ordered a withdrawal from the exposed position,
and established a defensive perimeter. He returned under intense fire
to evacuate a seriously wounded adviser to the safety of a wooded area
where he administered lifesaving first aid. He then returned through
heavy automatic weapons fire to evacuate the wounded company commander.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Colonel Jack H. Jacobs.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Lance.
Mr. Speaker, since the first Medal of Honor was given on March 25,
1863, only 3,461 men have also earned it. Today, as has been mentioned,
only 79 living recipients remain.
In order to properly honor these heroes, as you know, we've invited
our fellow Members of Congress in bipartisan fashion to come to the
floor and speak on each one of the living recipients of this great
Medal of Honor. But I'd first would like to personally thank my
colleague, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, for joining me in this effort
across the aisle. As a veteran and a current member of the Hawaii
National Guard, Tulsi exemplifies the values and discipline of our
armed services.
I would also like to recognize Garrett Anderson, my district staffer,
who handles veteran issues and who was able to join me tonight for this
special occasion. Garrett is a veteran of the Iraq war and has become a
leader for all veterans and wounded warriors not only in his home
community of Champaign-Urbana, but throughout our Nation.
Representative Tulsi Gabbard and Garrett Anderson are not only role
models to young folks across this great country, but to my own children
as well. I'm honored to have their support tonight.
I now yield to my colleague, Tulsi Gabbard.
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I'm so proud personally to be able to join
with my friend and colleague, Representative Rodney Davis, as we lead
this bipartisan Special Order to remember and to honor the
extraordinary sacrifice and displays of true love of country that have
been exemplified by the proud warriors who served in conflicts past and
present.
President Kennedy once said:
A Nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces,
but also by the men it honors and the men it remembers.
I had the privilege last year as the reunion was held in Hawaii for
these remaining living Medal of Honor recipients. We had a dinner on
the bow of the Mighty Mo at Pearl Harbor, and it was so incredible and
moving to be there in the presence of people I had read about, been
inspired by, and been motivated by as a child but also throughout my
time training when those days felt dark and you felt tired and you felt
like maybe I just can't do this. It was these men who truly exemplified
and gave us, as we were training, energy to move forward.
Each of these 79 living veterans has been awarded the Congressional
Medal of Honor, our Nation's highest military decoration for valor in
combat. As we stand here this evening, we represent our constituents
and the sentiments and appreciation of a grateful Nation.
Honoring Staff Sergeant Allan Jay Kellogg, Jr.
Ms. GABBARD. The select few, like Staff Sergeant Allan Jay Kellogg
from my State of Hawaii, who also lives in my hometown of Kailua,
consciously made the decision, at the point when it mattered most, to
do an extraordinary thing: that if need be, they would give their lives
for others. And what is so incredible about all of these men we have
had the honor to meet is they are humble heroes who would do it in a
heartbeat again if necessary.
They made tremendous sacrifices protecting our ideals and freedoms to
keep our Nation safe. It's because of their sacrifice and their service
that we can be here today to speak our minds--sometimes agreeing,
sometimes disagreeing--where we can practice our faith, and pursue our
dreams. That's the reason we gather today--Members of Congress from
both parties and from across the country--to stand in awe of their
sacrifice and to pay tribute to their heroic actions.
We also remember the parents and the community that raised these
heroes, the families that stood behind them, the military that trained
them, and their battle buddies, the men and women who served by their
side.
I think I can safely say that I speak for all Americans when I say
that we are incredibly grateful for what they have done for us and what
they have done for our country. The courage they have shown, the
example they have set for us is truly special. None of the words that
we can say will ever be truly worthy of their sacrifice or their
service, but we do our best to pay our tribute and express our
gratitude.
Honoring Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Ms. GABBARD. While tonight we're honoring the remaining living
veterans who have been recipients of the Medal of Honor, I would like
to take a moment to remember a Medal of Honor recipient who is near and
dear to my heart, to the State of Hawaii, to the country, and who is no
longer with us.
Senator Daniel K. Inouye enlisted in the U.S. Army at age 17 just
after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He served with E Company of the 442
Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of Americans of Japanese
ancestry at a time when our country was putting Japanese Americans in
concentration camps. In 1945, Senator Inouye lost his arm and suffered
multiple injuries as he charged a series of German machine gun nests on
a hill in Italy. His selfless acts during this battle later earned him
the Medal of Honor. Continuing his lifelong commitment of service to
Hawaii and the Nation, Danny Inouye was Hawaii's very first Congressman
and served in the Senate since 1963. Senator Inouye was a true servant
leader and an American hero of the highest order, and he continues to
be an inspiration to me and countless others around the world.
Congressman Davis and I now have the honor to be joined by some of
our colleagues as we continue to honor these courageous heroes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Tulsi. It is an honor to be
standing here with you in this great Chamber to honor our heroes.
I now yield to my good friend from the great State of Washington (Mr.
Kilmer).
Honoring Sergeant John Hawk
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representative Davis
and Representative Gabbard for organizing this important time.
It's my honor to stand on the floor and recognize the heroic actions
of two distinguished recipients of the Medal of Honor that I have the
pleasure of representing, John Hawk and Bruce Crandall.
Sergeant Hawk was with the 90th Infantry Division and awarded the
Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry while serving in France during
World War II and particularly for his actions on August 20, 1944.
While manning a light machine gun, Sergeant Hawk successfully pushed
back the infantry forces with his machine gun fire. When an artillery
shell knocked out his gun and wounded his thigh, Sergeant Hawk secured
a bazooka and pursued the remaining tanks, forcing them into a wooded
section. While organizing two machine gun squads and facing intense
enemy fire and with tanks in close proximity, Sergeant Hawk repeatedly
climbed to
[[Page 13839]]
an exposed knoll in order to direct fire until two of the tanks were
knocked out and the third was driven off. Even while suffering a
painful wound, Sergeant Hawk continued to direct fire until the enemy
surrendered.
He showed that day, like many of our soldiers do, fearless initiative
and heroic conduct.
Honoring Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Perry Crandall
Mr. KILMER. That heroism was also displayed by Lieutenant Colonel
Bruce Perry Crandall of the United States Army. Assigned to A Company,
229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, Lieutenant Colonel Crandall was
awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in Vietnam.
On November 14, 1965, then-Major Crandall led the first major
division operation of air mobile troops into Landing Zone X-Ray,
bringing ammunition and supplies and evacuating the wounded. Flying
more than 14 hours in a single day in unarmed helicopters, Major
Crandall and his team rescued more than 70 wounded soldiers. Under the
most extreme fire, his brave decision to land under fire instilled in
the other pilots the will to continue and ensured that the ground
forces would be resupplied.
It's for his indomitable heroism I'm proud to honor and remember the
actions of Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Crandall.
Let me just say in closing that our Nation is stronger for the
service and sacrifices of these two distinguished Medal of Honor
recipients, for all of the recipients of the Medal of Honor, and for
all of those who serve our country.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you.
Now I yield to my colleague from the great State of California (Mr.
McClintock).
Honoring Sergeant Major Jon R. Cavaiani
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the courageous acts of Sergeant
Major Jon R. Cavaiani. Sergeant Major Cavaiani earned his Medal of
Honor during the war in Vietnam.
On the morning of June 4, 1971, Sergeant Major Cavaiani's camp came
under intense enemy fire. Repeatedly exposing himself to that enemy
fire in order to move about the perimeter, Cavaiani was able to direct
the platoon's fire in a desperate fight for survival. When the platoon
was called to be evacuated, Sergeant Major Cavaiani volunteered to
remain on the ground and to direct the evacuation. The following
morning, the enemy attack continued. Unable to slow down the assault,
Sergeant Major Cavaiani ordered his platoon to escape while he stayed
behind to provide cover fire, thus protecting the men of his platoon.
On behalf of a grateful Nation and a respectful and loving community,
I'm proud to salute the heroism and recount the actions of Sergeant
Major Jon R. Cavaiani of Columbia, California.
{time} 1915
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. McClintock.
Right now I would like to yield to my good friend from the great
State of Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Honoring Sergeant Sammy L. Davis
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the heroic efforts of a
great Hoosier, Sergeant Sammy L. Davis of the United States Army.
Sergeant Davis, then Private First Class Davis, distinguished himself
while serving in a remote support base in Vietnam.
On November 18, 1967, Sergeant Davis' support base came under enemy
mortar attack, and he was also threatened with a ground assault from
across the river. Detecting a nearby enemy position, Sergeant Davis
seized a machine gun and provided cover for his gun crew. But the enemy
managed a direct hit. Ignoring warnings to seek cover, Sergeant Davis
returned to the howitzer, which was burning furiously.
Although he was painfully injured by enemy mortar, Sergeant Davis
relentlessly continued firing. Disregarding his injuries and his
inability to swim, Sergeant Davis crossed the river on an air mattress,
where he aided in returning three soldiers to the support base.
Refusing medical attention for his own wounds, he joined another gun
crew, firing at the enemy until they fled.
I am proud to honor and remember the extraordinary heroism of
Sergeant Sammy L. Davis.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Messer.
I would like to now yield to my colleague from the great State of
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Honoring Clarence Eugene Sasser
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleagues for allowing
me to join you this evening in what I think is an enormously important
tribute.
As I present this distinguished gentleman, this hero, I just want to
make mention of my friend Clarence Eugene Sasser, a Medal of Honor
winner born September 12, 1947, who received his Medal of Honor for his
actions in the Vietnam war. He's now passed, and I know that those who
live recognize their fellow recipients for their heroism.
But we are honoring tonight those who live. And so it is my privilege
to be able to salute Sergeant Major Kenneth E. Stumpf of Tomah,
Wisconsin.
Honoring Sergeant Major Kenneth Edward Stumpf
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the heroic efforts of
Sergeant Major Kenneth Edward Stumpf of the United States Army.
Sergeant Major Stumpf was with Company C of the 25th Infantry Division
and received the Medal of Honor for gallantry in action on April 25,
1967.
Might I just say, Mr. Speaker, we know that as our Vietnam vets came
home, the response was not an American response. I'm grateful to be
able to stand on the floor today to say that their valiant service
evidenced by so many, and certainly through the honoring of this great
Medal of Honor winner, now comes to the full attention of America where
we will never, never welcome our soldiers home in any other manner than
to say ``thank you.''
Sergeant Major Stumpf's company approached a village and encountered
a well-fortified bunker complex. Three men were wounded in front of a
hostile machine gun emplacement. Sergeant Major Stumpf and his squad
successfully eliminated two bunker positions, but one still remained a
serious threat.
Armed with hand grenades, Sergeant Major Stumpf ran through enemy
fire, and as he reached the bunker, he pulled the pins on two grenades
and directed them directly into it. With the bunkers eliminated,
Sergeant Major Stumpf was able to rescue the three wounded servicemen.
It is for his fighting spirit and ultimate concern for the lives of
his fellow soldiers that I am proud to honor and remember the actions
of Sergeant Major Kenneth Edward Stumpf. We will always remember the
valiant efforts of our soldiers. Wars have agreement and disagreement,
but no one, no one in America ever disagrees with the service, the
sacrifice, the love, the valiant efforts of our men and women in the
United States military.
Sergeant Major Kenneth Edward Stumpf, Medal of Honor winner, we
salute you.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you to the gentlelady from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to now be in the process where Ms. Gabbard
and I are going to read some of the remaining speeches in honor of some
of our heroes who are living today. And I would first like to go
through a few for my colleagues that are going to be submitted for the
Record but are unable to be here tonight due to extenuating
circumstances.
Honoring Sergeant First Class Gary Lee Littrell
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. My good friend Bill Young from Florida
submitted for the Record a speech in honor of Sergeant First Class
Littrell of Florida. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous
gallantry above and beyond the call of duty in the Republic of Vietnam
on April 8, 1970.
Sergeant First Class Littrell was assigned to the United States
Military Assistance Command, and he distinguished himself while serving
as a light weapons infantry adviser with the 23rd battalion.
[[Page 13840]]
Honoring Colonel Roger Hugh Charles Donlon
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I would also like to submit for the
Record in honor of my colleague Lynn Jenkins from the State of Kansas,
to honor Colonel Roger Hugh Charles Donlon of Leavenworth, Kansas, who
was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1964 for distinguished service in
Vietnam. While defending a U.S. military installation against an attack
by hostile forces, Colonel Donlon directed the defense operations in
the midst of an enemy barrage.
Honoring Major General Patrick Henry Brady
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Also submitting for the Record on
behalf of my colleague from Texas, Lamar Smith, we are going to honor
Major General Patrick Henry Brady. Major General Brady was awarded the
Medal of Honor for extreme heroism on January 6, 1968, in Vietnam as a
member of the 54th Medical Detachment. He rescued dozens of seriously
wounded men from an enemy-held territory blanketed by fog and braved
enemy fire to save his comrades.
Honoring Petty Officer Robert Ingram
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Also, on behalf of my colleague Ander
Crenshaw from the great State of Florida, I would like to honor Petty
Officer Robert Ingram from Jacksonville, Florida, for the valiant
efforts of Hospital Corpsman Third Class Robert Ingram, who was in the
United States Navy and was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous
gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in the
Republic of North Vietnam on March 28, 1966. He accompanied a point
platoon as it engaged an outpost of a North Vietnamese battalion. As
the fighting moved from a ridge to a rice paddy, the tree line exploded
with a hail of bullets from 100 North Vietnamese regulars. In mere
moments, the platoon ranks were decimated, but he proceeded to collect
the ammunition from the dead and offered aid to the wounded.
I would also like to now yield to my colleague from the great State
of Hawaii to honor some more of our heroes.
Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. Also, on behalf of two of my colleagues who
unfortunately could not be here, I will honor their honorees.
Honoring First Lieutenant Brian Thacker
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Chris Van Hollen from the
State of Maryland, I would like to honor First Lieutenant Brian Thacker
of the United States Army. He was with the 92nd Field Artillery
Regiment and received his Medal of Honor for actions on March 31, 1971,
in Vietnam.
When his base was attacked, he assisted in its defense and remained
in position when it became apparent that the evacuation of the base was
necessary. He organized and directed the withdrawal of the remaining
friendly forces with complete disregard for his personal safety.
Lieutenant Thacker remained inside the perimeter alone to provide
covering fire until all friendly forces had escaped. Due to his
selfless acts, he remained trapped behind enemy lines for 8 days before
he was finally rescued.
Honoring Chief Warrant Officer Four Hershel Woodrow Williams
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, also on behalf of my colleague Congressman
Rahall from West Virginia, I, with great pleasure, rise to honor
Hershel Woodrow Williams and his heroic efforts and service.
I had the honor of meeting Hershel last year when he and the other
Medal of Honor recipients were in Hawaii and heard directly from him.
Even as he sat in a wheelchair, his courageous and bold spirit was
alive and well. And it was such an honor to meet him, I asked him for
his autograph.
He was with the Third Marine Division when he was awarded the Medal
of Honor for gallantry on February 23, 1945, on the island of Iwo Jima.
Flanked by just four riflemen, time and again Corporal Williams
advanced into the enemy defenses to set charges and wipe out enemy
positions with a flamethrower. He brazenly charged pillboxes and enemy
defenses to pave the way for his fellow soldiers. Truly, his
``unyielding determination and extraordinary heroism'' are legendary.
But Woody's devotion did not end there. Back home, upon returning to
his family, he served as a civilian counselor and as a volunteer in his
church, community, and with veterans' organizations. He continued to
dedicate his life to repay those who gave all so that he and countless
others could come home, resulting in a lifelong commitment to service.
For his valiant devotion to our Nation, I'm so proud to honor Chief
Warrant Officer Four Hershel Woodrow Williams.
Honoring Private First Class Thomas J. Kinsman
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I would like to now, Mr. Speaker, rise
today to honor the valiant efforts of Private First Class Thomas J.
Kinsman of the United States Army.
Private First Class Kinsman was awarded the Medal of Honor for
conspicuous gallantly and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty
in action against the enemy in Vietnam. As his company was proceeding
up a narrow canal in armored troop carriers, it came under sudden and
intense rocket attack, automatic weapons and small arms fire from a
well-entrenched Vietcong force. The company immediately beached and
began assaulting the enemy bunker complex. As they were moving through
heavy enemy fire to effect a link-up, an enemy soldier in a concealed
position hurled a grenade into their midst. Mr. Kinsman immediately
alerted his comrades of the danger, then unhesitatingly threw himself
on the grenade and blocked the explosion with his body. As a result of
his courageous action, he received severe head and chest wounds.
Through his indomitable courage, complete disregard for his personal
safety, and profound concern for his fellow soldiers, Private First
Class Kinsman averted loss of life and injury to the other seven men of
his element. It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that
I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Private First Class
Thomas J. Kinsman.
Honoring Lieutenant Colonel Joe M. Jackson
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Colonel Joe M. Jackson was
awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity
above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy in
Vietnam.
Colonel Jackson volunteered to attempt the rescue of a three-man U.S.
Air Force combat control team from the Special Forces camp at Kham Duc.
Hostile forces had overrun the forward outpost and established gun
positions on the airstrip. The camp was engulfed in flames, and
ammunition dumps were continuously exploding and littering the runway
with debris. To further complicate his landing, the weather was
deteriorating rapidly, thereby permitting only one airstrike prior to
his landing.
Although fully aware of the extreme danger and likely failure of such
an attempt, Lieutenant Colonel Jackson elected to land his aircraft and
attempt the rescue. Displaying superb airmanship and extraordinary
heroism, he landed his aircraft near the point where the combat control
team was reported to be hiding. Once that team was onboard, Colonel
Jackson succeeded in getting airborne despite the hostile fire.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant General Joe M. Jackson.
Honoring Chaplain Angelo J. Liteky
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
valiant efforts of Chaplain Angelo J. Liteky of the United States Army.
Chaplain Liteky was awarded the Medal of Honor.
Chaplain Liteky was participating in a search and destroy operation
when Company A came under intense fire from a battalion-size enemy
force. Observing two wounded men, Chaplain Liteky moved to within 15
meters of an enemy machine gun position to reach them, placing himself
between the enemy and the wounded men. Inspired by his courageous
actions, the company rallied and began placing a heavy volume of fire
upon the enemy's positions. In a magnificent display of courage and
leadership, Chaplain Liteky
[[Page 13841]]
began moving upright through the enemy fire, administering last rites
to the dying and evacuating the wounded. Upon the unit's relief on the
morning of December 7, 1967, it was discovered that, despite his
painful wounds in the neck and foot, Chaplain Liteky had personally
carried over 20 men to the landing zone for evacuation during the
savage fighting. Through his indomitable inspiration and heroic
actions, Chaplain Liteky saved the lives of a number of his comrades
and enabled the company to repulse the enemy.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Chaplain Liteky. And for reasons
unbeknownst to many of us, Chaplain Liteky has renounced his Medal of
Honor, but still on this floor of the House deserves to be honored for
the heroism that he demonstrated that day in 1967.
Honoring Master Sergeant Nicholas Oresko
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, Master Sergeant Nicholas Oresko was a
platoon leader with the Company C, 94th Infantry Division of the United
States Army and was awarded the Medal of Honor for his action on
January 23, 1945, in Germany.
While Company C was conducting an attack, it came under heavy enemy
fire from its flanks, pinning the unit down. Master Sergeant Oresko
swiftly moved forward alone, engaging the first bunker at point blank
range and eliminating the enemy. Despite being wounded by grenade
shrapnel, he pushed forward and managed to eliminate a second bunker
with a grenade and clearing the remaining enemy with rifle fire.
{time} 1930
Although severely wounded, Master Sergeant Oresko refused to leave
the field until the mission was complete. It's for his quick thinking,
indomitable courage, and devotion to duty in this attack that I'm proud
to honor and remember the actions of Master Sergeant Nicholas Oresko.
Honoring Sergeant Einar H. Ingman, Jr.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit,
for the Record, on behalf of my colleague from the great State of
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), in honor of the valiant efforts of Sergeant
Einar H. Ingman, Jr., of the United States Army.
Sergeant Ingman's company was pinned down by enemy fire that wounded
all squad leaders and several other men. Then-Corporal Ingman assumed
the command, reorganized and combined the two trapped squads, and
proceeded to charge the enemy machine guns alone.
He took out one crew with a grenade before being hit by a second
machine gun. Seriously injured, and with incredible courage and
stamina, Corporal Ingman rose and killed the entire gun crew, using
only his rifle, before falling unconscious from his wounds.
As a result of this singular action, the defense of the enemy was
broken, his squad secured its objective, and more than 100 hostile
troops abandoned their weapons and fled in disorganized retreat.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion that I'm proud to
honor, on behalf of my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin (Mr.
Duffy), and remember the actions of Sergeant Einar H. Ingman, Jr.
Honoring Private George Taro Sakato
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, Private George Taro Sakato served with the
442nd Regimental Combat Team, the most highly decorated unit in the
United States Army's history to this day. He was awarded the Medal of
Honor for extreme gallantry on October 29, 1944, in France.
During a devastating assault by his platoon, Private Sakato killed
five enemy soldiers and captured four. When his unit became pinned down
by enemy fire, and without regard for that enemy fire surrounding him,
Private Sakato charged forward and encouraged his squad to advance as
well.
During the maneuver, Private Sakato's squad leader was killed. In
taking charge, Private Sakato relentlessly pushed his men forward.
Private Sakato and his unit were ultimately victorious in halting the
enemy's attack. During this entire action, he managed to kill 12 enemy
soldiers, while wounding two others.
It is for his gallant courage and fighting spirit that I am proud to
honor and remember the actions of Private George Taro Sakato.
Honoring Lieutenant Thomas Rolland Norris
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
heroic efforts of Lieutenant Thomas Rolland Norris of Hayden Lake,
Idaho, on behalf of my colleague from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).
Lieutenant Norris was a SEAL Advisor, and was awarded the Medal of
Honor for supreme bravery in action from April 10 to April 13, 1972, in
Vietnam.
During the 3-day period, Lieutenant Norris and a 5-man team
established a Forward Operating Base deep within heavily-controlled
enemy territory to conduct a rescue of several downed pilots. Although
the first pilot was located and rescued on the evening of the first
night, a second pilot was missing.
On the last day, Lieutenant Norris and one Vietnamese, dressed in
fishermen disguises, traveled in a sampan up-river and located the last
pilot. Lieutenant Norris and his companion were then able to safely
return the pilot for medical care and evacuation.
It is for his outstanding display of leadership and courage that I am
proud to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant Thomas Rolland
Norris.
Honoring Private 1st Class Robert Ernest Simanek
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, Private 1st Class Robert Ernest Simanek was
serving in Company F, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division,
and received his Medal of Honor for his heroic actions in Korea on
August 17, 1952.
When his unit came under attack by mortar and small arms fire, this
private displayed an enormous level of commitment to his fellow troops
by throwing himself on a grenade that was hurled in the midst of his
unit. Although sustaining serious wounds, Private 1st Class Simanek's
valiant action saved his fellow Marines from serious injury and death.
It is for his act of great personal valor and service to his country
that I am so proud to honor the actions of Private 1st Class Robert
Ernest Simanek.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my friend
and colleague from the great State of South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Honoring Major General James Everett Livingston
Mr. SANFORD. I thank both of you for what you're doing tonight.
Mr. Speaker, as we well know, there are many heroes from across this
country. Most recently we've seen them here in the Capitol with the
tragedy of the Naval Yard. But I think that you all are doing something
very special by recognizing military heroes in their different acts of
heroism and courage over the years.
I'd like to single out a resident from my home State of South
Carolina, Major General James Everett Livingston. And his story's an
interesting one, as are so many of the stories that you've read.
But back on May 2 of 1968, he found himself as a young captain in the
most unenviable of positions, in that a Marine company had been,
basically, partitioned and was separated, and he and other men
courageously went in to basically extract that Marine company.
In the process, he was hit twice by grenade shrapnel, but he,
himself, declined medical help until they were able to go in, extract
those Marines, and get them out.
I think it's in keeping with the military tradition of never leaving
a man or a woman behind, and it says a lot about his personal courage,
that he would, again, keep in the fight, even after withstanding
personal injury, until those Marines were, again, up, out and
extracted.
And so with that, I would simply like to single out his 33 years in
the Marines, single out his wife, Sara, and his daughters, Melissa and
Kimberly, for what they know, which is they have a hero for a dad and,
indeed, a recipient of the Medal of Honor.
Thank you again for what you all are doing.
[[Page 13842]]
Honoring Lieutenant Joseph R. Kerrey
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Joseph Kerrey, of the United
States Navy, was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry
in taking action against the enemy in Vietnam.
Kerrey led his SEAL team on a mission to capture important members of
the enemy's area political cadre, known to be located on an island in
the bay of Nha Trang.
Splitting his team into two elements, and coordinating both,
Lieutenant Kerrey led his men in the treacherous downward descent to
the enemy's camp. Just as they neared the end of their descent, intense
enemy fire was directed at them, and Lieutenant Kerrey received massive
injuries from a grenade which exploded at his feet and threw him
backward onto the jagged rocks.
Utilizing his radioman, Lieutenant Kerrey called in the second
element's fire support, which caught the confused Viet Cong in a
devastating crossfire. Lieutenant Kerrey resolutely directed his men,
despite his near unconscious state, until he was eventually evacuated
by helicopter.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am so
proud to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant Joseph R. Kerrey.
Honoring Colonel Bernard Francis Fisher
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague
from the great State of Idaho (Mr. Labrador), I rise to honor the
heroic efforts of Colonel Bernard Francis Fisher of the United States
Air Force and of Kuna, Idaho.
Colonel Fisher was with the 1st Air Commando Squadron, and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for his conspicuous gallantry on March 10,
1966, in the Republic of Vietnam.
A Special Forces camp was under attack, and hostile troops had
positioned themselves between the airstrip and the camp. Colonel Fisher
observed a fellow airman crash on the airstrip. In the belief that the
pilot was injured and in danger of capture, Colonel Fisher decided to
land and attempt a rescue. Directing his own cover, he landed and
taxied the full length of the runway to rescue the pilot.
Colonel Fisher's aircraft was struck 19 times. In the face of fire,
he applied power and took off at the overrun airstrip.
It is for the risking of his life above the call of duty that I am
proud to honor and remember the actions of Colonel Bernard Francis
Fisher.
Honoring Lieutenant Thomas G. Kelley
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Thomas G. Kelley was awarded the
Medal of Honor for his actions, and going above and beyond the call of
duty, against the enemy in Vietnam.
Lieutenant Kelley was in charge of a column of eight river assault
aircrafts which were extracting one company of U.S. Army infantry
troops on the east bank of the Ong Muong Canal in Kien Hoa province
when one of the armored troop carriers reported a mechanical failure of
a loading ramp.
At approximately the same time, Viet Cong forces opened fire from the
opposite bank of the canal. After issuing orders for the crippled troop
carrier to raise its ramp manually and for the remaining boats to form
a protective cordon around the disabled craft, Lieutenant Commander
Kelley, realizing the extreme danger to his column and its inability to
clear the ambush site until the crippled unit was repaired, boldly
maneuvered the monitor in which he was embarked to the exposed side of
the protective cordon, in direct line with the enemy's fire, and he
ordered the monitor to commence firing.
Sustaining serious head wounds from the blast which hurled him to the
deck of the monitor, Lieutenant Commander Kelley disregarded his severe
injuries and attempted to continue directing the other boats.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant Thomas G. Kelley.
Honoring Master Sergeant Ronald E. Rosser
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of
my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) to honor the heroic efforts of
Master Sergeant Ronald Eugene Rosser of the United States Army.
Master Sergeant Rosser was serving with the 2nd Infantry Division and
received his Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on
January 12, 1952, in Korea.
When Master Sergeant Rosser's platoon came under heavy enemy fire
from two sides, he charged the enemy's positions, taking the hill, and
killing seven. Master Sergeant Rosser then descended to rearm and
retake the hill once more, while eliminating enemies along the way.
After he had taken the hill a third time, and killed at least 13,
Master Sergeant Rosser helped retrieve the wounded men and make a
successful withdrawal.
It is for his gallant actions and courageous and selfless devotion to
duty that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Master
Sergeant Ronald Eugene Rosser.
Honoring Corporal Tibor Rubin and 2nd Lieutenant Walter David Ehlers
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, it is on behalf of my colleague from
California, Alan Lowenthal, that I am proud to honor two of his
constituents who've been recipients of this prestigious Medal of Honor.
The first is Corporal Tibor Rubin, who served in the United States
Army with the 1st Cavalry Division and received his Medal of Honor for
his actions on July 23, 1950, to April 20, 1953, in Korea.
While the regiment was withdrawing, Corporal Rubin singlehandedly
held off enemy charges, allowing the 8th Cavalry to complete its
withdrawal. On October 30, a number of Chinese forces mounted an
assault on Corporal Rubin's unit. He maintained his firing position
until he had exhausted all of his ammunition.
Although inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy, Corporal Rubin was
eventually captured. While in prison camp however, the Corporal
continued his resistance and selflessness by caring for his sick
comrades.
Also from Congressman Lowenthal's district is one of our heroes, 2nd
Lieutenant Walter David Ehlers. He served with the 1st Infantry
Division of the United States Army and was awarded the Medal of Honor
for his service in France.
Second Lieutenant Ehlers was part of the second wave on D-day. When
the first wave became pinned down, his unit was sent forward to assist.
On June 9, he led his unit's attack against German forces and defeated
several enemy machine gun nests.
The very next day his platoon came under heavy fire, and he
singlehandedly diverted enemy fire so his fellow servicemen could
withdraw. Despite being wounded, 2nd Lieutenant Ehlers carried another
wounded rifleman to safety. Even after he was treated, he refused to be
evacuated so that he could return to leading his squad.
It's for his display of indomitable courage that I'm so proud to
honor and remember the actions of 2nd Lieutenant Walter David Ehlers.
Honoring Technician 5th Grade Robert D. Maxwell
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my
colleague from the great state of Oregon (Mr. Walden) to honor
Technician 5th Grade Robert Dale Maxwell of the United States Army.
Technician 5th Grade Maxwell was in the 3rd Infantry Division and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for supreme bravery in action on September
7, 1944, in France.
Technician 5th Grade Maxwell and three others, armed only with .45
caliber sidearms, defended the battalion headquarters against an
overwhelming onslaught by an enemy platoon. Despite withering enemy
fire, Maxwell aggressively fought off the advancing enemy and inspired
his fellow soldiers to continue. When an enemy hand grenade landed
among the squad, Mr. Maxwell unhesitatingly hurled himself upon it,
using his blanket and body to absorb the full force of the explosion.
The act of incredible heroism permanently maimed Technician 5th Grade
[[Page 13843]]
Maxwell but saved the lives of his comrades and enabled vital
communications to continue during the withdrawal from the headquarters.
It is for his valiant efforts and relentless spirit that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Technician 5th Grade Robert Dale
Maxwell.
Honoring Captain Thomas J. Hudner, Jr.
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, Captain Thomas Jerome Hudner, Jr., served
with the United States Navy's Fighter Squadron 32 and was awarded the
Medal of Honor for his brave actions on December 4, 1950, in the air
over Korea.
When Captain Hudner's wingman was shot from the air and crash-landed
behind enemy lines, he courageously circled his comrade and attempted
to fight off enemy advancing on his wingman's position. Upon noticing
that his wingman was stuck in his burning plane, Captain Hudner crash-
landed his own plane into the rough mountains and in close proximity to
the enemy's position in an attempt to save his buddy. Captain Hudner
ran to his wingman's position and attempted to free him from the
burning wreckage. Unable to free him, Captain Hudner returned to his
aircraft to call in a rescue helicopter and support personnel.
It is for his exceptionally valiant actions that I am proud to honor
and remember the actions of Captain Thomas Jerome Hudner, Jr.
{time} 1945
Honoring Sergeant Gary Burnell Beikirch
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
bravery and courage of Sergeant Gary Burnell Beikirch of the United
States Army.
Sergeant Beikirch was with the 1st Special Forces and was awarded the
Medal of Honor for extreme gallantry in action on April 1, 1970, in
Vietnam. When an enemy force launched an attack, the allied defenders
suffered a multitude of casualties. Without regard for his own well-
being, Sergeant Beikirch sprinted from position to position to treat
the wounded servicemen. Upon receiving notice that an American officer
had been wounded and left exposed, Sergeant Beikirch charged through
enemy fire and carried the officer to safety. Instead of allowing for
his own wounds to be treated, Sergeant Beikirch continuously ran
between the aid station and the field of battle to retrieve the
wounded.
It is for his complete and utter devotion to the welfare of his
fellow soldiers that I'm proud to honor the actions tonight of Sergeant
Gary Burnell Beikirch.
Honoring Lieutenant General Robert Franklin Foley
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant General Robert Franklin Foley
served in the United States Army, where he received the Medal of Honor
for leading his unit, Company A, 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry 25th
Division, on November 5, 1966, in the Republic of Vietnam. While moving
to aid a besieged unit, Lieutenant General Foley's company clashed with
a strong enemy defense post. Lieutenant General Foley, directing three
platoons, was able to attend to the wounded soldiers while advancing
them. Coming under intense fire, the Lieutenant General, alone,
continued to advance until the wounded had been evacuated. Then, after
being struck by a grenade himself, Lieutenant General Foley refused
medical aid and led an assault to destroy three enemy positions.
It is for his outstanding leadership and selflessness that I'm so
proud to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant General Robert
Franklin Foley.
Honoring Colonel Harvey Curtiss Barnum, Jr.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
supreme heroism of Colonel Harvey Curtiss Barnum, Jr., of the United
States Marine Corps. Colonel Barnum was with the 3rd Marine Division
and was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action
on December 18, 1965, in Vietnam.
Colonel Barnum's company became pinned down by enemy fire. Upon
discovering the company commander and radio operator were seriously
wounded, he took control of the radio and assumed command of the rifle
company. Colonel Barnum began positioning the men into firing positions
and began identifying targets to engage. Behind his leadership, the
units maintained their composure in the face of extreme danger and
potential disadvantage. Colonel Barnum took point and led the platoon
on a successful counterattack, eliminating key positions, and evacuated
the wounded.
It is for his extraordinary courage that I'm proud to stand here to
honor and remember the actions of Colonel Harvey Curtiss Barnum, Jr.
Honoring Colonel Gordon Ray Roberts
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, Colonel Gordon Ray Roberts was a rifleman
in the 101st Airborne Division and awarded the Medal of Honor for his
service on July 11, 1969, in Vietnam.
Colonel Roberts' platoon was sent to provide assistance to a sister
company. When his platoon became pinned down by heavy gun and grenade
fire, Colonel Roberts, with utter disregard for his own well-being,
charged forward beyond the perimeter and safety of his unit. Without
fear or concern, Colonel Roberts eliminated four enemy positions and
linked up with the imperiled company. He assisted with evacuating the
wounded and supervised the withdrawal from the position before
returning to his own unit.
It is for his gallant and selfless actions contributing directly to
saving the lives of his fellow soldiers that I'm proud to honor and
remember the actions of Colonel Gordon Ray Roberts.
Honoring Lieutenant John James McGinty, III
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
Lieutenant John James McGinty, III, of the United States Marine Corps,
who is from Beaufort, South Carolina. He was with Company K and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry in action on July 18, 1966, in
Vietnam.
While providing rear security to guard the withdrawal of the
battalion, Lieutenant McGinty's 32-man platoon came under heavy fire.
During the barrage, two of McGinty's squads became separated.
Disregarding his own safety, McGinty ran through automatic weapons and
mortar fire to convene with the separated squads. Upon arriving, he
found 20 men wounded and the medical corpsman killed. He quickly
reloaded ammunition for the wounded men and, though wounded, continued
to encourage his troops and direct their fire. Through multiple close
encounters, Lieutenant McGinty was able to adjust artillery and
effectively fight off the enemy.
It is for his indomitable heroism and devotion to duty that I'm proud
to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant John James McGinty,
III.
Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to Ms. Gabbard for some closing
comments.
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, it has truly been a privilege and a high
note of my service as a Member of Congress to be able to stand here
with my friend and colleague, Congressman Davis, to be able to read the
highlights of the courageous actions of heroes whose service has
allowed us to be here today. This is a moment that I will never
forget--a moment that I look forward to sharing with many of my battle
buddies, my servicemembers back home.
It's a time for us to reflect. As we've heard through reading through
these courageous actions, it's like reading through a storybook. These
are the actions of heroes and legends that maybe we imagined as
children. But we know that these are living heroes who not only put
their lives on the line in the service of our country overseas, but
have come home and continued that service. They have only accepted this
Medal of Honor in a humble way, and we honor those who did not make it
home.
I look forward to us in our work here in Congress to be able to live
up to the standard that they have set and to honor their service and
sacrifice as we do our best working in the people's House to serve our
country.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this would not happen
without great people helping to put this information together to honor
these true heroes. I want to thank some folks who have worked with me:
Nick Cozzo, Jordan Wellinghoff, Cathryn Ayers,
[[Page 13844]]
Shontee Pant, Jenny Baldwin, Drew Collins, Frank Santana, and Osborne
Crosby, among many others that I'm sure I'm going to forget to mention
tonight.
Remember, this is an honor tonight. We are not Republicans. We are
not Democrats. We are Americans coming together to honor in a
bipartisan fashion 79 individuals who fought to protect the freedoms
that we enjoy and to be able to stand here on this House floor in
freedom and to be Americans and to govern.
It is with great pride that I was able to be joined tonight by my
colleague, my friend, Tulsi Gabbard, also a member of our military
today. Thank you for your service, Tulsi. Thank you for your service to
your country here and your service as a member of the Hawaii National
Guard.
It is with great privilege that I was honored to stand here tonight
to recognize so many true American heroes. And it's a privilege that I
will never forget throughout my career.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Honoring Colonel Bernard F. Fisher
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts
of Colonel Bernard Francis Fisher of the United States Air Force.
Colonel Fisher was with the 1st Air Commando Squadron and was awarded
the Medal of Honor for his conspicuous gallantry on March 10, 1966 in
the Republic of Vietnam.
A Special Forces camp was under attack and hostile troops had
positioned themselves between the airstrip and the camp. Colonel Fisher
observed a fellow airman crash on the airstrip. In the belief that the
pilot was injured and in danger of capture, Colonel Fisher decided to
land and attempt a rescue. Directing his own cover, he landed and
taxied the full length of the runway to rescue the pilot. Colonel
Fisher's aircraft was struck 19 times. In the face of fire, he applied
power and took off at the overrun airstrip.
It is for the risking his life above the call of duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Colonel Bernard Francis Fisher.
Honoring Lieutenant Thomas R. Norris
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts
of Lieutenant Thomas Rolland Norris of the United States Navy.
Lieutenant Norris was a SEAL Advisor and was awarded the Medal of
Honor for supreme bravery in action from April 10 to April 13, 1972 in
Vietnam.
During the three-day period, Lieutenant Norris and a 5-man team
established a Forward Operating Base (``FOB'') deep within heavily
controlled enemy territory to conduct a rescue of several downed
pilots. Although the first pilot was located and rescued on the evening
of the first night, a second pilot was still missing. On the last day,
Lieutenant Norris and one Vietnamese, dressed in fishermen disguises,
travelled in a sampan up-river and located the last pilot. Lieutenant
Norris and his companion were then able to safely return the pilot for
medical care and evacuation.
It is for his outstanding display of leadership and courage that I am
proud to honor and remember the actions of Lieutenant Thomas Rolland
Norris.
Honoring First Lieutenant Brian Thacker
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts
of First Lieutenant Brian Thacker of the United States Army.
First Lieutenant Thacker was with the 92nd Field Artillery Regiment
and received his Medal of Honor for actions of great gallantry on March
31, 1971 in Vietnam.
When First Lieutenant Thacker's base was attacked he assisted in its
defense and remained in position when it became apparent that
evacuation of the base was necessary. He organized and directed the
withdrawal of the remaining friendly forces with complete disregard for
his personal safety. First Lieutenant Thacker remained inside the
perimeter alone to provide covering fire until all friendly forces had
escaped. Due to his selfless acts, First Lieutenant Thacker remained
trapped behind enemy lines for eight days before he was finally
rescued.
It is for his valiant efforts and selfless spirit in service to our
nation that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of First
Lieutenant Brian Thacker.
HONORING CORPORAL TIBOR RUBIN
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts
of Corporal Tibor Rubin of the United States Army.
Corporal Rubin was with the 1st Cavalry Division and received his
Medal of Honor for extraordinary heroism in action from July 23, 1950
to April 20, 1953 in Korea.
While the Regiment was withdrawing, Corporal Rubin single-handedly
held off enemy charges allowing the 8th Cavalry to complete its
withdrawal. On October 30, 1950, a number of Chinese forces mounted an
assault on Corporal Rubin's unit. Corporal Rubin maintained his firing
position until he had exhausted all his ammunition. Although inflicting
heavy casualties on the enemy, Corporal Rubin was eventually captured.
While in a prison camp, however, the Corporal continued his resistance
and selflessness by caring for his sick comrades.
It is for his unyielding courage and bravery that I am proud to honor
and remember the actions of Corporal Tibor ``Ted'' Rubin.
HONORING TECHNICIAN FIFTH GRADE ROBERT D. MAXWELL
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Technician Fifth Grade
Robert Dale Maxwell of the United States Army.
Technician 5th Grade Maxwell was in 3rd Infantry Division and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for supreme bravery in action on September
7, 1944 near Besancon, France.
Technician 5th Grade Maxwell and 3 others, armed only with .45
caliber side arms, defended the battalion headquarters against an
overwhelming onslaught by an enemy platoon. Despite withering enemy
fire Maxwell aggressively fought off the advancing enemy and inspired
his fellow soldiers to continue. When an enemy hand grenade landed
among the squad, Technician 5th Grade Maxwell unhesitatingly hurled
himself upon it, using his blanket and body to absorb the full force of
the explosion. The act of incredible heroism permanently maimed
Technician 5th Grade Maxwell, but saved the lives of his comrades and
enabled vital communications to continue during the withdrawal from the
headquarters.
It is for his valiant efforts and relentless spirit that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Technician Fifth Grade Robert Dale
Maxwell.
HONORING SERGEANT FIRST CLASS GARY LEE LITTRELL
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
Congressional Medal of Honor Society, comprised solely of Medal of
Honor recipients. During this week, the recipients will assemble to
honor and remember all who have served our country and to further the
brotherhood among one another. This year, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania has
been chosen as the site for the convention and Sergeant First Class
Litterell of the United States Army and his valiant efforts will be
recognized and he will be the featured hero of this year's convention.
Sergeant First Class Littrell was awarded the Medal of Honor for
conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty
in Kontum province, Republic of Vietnam, on 4-8 April 1970. Sergeant
First Class Littrell was assigned to the United States Military
Assistance Command, Vietnam, and Advisory Team 21. He distinguished
himself while serving as a Light Weapons Infantry Advisor with the 23d
Battalion, 2d Ranger Group, Republic of Vietnam Army, near Dak Seang.
After establishing a defensive perimeter on a hill on April 4, the
battalion he was assigned was subjected to an intense enemy mortar
attack which killed the Vietnamese commander, one advisor, and
seriously wounded all the advisors except Sergeant First Class
Littrell. During the ensuing four days, Sergeant First Class Littrell
exhibited near superhuman endurance as he single-handedly bolstered the
besieged battalion. Repeatedly abandoning positions of relative safety,
he directed artillery and air support by day and marked the unit's
location by night, despite the heavy, concentrated enemy fire. His
dauntless will instilled in the men of the 23rd Battalion a deep desire
to resist. Assault after assault was repulsed as the battalion
responded to the extraordinary leadership and personal example
exhibited by Sergeant First Class Littrell as he continuously moved to
those points most seriously threatened by the enemy, redistributed
ammunition, strengthened faltering defenses, cared for the wounded and
shouted encouragement to the Vietnamese in their own language. When the
beleaguered battalion was finally ordered to withdraw, numerous
ambushes were encountered. Sergeant First Class Littrell repeatedly
prevented widespread disorder by directing air strikes to within 50
meters of their position. Through his indomitable courage and complete
disregard for his safety, he averted excessive loss of life and injury
to the members of the battalion. The sustained extraordinary courage
and selflessness displayed by Sergeant First Class Littrell over an
extended period of time were in keeping with the highest traditions of
the military service and reflect great credit on him and the U.S. Army.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remind our fellow Americans of the actions of Sergeant
First Class Littrell.
Honoring Second Lieutenant Walter D. Ehlers
Mr. LOWNETHAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts
of Second Lieutenant Walter David Ehlers of the United States Army.
[[Page 13845]]
Second Lieutenant Ehlers was with the 1st Infantry Division and was
awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action near
Goville, France.
Second Lieutenant Ehlers was of part of the second wave on D-Day.
When the first wave became pinned down, his unit was sent forward to
assist. On June 9th he led his unit's attack against German forces and
defeated several enemy machinegun nests. The next day, his platoon came
under heavy fire and he singlehandedly diverted enemy fire so his
fellow servicemen could withdrawal. Despite being wounded, Second
Lieutenant Ehlers carried another wounded rifleman to safety. After
treatment, he refused to be evacuated and returned to leading his
squad.
It is for his display of indomitable courage that I am proud to honor
and remember the action of Second Lieutenant Walter David Ehlers.
Honoring Chief Warrant Officer Four Hershel Woodrow Williams
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Hershel Woodrow
Williams and his heroic efforts and continued selfless service to his
fellow veterans.
Corporal Williams was with the 3rd Marine Division when he was
awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on
February 23, 1945, on the island of Iwo Jima. Flanked by only four
riflemen, time and again, Corporal Williams advanced into the enemy
defenses to set charges and wipe out enemy positions with a
flamethrower. He brazenly charged pillboxes and enemy defenses to pave
the way for his fellow soldiers. His ``unyielding determination and
extraordinary heroism'' are legendary.
But Woody's devotion nor did he feel his duty ended there. Back home
he served as a civilian counselor and as a volunteer in his church,
community and with veterans' organizations. A lifetime dedicated to
repay those who gave all so that he and countless others could come
home; a lifelong commitment to assisting veterans, their spouses and
children.
For all his valiant devotion to our Nation, I am proud to honor Chief
Warrant Officer Four, Hershel Woodrow Williams.
Honoring sergeant einar h. ingman, Jr.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the valiant efforts of
Sergeant Einar H. Ingman, Jr. of the United States Army.
Sergeant Einar H. Ingman, Jr. was awarded the Medal of Honor for
conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty
in action against the enemy in Korea.
Members of Sergeant Ingman's company were pinned down by pinned down
enemy fire that wounded all squad leaders and several other men. Then
Cpl. Ingman assumed command, reorganized and combined the two trapped
squads, and proceeded to charge the enemy machine guns alone. He took
out one crew with a grenade before being hit by a second machine gun.
Seriously injured, and with incredible courage and stamina, Cpl. Ingman
rose and killed the entire gun crew using only his rifle before falling
unconscious from his wounds. As a result of this singular action, the
defense of the enemy was broken, his squad secured its objective, and
more than 100 hostile troops abandoned their weapons and fled in
disorganized retreat.
It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud
to honor and remember the actions of Sergeant Einar H. Ingman, Jr.
honoring major general patrick henry brady
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today we honor Major General Patrick
Henry Brady of the United States Army.
Major General Brady was awarded the Medal of Honor for extreme
heroism on January 6, 1968, in the Republic of Vietnam as a member of
the 54th Medical Detachment.
Major General Brady rescued dozens of seriously wounded men from an
enemy-held territory blanketed by fog. He braved heavy enemy fire and
risked his own life to save the lives of them. By the end of the day,
Major General Brady had employed three different aircraft to evacuate
51 wounded men, most of whom would otherwise have perished.
It is for his unwavering courage that we are proud to honor and
appreciate the actions of Major General Patrick Henry Brady, who lives
in New Braunfels, Texas.
honoring colonel roger Hugh charles donlon
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Colonel Roger Hugh Charles Donlon of the United States Army.
Colonel Donlon was with Army Special Forces Detachment A-726 and
awarded the Medal of Honor for supreme gallantry in action on July 6,
1964, in Vietnam.
While defending a U.S. military installation against an attack by
hostile forces, Colonel Donlon directed the defense operations in the
midst of an enemy barrage.
He marshaled his forces and ordered the removal of needed ammunition
from a blazing building. He then dashed through small arms fire,
detected the enemy and quickly dispatched them.
Colonel Donlon sustained a severe stomach wound and disregarded his
own injury for the wellbeing of his men.
As daylight brought defeat to the enemy, Colonel Donlon reorganized
his defenses and administered first aid to the wounded.
It is for his extreme display of bravery that I am proud to honor and
remember the actions of Colonel Roger Hugh Charles Donlon.
Honoring Petty Officer Robert R. Ingram
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the valiant efforts
of Hospital Corpsman Third Class Robert R. Ingram of the United States
Navy.
Petty Officer Ingram was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous
gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in Republic
of North Vietnam on 28 March 1966.
Petty Officer Ingram accompanied a point platoon as it engaged an
outpost of a North Vietnamese battalion. As the fighting moved from a
ridge to a rice paddy, the tree line exploded with a hail of bullets
from 100 North Vietnamese regulars.
In mere moments, the platoon ranks were decimated. Oblivious to the
dangers, Petty Officer Ingram crawled across the bullet-spattered
terrain to reach a downed Marine.
Ingram was injured, but he proceeded to collect ammunition from the
dead and offered aid to the wounded.
From 4 p.m. until just prior to sunset, Petty Officer Ingram pushed,
pulled, cajoled, and doctored his Marines. Despite pain and the
probability of his own death, Petty Officer Ingram's actions,
initiative and dedication to duty saved many lives.
In 2001, I was honored to be able to dedicate the medical clinic at
our local Navy base in honor of his courage and unwavering devotion to
duty.
In Jacksonville, he continues his work as a nurse and is considered a
local hero. I am proud to recognize the bravery and heroism of Petty
Officer Ingram.
honoring master sergeant ronald e. rosser
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic efforts of
Master Sergeant Ronald Eugene Rosser of the United States Army.
Master Sergeant Rosser was serving with the 2nd Infantry Division and
received his Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action on
January 12, 1952 in Korea.
When Master Sergeant Rosser's platoon came under heavy enemy fire
from two sides, he charged the enemy's positions, taking the hill, and
killing 7. Master Sergeant Rosser then descended to rearm and retake
the hill once more while eliminating enemies along the way. After he
had taken the hill a third time and killed at least 13, Master Sergeant
Rosser helped retrieve the wounded men and make a successful
withdrawal.
It is for his gallant actions and courageous and selfless devotion to
duty that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Master
Sergeant Ronald Eugene Rosser.
____________________
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO
COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM--MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 113-63)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless,
within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the
President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the
Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect
beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have
sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice
stating that the national emergency with respect to persons who commit,
threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive Order
13224 of September 23, 2001, is to continue in effect beyond September
23, 2013.
[[Page 13846]]
The crisis constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of
terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against
the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further
attacks on United States nationals or the United States that led to the
declaration of a national emergency on September 23, 2001, has not been
resolved. These actions continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the
United States. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary
to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224
with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support
terrorism.
Barack Obama.
The White House, September 18, 2013.
____________________
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY FOR
COOPERATION REGARDING ATOMIC INFORMATION--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 113-64)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, consistent with sections
123 and 144 b. of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2153 and
2164(b)), the text of the Agreement Between the Parties to the North
Atlantic Treaty for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information, including
a technical annex and security annex (hereinafter collectively referred
to as the ``ATOMAL Agreement''), as a proposed agreement for
cooperation authorizing the exchange of U.S. Restricted Data and
Formerly Restricted Data within the context of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) between the United States of America and the
following member of NATO: the Republic of Croatia (hereinafter the
``New Party'').
In addition, I am pleased to transmit my written approval,
authorization, and determination concerning the ATOMAL Agreement with
respect to the New Party, with a copy of the memorandum of the
Secretary of Defense with respect to the agreement. The ATOMAL
Agreement entered into force on March 12, 1965, with respect to the
United States and the other NATO members at that time. The Czech
Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, Spain, the
Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia,
the Republic of Lithuania, Romania, the Slovak Republic, and the
Republic of Slovenia subsequently became parties to the ATOMAL
Agreement. The New Party has signed this agreement and has indicated
its willingness to be bound by it. The ATOMAL Agreement with respect to
the New Party meets the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended. Although the ATOMAL Agreement continues in force with
respect to the United States and the other current parties to it, it
will not become effective as an agreement for cooperation authorizing
the exchange of atomic information with respect to the New Party until
completion of procedures prescribed by sections 123 and 144 b. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
For more than 40 years, the ATOMAL Agreement has served as the
framework within which NATO and the other NATO members that have become
parties to this agreement have received the information that is
necessary to an understanding and knowledge of, and participation in,
the political and strategic consensus upon which the collective
military capacity of the Alliance depends. This agreement permits only
the transfer of atomic information, not weapons, nuclear material, or
equipment. Participation in the ATOMAL Agreement will give the New
Party the same standing within the Alliance with regard to nuclear
matters as that of the other current parties to the ATOMAL Agreement.
This is important for the cohesiveness of the Alliance and will enhance
its effectiveness.
I have considered the views and recommendations of the Department of
Defense (DOD) and other interested agencies in reviewing the ATOMAL
Agreement and have determined that its performance, including the
proposed cooperation and the proposed communication of Restricted Data
thereunder with respect to the New Party, will promote, and will not
constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and security.
Accordingly, I have approved the ATOMAL Agreement with respect to the
New Party and authorized the DOD to cooperate with the New Party in the
context of NATO upon satisfaction of the requirements of section 123 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
The 60-day continuous session period provided for in section 123
begins upon receipt of this submission.
Barack Obama.
The White House, September 18, 2013.
____________________
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to be here on the
floor to speak to America and those around the world who watch and
understand all that we try to do in this Congress. It gives me great
pleasure and honor to speak tonight about a very important issue that
faces America but is just as important to people from all over the
world.
The United States of America is the country where dreams come true.
It's not hard to see that citizenship is a cornerstone of that American
Dream. We're a Nation of immigrants--and immigration remains one of the
great strengths of our great Nation.
Yesterday, we celebrated Citizenship Day and were reminded of the
important contributions immigrants have made to America--immigrants
from all over the world.
As Congress continues to delay the passage of comprehensive
immigration reform, we're again reminded that the inclusion of a
pathway to citizenship is essential to ensuring that all immigrants are
able to fully contribute to our economy, workforce, and to our
communities.
One of the major reasons that we have so many undocumented workers in
this great Nation is because our legal immigration system is broken. We
should work as hard as possible to ensure that hardworking men and
women who simply want to live the American Dream can do so--and that
they can do so as American citizens.
What happens when immigrants are able to become citizens rather than
just seeing their immigration status legalized? The answer is simple.
We--all of us in America--will have a stronger and more integrated
Nation, a stronger economy, and stronger communities. The economic
benefits of citizenship are undeniable. Research shows failure to
include a path to citizenship would have significant economic costs in
terms of lost opportunity for growth, earnings, tax revenues, and jobs
for Americans.
Providing only legal status with no pathway to citizenship would
result in $568 billion less in national productivity and $321 billion
less in total income, 820,000 fewer total jobs would be created, and
Federal and State governments would lose out on $75 billion in
additional tax revenue, according to outside estimates.
{time} 2000
Refusing immigrants the opportunity to become U.S. citizens hurts
America. It hurts Americans as well. It hurts our economic interests as
a country.
I want to fix our immigration system and to give those who are
willing to work hard for this Nation and sacrifice of themselves an
opportunity to do so as Americans. This is why I will continue to work
with Democrats, Republicans, and anyone willing to listen to
[[Page 13847]]
pass an immigration reform bill that is comprehensive and includes a
path to citizenship.
At this time, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce
Congressman Steny Hoyer, the minority whip from Maryland. Maryland is
one of the earliest States where immigrants landed. Even your State,
Congressman Hoyer, has a flag that represents those immigrants and
their contributions to Maryland; correct?
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
He is absolutely correct, of course. The Maryland flag, which I think
is one of the more distinctive State flags, has four quadrants, two of
which represent the Baltimore family to which the Royal charter was
given, as the gentleman observed, and two represent the Crossland
family, which was the wife of Lord Baltimore. So I appreciate the
gentleman referring to that. And of course all of us live in States
that were started by immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my friend, Representative Cardenas, and
other distinguished Members who are here tonight to pay tribute to the
immigrant heritage of our country.
``From her beacon hand glows worldwide welcome,'' wrote the poet Emma
Lazarus. She went on with her poem to say:
``Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp,'' cries she with
silent lips. ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled
masses yearning to be free, the wretched refuse of your
teeming shores. Send these, the homeless, the tempest-tossed,
to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.''
That iconic image we see so often is a symbol of America's welcome to
those who would participate in making it better. But the poet was
wrong. It was not the wretched refuse of the teeming shores that came
to America. It was some of the most risk-taking, courageous,
entrepreneurial people. It took courage to leave their land, to leave
their language, and to come to America. But because they had ambition
and vision and hope, they came. And they helped to build the greatest
Nation the world has ever seen. Those words engraved on the Statue of
Liberty are a creed of which our Nation must always keep faith.
For Americans, citizenship means more than belonging to a place. It
represents a sacred bond not only between those who carry it, but a
sacred duty to make sure others can earn it who share our devotion to
liberty and justice for all. Yes, those immigrants, they believed that
declaration intoning pursuit of happiness. What a wonderful concept
that ``we hold these truths to be self-evident.'' Pursuit of happiness
is one of those values that we hold forth to all the world.
You know, we hear a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker, on this floor and in
our national discourse about what makes America exceptional, about what
makes us unique and special among the nations of the world. The answer,
I believe, is that we have brought together the best of all the nations
of the world. Those who come seeking shelter on our shores do so
because they want to work hard to succeed. They're willing to take the
risk of leaving all that they know just for a chance to make it in
America. That is why the Congress must pursue, Mr. Speaker,
comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of all the Nobel Prize winners in America
were born on foreign shores. They came here, contributed here, excelled
here, and made our country better. Those who have come here to build a
strong America--and those who were brought here as children and have
known no other home--deserve a chance to keep contributing to this
country through their hard work and their service to our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I am the son of an immigrant, an immigrant from Denmark.
Serving with me in this Chamber are the sons and daughters, grandsons
and granddaughters, great-grandsons and great-granddaughters, and yes,
even more generations before. Grandsons of immigrants from Mexico, from
Italy, from China, from Africa, from Eastern Europe, from the
Caribbean, from Asia--indeed, from every land in this world.
In marking Citizenship Day, which was yesterday, it is up to us to
make sure that our exceptional American idea of citizenship continues
to manifest itself as an extended hand to all who love freedom, are
committed to justice, and wish to build a strong America for all its
people. Comprehensive immigration reform will enable us, as it has in
the past, to keep that hand extended and bring into our society and
economy those who believe in the power of the American Dream.
Mr. Speaker, let us work together, not as Democrats and Republicans,
but as fellow immigrants. First, second, third, fourth, fifth, however
many generations, we are the children of immigrants. Let us work
together to fix our immigration system and ensure that the lamp beside
the golden door continues to shine its light to enrich our Nation and
continue to offer hope and inspiration for all the world.
I want to thank my colleague, Tony Cardenas, from California. He is a
new Member, but an extraordinarily experienced Member. He knows about
immigration firsthand. I want to thank him for taking this Special
Order because it is important for America to keep that lamp lifted. And
to do so, Mr. Speaker, we need, as Mr. Cardenas has said, to pass a
comprehensive immigration bill. And, Mr. Speaker, we ought to pass it
this year.
I thank the gentleman for taking the time. I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you very much, Congressman Hoyer. I appreciate
those eloquent words and also the fact that you pointed out that you
are definitely a proud American, yet at the same time you are proud to
say that you're the son of immigrants. That's a beautiful thing for us
to welcome and embrace in this country. I hope and pray that we do, in
fact, pass comprehensive immigration reform and pass it soon. So thank
you so much for your leadership.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite to share a few words with
all of us my colleague, Marc Veasey, from the Dallas/Fort Worth
metroplex area.
Congressman Veasey, I know Texas is a State of proud patriots, and
they must have been very proud when we read from the Constitution
earlier this year at the beginning of our session. That document is the
basis of a lot of what makes our country so appealing to those people
from all over the world who want to come here and contribute to this
great Nation; isn't it?
Mr. VEASEY. Absolutely.
Mr. CARDENAS. Why don't you tell us a little bit about what being a
citizen is like and what it means to you and the folks in your
district, many of whom protect and defend our great Nation.
Mr. VEASEY. Congressman Cardenas, I thank you very much for doing
this. I would like to thank my friend from the Golden State of
California for leading this important discussion. I'm also very proud
that this is a very diverse group that is here today to talk about the
importance of citizenship and diversity.
As it was pointed out a minute ago by Steny Hoyer, our whip, he
talked about his background and him being a first-generation American.
So many of the contributions and so many of the things that make
America what it is today is because of immigrants. This discussion is
very important. And Congressman Hoyer is right; we need to pass a
comprehensive immigration reform bill because it's the right thing to
do.
When you talk about the growth and you look at the gross domestic
product, U.S. personal income, I can tell you in my own personal State
of Texas what immigrants mean to our vibrant economy. We have so many
people that are moving to our State every day. And much of that success
that we are experiencing in Texas, the Lone Star State, particularly in
Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, is because of immigrant growth.
This week we celebrate 226 years since the U.S. Constitutional
Convention was signed into law. Since that time, America's Constitution
has been seen as the backbone for the rights and
[[Page 13848]]
freedoms of all U.S. citizens. The U.S. Constitution is the epitome of
what it means to be an American citizen in our country. September 17,
the day it was adopted, is a day to celebrate what this document means
for those who have become or who aspire to be U.S. citizens.
Throughout our Nation's history, immigrants have embraced the spirit
of liberty, justice, and equality for all. These were the same
principles that guided the Framers of the Constitution as they built a
stronger republic. The Founding Fathers felt that the people who
immigrated and spent years building lives in this country deserved
citizenship. We should have that same spirit today in this body.
They were keenly aware that making new immigrants wait a long time
for citizenship denied them the very rights that Americans had just
fought to claim for themselves. By guaranteeing a uniform rule of
naturalization, the Constitution presupposes an immigrant nation. Let's
join the Framers by pledging to support and defend the Constitution and
the laws of the United States of America.
Each year during Citizenship Day, we recognize the newest members of
the American family as they pledge allegiance to our Constitution in
naturalization ceremonies across our great country. This week, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services will welcome over 18,000 new U.S.
citizens during more than 180 naturalization ceremonies hailed across
the country.
As thousands take their first step towards the American Dream, we
must all recognize the obstacles that still exist for so many others
who long to contribute to the next chapter of America's story. The
steps toward becoming a citizen are riddled with difficult, confusing,
and very expensive hurdles. In addition to the cost and bureaucracy,
there are also some individuals in the community preying on immigrants,
taking their money and telling them they are guaranteed citizenship.
Our national, economic, social, and cultural vibrancy are the direct
result of labor and efforts of generations of immigrants. According to
the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration at the University of
Southern California, income rises an average of 8 to 11 percent when
immigrants become citizens.
Delaying and ignoring real problems in our broken immigration system
for political purposes has not brought solutions; it has only brought
heartache for the many families who wish to assimilate and make America
stronger.
In the spirit of Citizenship Day, I stand with my colleagues to
recognize the many benefits that immigrants bring to the United States
of America.
Mrs. Velasquez-Acosta came to this country from El Salvador and
became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Now her son Sam works in the office
of a Member of the United States House of Representatives. In fact, he
serves the constituents of the 33rd Congressional District in the
congressional office that I represent. He is truly a living person that
can tell you the benefits of immigration--he and his family.
I believe that there is a level of optimism because I see it in Sam
and I see it in so many others who reside in the 33rd Congressional
District, the level of optimism that immigrants have historically
brought to this country and to our State. When you bring new people
into the American family, you energize and get others involved.
{time} 2015
We must focus on the urgency of helping the almost 9 million legal
permanent residents who are eligible for citizenship in this country.
We must help them take those final steps toward the American Dream so
they can fully become a part of the Democratic process. That's what
it's all about.
Today, we must rededicate ourselves to pass comprehensive immigration
reform. This fair, commonsense system would include a pathway to
citizenship for those here now, a family reunification system, and a
market-based structure that meets legitimate labor needs, protecting
both the interest of American workers and industry.
As a nation of immigrants, let us celebrate the long line of aspiring
citizens who have had a positive impact on our history. Immigrants have
enriched our character, contributed to our economy by founding
businesses and creating jobs, and have sacrificed their livelihoods so
that they could defend our freedoms and secure a brighter future for
our children.
The men who signed our Constitution 226 years ago--226 years ago--
envisioned the United States as a land of opportunity. Today, as
legislators, we are charged with building on that same vision, and our
Nation will be stronger for it.
I thank my friend from California for using this time to talk about
something that is so important to our country. We can no longer wait.
The time is now.
Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you very much, Congressman Veasey. Thank you for
sharing those words with all of us.
Mr. Speaker, next I would like to introduce Kyrsten Sinema from
Arizona. She knows what dreams are made of and what it takes to be a
participant in making those dreams come true.
Ms. SINEMA. Thank you, Mr. Cardenas, for holding this event this
evening. I appreciate the time.
Mr. Speaker, many others who will be speaking this evening will spend
time talking about the numbers or the benefits of changing our
immigration laws in our country.
I'm going to tell just one brief story about my district. When I was
elected to Congress earlier this year, I was invited, as many Members
of Congress are, to address and welcome newly sworn-in citizens. As the
swearing-in ceremony was happening on a day that I was in Washington, a
member of my team back in Phoenix joined that citizenship ceremony and
spoke on my behalf.
After the event was over, I asked her how it went. It was her first
time speaking publicly on behalf of our office, and I asked her what it
was like. She answered by telling me about her experience.
The staffer who went to the citizenship ceremony on my behalf is a
young woman named Erika Andiola. Erika Andiola is a Dreamer. She was
born in Mexico and brought to this country as a young person. She went
to junior high and high school in Phoenix, Arizona. She later went to
Arizona State University and graduated with high honors. She now works
for me in my office as an outreach director.
Erika spoke to the individuals who had just become citizens at the
citizenship ceremony and welcomed them as new citizens to our country.
What she said to me afterwards was that one day she hopes to sit in
that citizenship ceremony herself and to become a citizen of these
United States.
Mr. Cardenas, members of the Ninth District, fellow citizens of this
country, this is the reason we must get the immigration reform. Young
people like Erika Andiola have lived in this United States for almost
their entire lives and know no other country. While they watch others
become citizens, they still dream for that day themselves.
Mr. Cardenas, we must make that happen for Erika.
Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Sinema.
Next, I would like to invite to share a few words with all of us
Congressman O'Rourke from Texas.
Congressman, a lot of us have talked about citizenship and what it
means when you raise your hand and swear allegiance to this country,
and the many ways that immigrants have contributed to our great Nation.
But for you I think it touches a little closer to home.
I've heard there's a new American citizen in your district who has
made a major contribution to your congressional office. Can you share
with us that story?
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to be here today to
speak on the topic of immigration reform, immigration reform that is
humane, that is rational, that is fiscally responsible, and to be doing
so with the guidance and leadership of Congressman Cardenas, my friend
from California, who despite his short tenure in Congress has really
emerged as a leader on
[[Page 13849]]
this very important issue--important to me, important to the community
I represent in El Paso, Texas, important to our State, and important to
our country. Frankly, just to extend it one more time, important to the
world, because I think the world's eyes are on us today, they're on us
as we decide how we are going to respond to this opportunity, this once
in a 20- or 30-year opportunity to make meaningful, positive changes in
our broken immigration system, because as Steny Hoyer said earlier,
``we are proudly a Nation of immigrants.''
I'm sure it is this way for the gentleman from California, but for me
the moral and ethical reasons are the most compelling--to do the right
thing for those people who are already in our communities, for the
people who have so much to offer who have yet to come to our shores and
will add to the economy, to the civic strength of our communities and
make the places that we live in and the country that we call home a
better place.
I think of Edgar Falcon, a constituent of mine, a U.S. citizen, who
is working. While he's working, he's also going to nursing school to
improve his life, his ability to compete in the marketplace, his
opportunity to contribute back to the community that we live in.
To complete his life beyond his education and his work and everything
that he has done in the community, he wants to marry the woman of his
dreams, a woman named Maricruz, who currently lives in Durango, Mexico,
who would love to be here with the man that she loves.
But unfortunately, because of our current broken immigration system,
she's unable to live here in the United States with the man that she
loves. He's unable to bring her here because when she was a child, her
sister, while they were crossing into the United States, falsely
claimed citizenship for the both of them. Under our current broken
immigration system, that has earned her a lifetime ban from reentry to
the United States.
So despite the fact that an American citizen, someone I represent,
someone who pays taxes into our government, someone who is by all
measures doing everything he can to make our community and our country
a better place, he cannot be with the woman he loves because of what I
think to be a very arbitrary and unhelpful law that is separating two
people who deeply love each other.
What we need to do is correct this through comprehensive immigration
reform and through a measure that we'll be introducing this week, the
American Families United Act, that will allow judges some level of
discretion in cases like these where we have someone who poses no
threat to our country, who can pay a fine, do some sort of penance for
a mistake they made or a family member made on their behalf, and then
if it makes sense for our community and our security is secured, they
are able to join our community, the person that they want to marry, a
U.S. citizen.
I hope that we'll have others who will join us in cosponsoring this
legislation that we'll introduce this week because there are literally
thousands upon thousands of American families, families of U.S.
citizens, who are affected negatively by this immigration law.
As I said earlier, we want to do the right thing for the right
reasons, for the moral imperative. Coming from El Paso, Texas, we
really have been the Ellis Island for much of Latin America, including
Mexico. The people who came through our ports of entry ended up in Los
Angeles, they ended up in California, they went to Chicago, they went
to New York, they went to all points east, west and north, and then
many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, chose to stay in El
Paso.
It is because of those immigrants, both legal and unauthorized
immigrants I would argue, that El Paso today is the safest city in the
United States. It was the safest city last year as well, it was the
safest city the year before that. For the last 10 years, El Paso has
been one of the top five safest cities in the United States.
When we hear people, who I think out of ignorance, say that we need
to secure the border before we move forward with comprehensive
immigration reform, I tell them that today we are spending $18 billion
on border security, more than we are spending on all other Federal law
enforcement agencies combined, that we've built hundreds of miles of
fencing, that net migration last year from Mexico was actually zero,
that El Paso is the safest city, San Diego is the second-safest. The
U.S. side of the U.S. border compared to the rest of the country is far
safer. We do not have a border security problem today. The border has
never been more secure or more safe.
For all of those reasons, all of the moral ones and all of the
commonsense ones that I just cited, we should do the right thing. Yet
that is not enough for some people.
I will conclude by saying this. It is in our moral interest as a
country that wants to do the right thing. It makes all the common sense
in the world to do the right thing. But if we look at our economic
self-interest, today it is already proven that immigrants, including
unauthorized immigrants, contribute far more to our economy, they
contribute far more to our tax base, they contribute far more to job
opportunities and quality of life than they take in benefits. That has,
I think, been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What we also know is that if some form of the current proposal for
comprehensive immigration reform passes, the CBO has scored it such
that within the first 10 years these new immigrants to our country who
will be on a path to citizenship will be able to reduce our deficit by
more than $150 billion. In the next 10 years, those same immigrants
will reduce our deficit an additional $800 to $900 billion. They'll
also be contributors into Social Security, one of the pillars of our
social safety net, one that is unable to meet its obligations in the
not too distant future. This is surely going to help us to shore up
Social Security as well.
So whether we look at the moral dynamic, whether we look at what
makes common sense for our communities and our country, or whether we
look at our economic self-interest, comprehensive immigration reform
that is rational, that is humane, and that is fiscally responsible
makes sense for this country.
Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you very much, Congressman O'Rourke. We
appreciate the opportunity to hear a perspective from your part of
Texas and our great country.
Next, I would like to welcome and talk a little bit with Congressman
Bill Foster of Illinois, a little bit right now.
Congressman Foster, part of the American Dream is owning a home. I,
myself, was a real estate broker before getting involved in elected
office, and I know that it's tough for those people who want to own a
home if they don't have their documentation in order or their
citizenship in order. We have a lot of vacant homes around the country,
and I know we have some in your district and in my district.
Do you think that more American citizens working hard and
contributing to our economy would help our home-buying market?
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to highlight the
many important contributions that immigrants make to our Nation and our
economy, to our scientific progress, and to say a few special words on
the positive impact that comprehensive immigration reform will have on
the real estate market in our country.
We are a Nation of immigrants. Many of us are second- or third-
generation Americans, and we have all benefited from the sacrifices
that our ancestors made in search of a better life in America.
In fact, my wife is a first-generation Asian-American who came to the
United States to pursue her education, and was able to become a legal
immigrant and a citizen and a Ph.D., in fact, but who knows that even
our legal immigration system does not work as well as it should.
Every day, families come to this country in search of the American
Dream--better jobs, better education, and a better life for their
families.
I am proud to represent many of these families, but would like to
share
[[Page 13850]]
just one incredible story of one of my constituents, Juventino Cano.
Growing up, Juventino lived on a farm in Colima, Mexico, with his
parents and six brothers and sisters. Their home didn't have lights or
electricity, and they all worked long hours on the family farm to make
ends meet.
When he was 17 years old, his stepbrothers encouraged him to come to
Aurora, Illinois, and told him about the wonderful opportunities that
awaited him in America. He was able to get a job with his stepbrothers
at a packaging company.
By 1986, Juventino not only held a steady job and had learned
English, but he had opened his own company, Cano Container Corporation,
in Aurora, Illinois. What started with a single machine and three
employees has now grown into a company with over $20 million a year in
annual sales. Today, not only is Juventino the president and CEO of the
Cano Container Company, he also serves on the board of directors for
the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and as the president of
the board of directors of the Aurora Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
{time} 2030
Cano Container Company has also received its share of accolades,
including being named the minority manufacturer of the year by the
United States Department of Commerce in 2007.
The city and the economy of Aurora, Illinois, have greatly benefited
from Juventino's many contributions to the community. His story reminds
us that immigration reform is good for economic growth. More than 40
percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children
of immigrants. These American companies represent seven of the 10 most
valuable brands in the world and collectively employ more than 10
million people and generate annual revenue of $4.2 trillion. That's a
quarter of our economy.
Additionally, immigrants have a huge impact on our housing market,
and passage of comprehensive immigration reform will have a huge
positive impact on our still-recovering real estate markets. A study
from Harvard University found that in recent years, foreign-born
households accounted for 30 percent of the overall growth in the
housing sector.
According to the ``2012 State of Hispanic Homeownership'' report, it
is likely that comprehensive immigration reform would generate 3
million new Hispanic home buyers over the next several years. Every day
that we fail to pass comprehensive immigration reform, we are
forfeiting millions of dollars of economic growth and tax revenue and
slowing the recovery of our housing markets.
If we passed immigration reform that provides a pathway to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants, it would increase State and
local tax collections by almost $150 million a year in Illinois alone.
On the other hand, if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from
Illinois, the State would lose $25.6 billion in economic activity,
$11.4 billion in gross State product, and approximately 120,000 jobs.
As a scientist, I've also seen firsthand the valuable contributions
that immigrants make. For 20 years, I worked as a physicist at Fermi
National Lab in Illinois, and every day the flags from dozens of
countries flew outside the facilities representing the nationalities of
all of the scientists performing experiments at Fermilab.
Thousands of students from other countries have come to the U.S. to
get their Ph.D.s and training at our research facilities, and it has
been the policy of our country to turn most of them away when the work
is done and their education is complete. While this may have made sense
in the years after World War II when we were trying to avoid the brain
drain from countries trying to rebuild themselves, times have changed.
The economic winds are now blowing in both directions, and we need to
stop pushing our accomplished scientists and researchers out of our
country and instead encourage them to stay here and to build
businesses, expand their research, and help grow our economy. The
comprehensive immigration bill passed by the Senate does exactly that:
it encourages the best and brightest scientists and researchers to stay
here and add to our economy and our R&D capabilities.
As we contemplate a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million
undocumented immigrants and consider reforming our legal immigration
system, let's remember all of the contributions that immigrants, past
and present, have made to our country.
Our Nation has a long and proud history of welcoming immigrants in
search of a better life for themselves and their families, but our
current immigration system is broken. We now have a historic
opportunity to bring 11 million people out of the shadows.
We have to remember that at any moment we are just 5 days away from
passing immigration reform and having it be the law of the land. All it
will take is for Speaker Boehner to wake up one morning and listen to
the voices of his church, listen to the voices of the chambers of
commerce, listen to the voices of business and ordinary people all over
this country and decide to bring the Senate immigration bill up for a
vote where it will pass with a bipartisan majority and be signed into
law by the President.
This would be a historic moment and exactly the kind of
bipartisanship that people expect from their elected representatives.
If and when Speaker Boehner decides to act and allow the House a vote
to pass the Senate immigration bill, we could boost our economy,
including our real estate markets, reduce our national debt and, most
importantly, bring 11 million people out of the shadows. We cannot let
this opportunity pass us by.
Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you very much.
Next I would like to yield to Congresswoman Lois Capps.
Congresswoman, both of us are from California, and we've seen the
incredible impact that immigrants have made in our great State of
California. Recognizing those contributions is not a partisan matter
for us in California now, is it?
One thing that I'd like for you to share with us, please, is your
perspective on whether or not this is a partisan issue.
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from California, Tony Cardenas. And,
yes, I do have a letter that I will share, but I want to discuss the
matter in general first and thank my colleague for organizing all of us
to be here to address a topic that is of central importance to our
State of California and the entire country.
I join my colleagues in strong support for comprehensive immigration
reform. We honor the many contributions that immigrants have made to
our country during Citizenship Day this week, but we cannot forget the
millions of immigrants left behind by our broken immigration system.
These are the immigrants who contribute to key sectors of our economy.
They are such a vital part of agriculture, housing, manufacturing,
retail, hospitality, tourism, engineering, technology, and on and on.
These are hardworking people, immigrants who often face separation
from their families, lower wages, and face the fear of deportation; and
this forces them to take their skills often to our competitors at great
disadvantage to our own economy. We can all agree that our current
immigration system is not working. It's holding back our country and
our economy, and now is the time to fix it.
While I've been traveling in my congressional district, I've heard
personally from business sectors of our economy on the central coast of
California that are hurt on a daily basis by this broken immigration
system. There are high-tech companies in Goleta, California, frustrated
by seeing many of our brightest UC Santa Barbara graduates being sent
back to their native countries to work for competitive companies and
countries because of a lack of high-skilled worker visas.
I've met with growers in California's agriculture industry who are so
important in my local economy, critical to our national economy, and
who struggle to find a stable and a consistent workforce. This
threatens the sustainability of our crops.
[[Page 13851]]
I've met with workforce and labor organizations who want to ensure
workers can earn fair wages and contribute to our economy and our
communities. We must act now to establish a fair, but tough, pathway to
citizenship to provide the security and stability our economy needs.
I now refer to the chart which indicates so graphically the
difference between a path to legalization only and the strong
advantages of that pathway to citizenship.
Comprehensive reform would boost California's economy alone by $7.3
billion. It would create nearly 77,000 new jobs in our State of
California just next year. This should be one of our Nation's top
priorities.
Mr. Speaker, I would also note for the record that while Members of
my party are very enthusiastic about advancing comprehensive
immigration reform, this is an issue with strong bipartisan support.
For example, the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform on a
strong bipartisan vote not too long ago, and just last week a number of
Republican members of the California State legislature made their
voices heard on this issue--and that's the letter to which you
referred. They sent a letter to their Federal counterparts urging us to
take action in the House. These are Republican legislators from
California on comprehensive immigration reform. I would like to now
submit this letter into the Record.
This letter outlines components of comprehensive reform that most of
us agree need to be included, that is, the opportunity for undocumented
residents to earn their way to citizenship.
Wisely, the California State Republican legislators wrote--and this
is a quote from their letter:
There is no policy debate more important to the future of
California and of America than passing comprehensive
immigration reform.
I could not agree more.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, it is time that we have the opportunity
here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to
debate and to finally have a vote on comprehensive immigration reform.
Our country, our economy simply cannot wait any longer.
Thank you for the time, my colleague from California.
California State
Republican Legislators
To: California Republican Congressional Delegation:
Doug LaMalfa, 1st District
Tom McClintock, 4th District
Paul Cook, 8th District
Jeff Denham, 10th District
David Valadao, 21st District
Devin Nunes, 22nd District
Kevin McCarthy, 23rd District
Buck McKeon, 25th District
Gary Miller, 31st District
Ed Royce, 39th District
Ken Calvert, 42nd District
John Campbell, 45th District
Dana Rohrabacher, 48th District
Darrell Issa, 49th District
Duncan Hunter, 50th District
We, the undersigned California State legislative
Republicans, strongly support federal comprehensive
immigration reform and urge our state Republican
Congressional delegation to encourage Speaker John Boehner to
call a vote on immigration reform.
Components should include thoughtful and strong border
security, employer sanctions, and opportunity for
undocumented residents to earn their way to full citizenship,
but only behind those who have applied to become citizens
through the current citizenship process.
There is no policy debate more important to the future of
California and America than passing comprehensive immigration
reform. By providing legal clarity to the status of millions
of people in California, we can spur an economic renaissance,
solidify families, and create an entirely new population of
full taxpayers, many of whom who have strong entrepreneurial
and work ethics.
We stand with the business community, the labor community,
farmers, manufacturers, communities of faith, and most
importantly Californians, in our call for Congress to act on
reform this year to put this challenge behind us as a state
and nation. We strongly urge House Republicans to demand a
vote.
While some members in Congress may not support the
legislation, every member deserves the opportunity to vote.
We understand that members have divergent views on reform,
but this is the time to address the many serious issues
immigrants and their employers face every day.
This group of Republican legislators is asking our friends
in business, labor and agriculture, who work with these
immigrants in their fields, homes and factories every day to
join us in asking Congressional Leaders to ``Call the Vote.''
Respectfully,
Senator Anthony Cannella, SD 12; Senator Steve Knight, SD
21; Senator Bill Emmerson, SD 27; Senator Tom Berryhill, SD
14.
Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway, AD 26;
Assemblymember Jeff Gorell, AD 44; Assemblymember Kristin
Olsen, AD 12; Assemblymember Rocky Chavez, AD 76;
Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian, AD 35; Assemblymember Jim
Patterson, AD 23; Assemblymember Allan Mansoor, AD 74;
Assemblymember Don Wagner, AD 68; Assemblymember Brian
Maienschein, AD 77; Assemblymember Eric Linder, AD 60;
Assemblymember Brian Dahle, AD 1.
Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Capps.
I now yield to Dr. Raul Ruiz, who represents the southern part of
California, to express some of his understanding of why comprehensive
immigration reform is good for America and good for Americans.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from California,
Congressman Cardenas.
Immigrants from all over the world have made tremendous contributions
to our society and our economy since the birth of our Nation. Our
immigrant families are an invaluable part of our country.
For far too long, Congress has failed to act on a comprehensive plan
for immigration reform.
I believe that any immigration reform plan would be bipartisan,
secure our borders, uphold the immigration laws we already have,
protect our workers and businesses, and include a pathway to
citizenship for those who work hard and play by the rules.
Passing a commonsense comprehensive immigration reform bill would
lead to an economic boom in the Coachella Valley and across the
country.
Nonpartisan, independent studies have shown that comprehensive
immigration reform will reduce the deficit by nearly $850 billion over
the next 20 years and reduce our Federal debt. It will also increase
economic growth and strengthen our economy by expanding our labor
force, increasing investment, and increasing overall productivity. It
will also provide a significant boost to our tourism and agriculture
sectors, two of the top industries in my district in the Coachella
Valley.
In the Coachella Valley, tourism industries will benefit
substantially from some of the provisions in the bipartisan Senate
bill, like the Visa Waiver Program. Additionally, our U.S. agriculture
output and exports will grow once our farmers have access to the stable
workforce they need.
Comprehensive immigration reform means more jobs and more opportunity
for people in my district and across the country, but only if we act.
I stand ready to work with both Democrats and Republicans toward a
comprehensive immigration system that is rooted in common sense. It is
time to put aside the political games and work together in a bipartisan
effort to address this critical challenge.
Thank you, Congressman Cardenas, for this session.
Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you so much, Congressman Ruiz.
Before I call up our next Congressman from Florida, I'd like to share
a story with everyone, Mr. Speaker, about economics and innovation.
Cesar Millan was born in 1969 in Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico. He grew
up working with animals on his grandfather's farm in Sinaloa.
Young Millan crossed the border in the U.S. without a visa at the age
of 21. He spoke no English and did not know anyone in this country. He
first worked in a dog grooming store working with
[[Page 13852]]
the most aggressive dogs that nobody else would want to work with.
Mr. Millan became a permanent resident in the year 2000. He was
focused on rehabilitating especially aggressive dogs and founded the
Dog Psychology Center in south Los Angeles, and he held that center
there from 2002 to 2009, which, in fact, was a business.
He started a television series, ``The Dog Whisperer with Cesar
Millan,'' which was broadcast in more than 80 countries around the
world between 2004 and 2012. The show became National Geographic's
number one show during its first season.
Starting in January 2013, Cesar Millan has hosted another series,
``Cesar Millan's Leader of the Pack.'' Cesar Millan has written three
books, all of which became New York Times bestsellers. In 2009, Cesar
Millan launched ``Cesar's Way'' magazine in the United States and
Canada, which combines advice from Cesar and articles about
relationships between dogs and humans. It is the number one selling dog
magazine in North America.
{time} 2045
In 2007, Cesar and Ilusion Millan created the Cesar and Ilusion
Millan Foundation, a not-for-profit to aid and support the rescue,
rehabilitation, and placement of abused and abandoned dogs. Cesar
Millan has also supported other projects, including K-9 Connection for
at-risk teens, Pups on Parole for inmates, and It Gets Better that
supports at-risk LGBT youth as well.
I was present in 2009--and it was a proud moment for me and a proud
moment for Cesar Millan and his family--when he raised his hand and was
sworn in as a United States citizen in 2009 in Los Angeles, California.
And I can tell you, his efforts and his contributions to this great
Nation go much further.
While watching television, my wife, Norma, looked at the TV and she
said, You know what, Tony? You need to meet Cesar Millan. He looks like
a good man, and he looks like somebody who can help you create good
legislation for the city of Los Angeles, when I was on the city council
of Los Angeles.
So I invited him to my office, and immediately he said he'd be more
than happy to help me. And as a result of that one meeting, he helped
me create the first spay and neuter program in the largest city in the
United States of America. Now it's the model for cities around the
country. And it was his advice and his expertise that allowed me to do
that.
Los Angeles, for over 20 years, had not prosecuted one person for
cruelty to animals, and it was Cesar Millan who urged me that we need
to put an end to that. And with that, in Los Angeles, I was able to
pass an ordinance that created an animal cruelty task force. And today,
we have prosecuted over 200 individuals with felony charges for cruelty
to animals.
Basically what I'm saying is it was an undocumented immigrant who
came to this country who taught me, an American-born citizen, how I can
take my craft as an elected official to a level that had never been
done before. And it's that kind of example that I believe we have
example after example after example in this country that immigrants who
come to this country, documented or undocumented, seize the opportunity
of the atmosphere that we've created in this great country. And they
are tremendous contributors not only to our economy, but to good
legislation and making our communities a better place.
And now I would like to invite to speak a few words Congressman Joe
Garcia from Florida to share what his perspective on comprehensive
immigration reform means to this country and why it's so important to
our great Nation.
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I have the great opportunity to come from a
community that, in large part, has been built by immigrants. I am the
son of refugees to this great country. And here's what we know:
We know that immigrants add to America's way of life; they create
more opportunity for all; they make our country better; they make
American citizens richer.
Here's what we know:
We know that in the next 10 years, if we find a pathway for
legalization, over $100 billion of additional capital will be added to
our country. What we know is that in the next 20 years, that will be
over $870 billion. In fact, what we know is that they will almost
provide $1 trillion of economic growth over the next 20 years.
It's important to understand that immigrants bolster our country,
make our country better, and they add to it.
I lived in south Florida during very tough times for immigrants. I
remember, as a young man, seeing bumper stickers on the back of cars
that said, ``Would the last American leaving Miami please bring the
flag.'' What I know is that the flag still flies high in Miami. It is a
leading beacon for work and opportunity in our country because people
didn't give up on the dream of our country. They continued to work and
they continued to make a difference.
And that is exactly what we have to understand is that immigrants
bolster our country. They bolster America's private sector by consuming
more goods, more services, providing increased income. All this, in
turn, creates more jobs and greater income for all Americans.
What we know is that by 2022, over 820,000 more workers will be
created because of the need, $321 billion of increased income for all
Americans. The GDP increases by $568 billion if all noncitizens,
undocumented and those illegal residents in the country, were to be
legalized. This is a boon for our country. It creates opportunity. It
makes for a better America.
I thank the gentleman from California for doing this because of
course what he's doing is trying to save this country, to make it
better. There has never been a great country, a great nation in the
history of the world that was shedding citizens. In fact, all great
countries welcome opportunity. They welcome those who come to provide.
We need a comprehensive immigration system not only because we need
more workers, but we need the intellectual capital that they bring. We
need that drive, that vigor that they add to our country. And the fight
for comprehensive immigration reform is one that makes all Americans
better, makes our country richer, and makes opportunity for all,
creating the motto that lives in our country.
So again, I want to thank the gentleman from California for his
efforts. I know he's one of many in the House. And what we do know is
that if a bill came to this floor, it would have majority support. The
Senate passed it, and this House could pass it if the leadership would
allow it to get to the floor.
More than enough of the Members of this Chamber understand the
benefits of immigration, understand that it is necessary for our
country's greatness, and understand that it is what we will do
inevitably. Let's do it now. Let's do it right. Let's get it done.
Mr. CARDENAS. Thank you, Congressman Garcia. I really appreciate that
perspective and your sharing with America those perspectives.
I would like to share another story of someone that I'm friends with
and someone who has a business in my district and also lives in my
district.
Alonso Arellano was born in 1966 in Tijuana, Mexico. He came to
America when he was 10 years old with his mother and stepdad and
brother. His family settled in Huntington Park, California, where his
father worked at a factory job and his mother sold goods to make some
extra money. He had to withdraw from high school in the 10th grade
because of the family's economic hardships and began working to help
support his family. But he had a passion for learning and was
determined to get an education, so he completed high school by taking
night classes while working full-time, and went on to take courses at a
junior college to continue his education.
In 1986, he got married. And when he found out his wife was pregnant
a couple of years later, he began to reevaluate his life and what he
was going to do next for his family. So he joined the United States Air
Force in 1988, where he won the Airman of the Quarter
[[Page 13853]]
Award three times, received a commendation medal, and graduated from
training with honors. He was granted the permission to take classes at
Eastern New Mexico University nearby the base where he was stationed,
and he eventually earned a bachelor's degree in physics and a master's
degree in mathematics.
After the war, Alonso applied for and was granted U.S. citizenship,
which opened the door for his future career. When he left the military
in 1994, he began training at UCLA to become a radiation medical
physicist while working part time at UCLA at a cancer research center.
He currently works as a radiation medical physicist at a private
hospital. In addition to that, he owns and runs a restaurant called
Rocio's Mole de los Dioses. And right now, he's planning on opening up
another business, creating jobs for Americans, creating jobs in our
community, our corner of America.
I think it's important for people to understand that immigrants have
such an insatiable appetite to appreciate their surroundings,
appreciate their opportunities, just like Alonso, who had to get out of
school at the 10th grade, who worked full-time, went to night school to
get his education, went on to get a bachelor's degree, a master's
degree, and now is contributing in a health care facility for patients
with cancer, who is actually contributing by opening several businesses
where he employs American citizens.
I want to thank my colleagues for joining me tonight on this floor to
share the stories of truth and the stories about how important
comprehensive immigration reform is to the economy of America. Once
again, 82,000 more jobs if we allow these new Americans to become
citizens, $568 billion more growth in GDP to the United States economy
if we allow them to become citizens, $75 billion more in revenue to
local States and governments if we allow them to become citizens, $321
billion of growth in dollars in the pockets of American families that
will be spent throughout our communities in America.
As I close, I would like to thank NALEO, NCLR, and countless other
businesses, chambers, labor, civil rights, religious, and law
enforcement organizations, individuals who are continuing to push for
the truth, to push Congress to please have comprehensive immigration
reform meet the floor of both Houses so we can reconcile this, fix our
broken immigration system, and put it on the desk of the President of
the United States, and we will see an economic boon that this country
has not seen for decades.
Americans deserve for us to operate in these Chambers the way we
should, to put aside the partisan bickering, to look at the economic
benefit of every community in our country, to do the right thing, to
live the spirit of what the United States of America portends to be
around the world. We need to start at home and realize that we have 11
million hardworking people in this country who are doing the toughest
jobs, changing the diapers of our children, working in the kitchens of
every nice, wonderful restaurant in America, people who are working
with our grandparents to help them live a better life. Many of those
individuals deserve the opportunity to come out of the shadows, and not
only come out of the shadows, but to contribute to this great Nation
with more economics that we need to see. We have an ailing economy,
ladies and gentlemen. And with that, Mr. Speaker, we will see growth in
America. We will see more Americans go to work if we do the right thing
and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a wonderful hour of truth and
message to the American people, and I hope and pray that in these
Chambers we have the opportunity to vote for comprehensive immigration
reform.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
SMART SPENDING CUTS STARTING WITH THE CENSUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) for 30 minutes.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back here
working on the floor of this House. As we have gotten back started,
there are a lot of issues, there are a lot of things being debated,
even here tonight being spoken of from a factor of truth and things
that I think the American people sent us here to do.
They sent us here to look after the people's House, to do the
business of America and make sure that the important interests that
they care about, which are their lives and their businesses, their
families, those are the things that we need to be about. And I know
from our prospects on the Republican side, that is exactly what we're
looking at to foster jobs and create growth and to do the things that
matter.
But while I was home over the August work period, I got a lot of
questions from longtime friends and also folks that had I not met. Over
the time frame, we spoke to more groups than I could count. We talked
to individuals, whether they be in the Kroger shopping center, whether
they be in a coffee shop, whether they were in town hall meetings or
all over, we experienced the Ninth District again as we went out and
listened to our constituency. And what I had learned about the first
few months was a lot of things that they wanted to ask me about.
You see, I have got questions about the budget. I have got questions
about taxes. I have got questions about how we were going to prevent
ObamaCare from going into effect. And I'm glad to stand here tonight
and say that this Friday we're living up to the promise, as we have
already worked to repeal parts of this legislation and to put this back
on a foundation which the President can no longer just do by executive
order whatever he would like, even in contradiction to black letter
law.
When we look at the issues of ObamaCare going forward on Friday on
this House floor, we are going to move forward with a continuing
resolution to keep this government functioning while, at the same time,
protecting Americans from a bad health care law.
{time} 2100
Do not let anyone--if you're watching tonight, do not let anyone tell
you any different. Republicans want to keep the government functioning
and protect Americans at the same time. We can do that. That's why we
were sent here.
All those things that we were asked questions about, from ObamaCare
to taxes to budget, but also Benghazi and IRS. And a little over a year
ago, on the floor of this House, and all of America, we were horrified
at the sights of Benghazi. And to know that this week we're continuing
to look and to find the truth, so not just we look backwards and
remember, but that we look forward so that we can put into place things
that matter and things that will help those from the Ninth District of
Georgia and all over the country who want to go into Foreign Service,
who want to serve their country, so that when they go overseas to
serve, they will know that if trouble comes we have their back. Those
are the things that the Ninth District were talking to me about, and
those are the things that this Congress and this Republican majority
are putting a priority on.
But while I was at home, I was also fortunate enough to get to talk
to people who don't have time to focus on inside-the-Beltway issues. In
fact, they really don't look to inside the Beltway to determine how
they're going to get up and live each day.
In fact, when I go home and visit constituents in hardware stores and
pharmacies and small businesses where regular Americans go on a daily
basis, I'm reminded of why my constituents elected me to be here. These
are the places populated by the people who don't ask for much for their
government. They just pay their taxes. They pay their bills.
They get up in the mornings, they send their kids to school, and they
go to work, and they come back home in the evenings and they go to ball
games and they go to their parents' house.
[[Page 13854]]
They take care of their relatives, they take of their neighbors. They
look after their schools. They look after their communities.
And what they want is just a government that leaves them alone, that
does what it's supposed to do, while they do what they're supposed to
do.
You see, they don't believe that government is the solution to all
problems. In fact, they don't look to Washington for their solution.
They look for Washington to do what it was supposed to do, as the
Founders intended: to be a form of limited government, a place that
provides a healthy playing field, but it only provides it within the
limited confines of the Constitution and what the Founders intended
this organization and this government to be.
When we look at this, they look around, they scratch their head and
they say, when they see Washington not working, when they see it
overreaching, when they see it getting into their lives and affecting
their businesses and keeping their business from expanding by
regulation that continues to tear down the fabric of new business
growth through our banking sector and others, through our manufacturing
sector, and removing the jobs at the expense of growing government
jobs, they want to know, they say, ``Doug, can Washington be fixed?''
Fixing the small things sometimes is not real vogue in this town. And
when we think about that, and when they ask me the question, can
Washington be fixed, I'm able to tell them that we can fix Washington,
but it's going to take hard work and a lot of focus, which the people
of the Ninth District of Georgia know a lot about, and also a lot of
our country. In fact, our country is based on hard work and focus, and
that's what makes this country great.
First of all, we're going to have to start by fixing the small
things. They sent us here to Washington to fix it, but we often get so
focused on the big ticket items of the day that we miss out on
reforming the small things that are right in front of us, the things
that can actually be fixed without a drawn-out, partisan fight.
And I say so many times, people say, what are you fighting about? And
many times it's hard to explain. But there are some things that we can
do that we can all agree upon. There are spending categories all over
the Federal Government where billions of dollars are being wasted and
not put to good use.
In fact, in my time here looking back through the reports from the
Government Accountability Office, you see the same programs listed as
high risk year after year. We're ignoring billions of dollars in
savings by overlooking the small things.
I am a big believer that if you do the small things regularly and
consistently, they become habit. And we, as a government, if we would
focus on the small things, if we focused on the things that mattered
and the things that we could get agreement on, then the American people
would, slowly but surely, begin to rebuild the trust that they have in
this institution.
You see, one of the things I want to talk about tonight, I serve on
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and I serve on the
Subcommittee on Federal Work Force, U.S. Postal Service and the Census.
Now, I have to admit, when I first was assigned to this subcommittee
I thought to myself, what does this committee do, and why am I on it?
And then I began to look into it, and I began to see what it actually
works toward, and what are the things that are under its jurisdiction,
whether it be the Federal work force and the issues involved there, or
it's the Postal Service, which affects every American, or the census.
Yes, the census.
One small thing that we spend money on is actually a pretty big
thing. It's a decennial census. Using inflation-adjusted dollars, the
cost of the census that the government administers every 10 years has
risen over 600 percent since 1970.
If you look at this chart right here, you can see, since 1970, see
the growth that has happened in the cost of the census. The census cost
just $17 per household in 1970, but it's almost doubled in cost every
10 years, to the point that the 2010 census cost $115 for every
household in America.
Now, I'm going to stop right here for just a second. And I'm sure
that maybe if you are tuning in tonight you're going to say, maybe you
would ask if you're watching this on another medium, and I'm sure a lot
of you are asking right now, why is Doug Collins on the floor talking
about the census?
I'm here because the census is a great example of how we can start to
save taxpayer money by reforming the small things.
This government has a spending problem. We spend money on more
agencies and bureaus than most Americans can possibly comprehend. All
these pieces add up to budget problems that we face today. And if we
don't start fixing the small pieces now, how will we ever begin to
address the big ones?
We spent almost $15 billion on the census in 2010, $15 billion. And
if we don't start planning now, some projections indicate we could
spend as much as $25 billion in 2020, $25 billion in 2020, a little
over 10 years, we're again adding 10, and some estimates think it could
go as high as $30 billion.
In a subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
last week, we heard from the new Director of the Census Bureau about
steps that can be taken to keep these costs from going up.
However, the National Academy of Sciences has stated that it is
possible that the 2020 census could cost even less than the 2010
version. With the technological developments that have taken place over
the last decade, we now have the ability to utilize the Internet and
mobile devices in ways that can dramatically cut costs.
We know that the younger generation of Americans is the most
difficult to obtain responses from when the census is issued. They're
mobile, they're busy, and they just have no interest in filling out
surveys with a pencil and paper and mailing it back.
They are much more comfortable using the Internet than any previous
generations. They're digital natives. It comes natural to them.
Luckily, we have the ability to utilize the Internet for responses in
2020. We already allow individuals to file their income tax returns
online. Implementing an online option for the census is a no-brainer.
Instead of sending out multiple mailings, and sending an hourly worker
to gather the data, the Census Bureau can use a secure online survey.
This also cuts down on the time it would take for someone to
transcribe a written response into an electronic record. Both of these
measures have the potential to cut labor costs and, most importantly,
to save taxpayer money.
Another way that we can encourage people to take part in the census
is through incentives. At a cost of over $100 per household, we need to
consider creating incentives to reduce follow-up responses.
Improving the initial response rate by just 1 percent saves $85
million in taxpayer money. Remember, taxpayer money. It's a word thrown
around up here in Washington a lot, but let's just make it very simple:
taxpayer money is what's in your wallet right now. That is all that we
have to run on, unless we're borrowing it or printing it.
We need to remember where our money comes from and why it's important
to save it.
Whether it is through a small targeted incentive, or a partnership
with a local school or community, or something that we have not even
thought of yet, beginning these discussions now will prepare us to
implement them in time for the 2020 census.
This is important because many of you say it's still several years
away. But I'm often amazed, as when I was pastoring, I used to talk to
people all the time who would find themselves in March and April, and
they could not understand why they were in debt.
And I would often hear them make this statement. They made the
statement that, you know, Christmas and the holidays just snuck up on
me this year. And I'd think to myself, it's the same time every year.
How did it sneak up on you?
[[Page 13855]]
And in 10 years, we do the census every year. Why aren't we putting
our thought into it now?
And I'm glad to see that our committee is doing that.
When we heard from the Census Bureau at a hearing, we also learned
that some of the built-in costs of the census come from needing to ask
questions requested by congressional committees. We have the power to
add questions, but we should also consider using that same power to
remove some.
Every question asked on the census adds more cost to the process and
requires taxpayer funding.
I hear from constituents often that the census and the American
Community Survey are too long and too intrusive. While we can debate
this issue at another time, there is no doubt that we should consider
the cost-saving potentials of revisiting these questions asked because
people do not have time to fill out long surveys that they find too
intrusive and too over-the-top and too overbearing, accompanied with
that famous, If you don't fill it out, you're under a penalty of
criminal law.
We've got to get back to what really matters. And one of the things
is saving money and time.
Another area of savings we should be looking into is technology based
on mapping software. As anyone who has had a smartphone really can
attest, the mapping technology in a small device is truly remarkable.
A significant cost that adds to the census is when surveyors drive
their cars through urban and suburban areas and then have to get out
and walk to individual houses.
Oftentimes they have to deal with traffic, depending on the time of
day or the part of town that they may be in. As mapping technology is
evolving, we now have the ability to minimize the amount of time census
employees spend in traffic.
We have seen this technology in action in the private sector. You
would expect the private sector to know how to save money and to earn
the profit. That's exactly what they're in business to do.
A company like UPS has been able to develop software that optimizes
the efficiency of their employees so that they take as few left turns
as possible. A driver might make three right turns to avoid making a
left turn.
While this seems counterintuitive, they found that it actually saves
money. The employees spend less time sitting at traffic lights and are
able to service more households per day. If the census can an employ a
mobile technology along these same lines, the bureau has the ability to
save taxpayer dollars.
Now, understand something: none of these cost-saving measures are
truly revolutionary. None of them will shock people or cause a partisan
divide. I doubt that our offices will be flooded with constituent calls
asking us to adopt them.
But simply put, they're all commonsense measures that will save
taxpayer money. The ideas have worked in other areas of government, and
have worked in the private sector.
Sometimes it doesn't take a revolutionary idea to be a good one. It
often takes a group of leaders deciding to focus on an issue and keep
pushing it until the process improves. We have a chance to improve the
census and to rein in the costs.
As previously stated, we have the ability to save $10 billion in
future taxpayer cost. As I said earlier, the big things will always
work themselves out. We can even run from crisis to crisis up here, and
people will focus on the big things, and we will continue to work on
those because they matter.
But it's time we gave some consideration to the small things. When we
add the small pieces together, we start to actually reduce the deficit
and get this country back on solid financial ground.
This is not a small thing. This is what matters to the people back
home. This is what matters when they come up to me in the grocery store
and they talk about Washington being broken. They want to know how it
affects them at their table, at their homes, and with their families.
When we start focusing on the small things, the big things get in
perspective even clearer, and we're up here doing exactly what we are
supposed to be. And the Republican majority is focused on limited
government, focusing on jobs, and getting America back to work again
with a government that does what it's supposed to do and gets out of
the way.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this
subject tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 687, SOUTHEAST
ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1256, RESTORING HEALTHY FORESTS FOR HEALTHY
COMMUNITIES ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3102, NUTRITION
REFORM AND WORK OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2013; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. Cole, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report
(Rept. No. 113-215) on the resolution (H. Res. 351) providing for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 687) to facilitate the efficient
extraction of mineral resources in southeast Arizona by authorizing and
directing an exchange of Federal and non-Federal land, and for other
purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1526) to
restore employment and educational opportunities in, and improve the
economic stability of, counties containing National Forest System land,
while also reducing Forest Service management costs, by ensuring that
such counties have a dependable source of revenue from National Forest
System land, to provide a temporary extension of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for other
purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3102) to amend
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and for other purposes; and for
other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to
be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT
RESOLUTION, H.J. RES. 59 CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014
Mr. Cole, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report
(Rept. No. 113-216) on the resolution (H. Res. 352) providing for
consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
{time} 2115
REVIEWING THE BASICS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Fortenberry) for 30 minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I met with a group of
Nebraskans, as we do every week. It's called the Nebraska Breakfast.
It's about a 70-year tradition that we have here in the Congress where
the House Members and the Senators get together. We've been doing that
decade after decade. It's a wonderful way to welcome people to
Washington and one of the highlights of our week. What we do as a
delegation is talk about the issues of the day and hear from our
constituents as well.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be important to just
review a few basics. Some of the terminology and some of the language
that we throw around here with great ease is often, I think,
disconnected from people out there in the country--words and phrases
like continuing resolutions; the Affordable Care Act, known as
ObamaCare; sequestration, and debt limits. The reason that I point all
this out is there is a convergence of all of these factors right now
that is creating the great debate and this moment of drama in the
United States Congress.
So let's take those one at a time.
First of all, the continuing resolution. What does that mean? Well,
each
[[Page 13856]]
year, if it worked in an ideal fashion and a proper fashion, the
President submits a budget to Congress. Congress can take that budget
up or not. The House passes a budget. The Senate passes its own budget.
The two are reconciled. We set a budgetary goal, and then the
appropriations committees go to work on various aspects of funding the
government, whether that's the Defense Department, military services,
labor and health and human services, transportation, financial,
agriculture support, and the rest of the so-called appropriations
bills. Basically, the budget sets up a fence and then the
appropriations bills divide up how that money is to be spent each year.
That, again, is in an ideal world, which has become very broken of
late.
When Congress cannot seem to get a budget agreement between the House
and Senate, we come to the end of the fiscal year, which ends this
September, and we have to figure out a way to fund the government going
forward or else it shuts down. When the government shuts down, there is
the potential for planes not to fly, trains not to run, and veterans
not to get their services. It's not a proper way to govern. It's not
good for the country to have this uncertainty looming out there. We
want to do everything we can to try to avoid a government shutdown
while moving forward on fiscally responsible policies that return us to
what we call ``regular order'' here and try to get back in place a
system of governance that gives some proper planning horizons for the
communities at large out there across America and brings it back into
an orderly process here.
So if we are not able to pass a budget, the continuing resolution is
a vote by both the Senate and the House as to how to move forward
either in a temporary fashion or a long-term fashion based upon what
current government policies are.
The frustration here is that each year of late we've been going
through all of these difficult decisionmaking processes, particularly
through the appropriations process, about which programs are important,
which are necessary public policies to help bring essential services to
the American people, and which programs are older, antiquated, no
longer effective and should either be reduced or eliminated.
We've gone through a number of those processes this year; but because
of the disagreements between the two bodies, because of the deep
philosophical divide in this Chamber, we have not been able to find a
resolution that gets us to what we call regular order--passing
appropriations bills under a budgetary framework. So now we are faced
with a continuing resolution--the decision as to how to fund the
government, moving forward, either for a short term--a month or 2,
maybe a few weeks, or even a few days--or long term.
The continuing resolution means we just pick up government where it
is and move it forward, basically spending the same amount of money
that we did last year and not getting any of the reforms. So it might
come to that, but that's an unfortunate way to govern. And I know it's
adding cynicism, Mr. Speaker, in the American people's perspective as
they watch this deep philosophical divide play itself out on the House
floor and seemingly not being able to get anything constructively
decided.
Mr. Speaker, I'm from Nebraska. We have a saying, Let's get 'er done.
I think that's what most Americans want. Let's find a constructive way,
a proper and balanced way, to appropriately reduce spending in areas
that are necessary to do so, perhaps even the right type of tax reform
to get this fiscal house in order.
Now why is this important? Well, we have a $600-plus billion deficit
this year. Year after year, because we've had these deficits, we've
piled up debt. There's now $17 trillion of debt. By some measures, it's
approximating the size of the output of the entire economy. It's a real
red flag.
That's why it is so imperative that this body strive to work
together, again, in a constructive manner, to figure out the right type
of spending and tax policies that deliver essential services, reduce
the overspending, increase accountability in effective and smart
government and delivery of policy, while also having a fairer and
simpler Tax Code. That should be the objective, and I think it is for
most Members here. But, unfortunately, the system is working very
dysfunctionally at the moment and we're going to be faced with
eleventh-hour decisions as to how to fund the government in the short
term so that it doesn't shut down. That's called the continuing
resolution.
Complicating that this year is the whole debate about the future of
health care in America. A couple of years ago, the Affordable Care Act
was passed. I did not support it. It's now known as ObamaCare. We do
need the right type of health care reform in our country--a health care
reform that is going to improve health care outcomes while reducing
costs. I think most Americans are beginning to see and realize this now
because it's hitting them and it's hurting them. Instead, what we have
in the new health care bill is a shift to more unsustainable costs and
an erosion of health care liberties, and a significant amount of
Americans are experiencing not affordable care but an escalating cost
of their premiums.
Now, there's some components of the health care law that I think are
reasonable; and as we move forward, we should retain them, such as
keeping kids on health insurance up to the age of 26. I supported that
policy before the health care bill. Removing caps on health insurance
in case a family would cap out, that doesn't save the system any money.
The family simply has to go find another job and an insurance provider,
creating great duress. That doesn't make sense. Appropriately dealing
with the problem of preexisting conditions. There have been a number of
Americans who were priced out of the insurance market, who could not
find affordable, quality insurance. And that's a real crack in our
market system, so that it's necessary that public policy deal with
that.
But what we've gotten instead is a massive turning over of our entire
health care system. It's creating havoc. Prices are going up. People
aren't sure as to whether or not they can keep their doctor or their
health care plan. Some people are experiencing unemployment as
companies either don't expand or have to reduce numbers because they
want to get under the threshold by which they have to provide health
insurance for their employees. And some employees are having reduced
hours. This is a very big problem.
Another component of this is that the President and the
administration have exempted certain entities. Recently, the
implementation of the business demand that they provide health care has
been delayed. It's really not fair because individuals are saying, if
you can delay the business mandate, the corporate mandate, why not the
individual mandate?
The fullness of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, is coming into
full force very shortly. So this is colliding as well with our
budgetary discussion, and it's creating dramatic dynamics as we end the
month here at the end of the fiscal year.
The other aspect of this is called sequestration. A couple of years
ago, we were in a very similar situation in which we were faced with
raising the debt ceiling--and I'll return to that Washington phrase in
a moment--or not. A special committee was set up to review the Tax Code
and to review spending, and they were going to come up with a process
by which there was a fair and balanced approach to spending and taxes
going forward.
But that supercommittee failed. The incentive for them to act in a
constructive manner was something called ``sequestration,'' which is
the implementation of automatic budget cuts, primarily affecting the
defense of our country, and what we call nondefense discretionary
spending.
Nondefense discretionary spending is basically everything else the
government does, other than the defense and veterans and retirement and
health security programs--basically, Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid. So a third of the entire budget is what is
[[Page 13857]]
being affected by sequestration, and many Members of Congress have seen
the furloughs in their districts and cutbacks on vital programs.
I think there's widespread support, particularly where I come from,
on, again, ensuring that we have the right type of spending reductions
while there is also a proper delivery of important essentials. We have
to do this in a smart manner. The sequestration does it across the
board. It's a very clumsy, awkward way to do this. It's not judicious.
It's not using discretion. It's not taking the best judgment through
our normal processes of considering a budget and appropriations bills
and saying, that program may have been good at one time, but it no
longer fits modern needs. Let's get rid of it and save that money and
bring down spending or apply it to something new that's innovative that
can really help people.
That's what sequestration is doing. That's what it did this year.
Because that supercommittee failed to meet its goal, there were
automatic budgetary reductions put in place. They will continue unless,
again, we can come to an agreement as to how we replace sequestration
with a more prudent form of spending reduction that would hopefully be
coupled, again, with the right type of tax reform.
Let me talk about that fourth Washington phrase, those two words, the
``debt ceiling.'' We used to never hear much about this. The debt
ceiling was something that kind of came and went. Congress has to give
the authority to the President to go out and borrow money. Usually,
that was automatic; but because our debt has gotten so large, so
severe, at $17 trillion, most Members of Congress are saying this is so
severe that it demands creative thinking and bold resolve, or else we
will undermine not only our economic well-being but also national
security.
Now, how so? What does $17 trillion of debt mean?
Mr. Speaker, we are a people that self-governs. This debt is not
sitting out there as somebody else's problem. It's America's problem.
So if you divided it all up between every man, woman, and child in this
country, every one of us would have to write a check for $53,000 in
order to pay off the current debt.
Now, that doesn't even consider the projection of debt in the future
based upon the way in which current spending programs are constructed.
If we take the present value of the future obligations of programs as
they are now written, the debt would so accelerate that each person in
America right now, if nothing changes, would owe $300,000.
Mr. Speaker, I have five children. There are seven of us in the
family. Obviously, I can't afford a check to the government for $2.1
million to take care of my share of this obligation; nor can most
Americans. Something has to change. It will take bold resolve and
constructive commitment to fair and balanced outcomes both on the
spending side as well as the Tax Code ledger side.
If we don't do this, Mr. Speaker, what are the consequences if we
don't deal with this debt successfully? By the way, it can't be done
overnight. It's too big. That would be too disruptive to do it
overnight. But we have to set a pathway in which we are committed to
seriously reducing this debt and getting the fiscal house in order,
turning this battleship around.
The consequences are really threefold if we don't. First of all, it's
a form of future taxation. We're forcing the children of the future to
pay for the way in which we're living now. It's fundamentally unjust,
unfair.
Secondly, a lot of this high level of debt is held by foreign
countries such as China. What does that mean? That is a shift of the
assets of this country--what we own--into the hands of other people. We
get all worried that China is undertaking a military expansion. We've
sent a heck of a lot of manufacturing over there, sent a lot of our
economy over there. They make the stuff; we buy the stuff. They have
the cash. We run up debt; they buy our debt.
{time} 2130
It's a very dysfunctional marriage. But the consequences are, over
time, that is a shift of what we own in this country into the hands of
a place like China.
And where does that money go? Well, there is a ruling elite that's
doing pretty well there. There's a hybrid communist-capitalistic system
that doesn't seem to be very interested in the notion of private
property rights and human rights, doesn't seem to be advancing very
fast in this regard.
So this economic liberalization, you would hope, over time would help
bring about the focus on fundamental human rights and human dignity.
But it has certainly empowered a wealthy elite, and it's being plowed
back into military infrastructure buildup.
So our debt is a national security problem. Because we hear that the
Chinese, for instance, are expanding their navy, expanding their
nuclear arsenal. So what is our response? We'll send more ships into
the Pacific.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is also a response that needs to be had and
that we need to work diligently and quickly and boldly with clear
resolve, ideally in a bipartisan manner because this is an American
problem. This really isn't about politics, Mr. Speaker. This is about
principle. This is about participation in the future welfare of our
country, regaining our balance, regaining our strength. This should
transcend the partisan political divide. We'll have a big debate about,
again, what are the appropriate areas to reduce and what's the right
type of tax balance. Fine. But we should all be committed to getting to
this goal to quickly reverse this trend, which has severe economic and
national security consequences.
The third problem with all this debt is it's potentially
inflationary. Now, we have a very expansive liquidity policy going on
right now, basically buying up our debt. The consequences over time
could be a further unleashing of inflationary impacts, which is a form
of taxation, a regressive form of taxation. It hits the poor the
hardest, those who are on fixed incomes, seniors the hardest. It is
grossly unfair. People who are not in a position in life to adjust
prices, if you will, and so that creates a further form of taxation on
those who are least able to handle it.
So this is why, Mr. Speaker, this debt problem is so severe. We're
bumping up in the near term against this debt ceiling limit. Now,
again, what does that mean?
Congress has to give the administration authority to borrow more
money. Now, the last time we did this, we actually reduced spending by
more than an amount that we borrowed. That was the plan, again, trying
to get to this in a manner that is not disruptive but actually begins
to reduce the spending in a necessary fashion by more than the amount
that we continue to borrow. It's a slow walk toward a better situation.
We may end up there now, I don't know, but this is one of these
dynamics that's sitting out there, along with the continuing
resolution, the future of health care in this country, called
ObamaCare, the sequestration, dealing with these automatic cuts if we
don't figure out a constructive way to budget and to appropriate. And
then the debt ceiling, in which we have to have a plan to basically
continue to pull down this very, very large burdensome debt and all of
its economic as well as national security consequences. Mr. Speaker, we
must do this, and we must do it now.
So I would urge all of my colleagues, let's transcend the partisan
divide here. We're going to have differences. We all come from
districts with particular perspectives. We have different philosophical
ideas as to how to approach government. Some people want more
investment at the Federal level. Those of us who believe in the sole
principle called subsidiarity, where those closest to a problem or
opportunity should be empowered to solve the problem or seize the
opportunity--Federalism, as it used to be known. That has been the
robust way in which America gained such economic prowess in the world
and was a leader and continues to be a leader for so many people who
desire the nature of a system like ours that is rooted in this cultural
ideal that each person has inherent
[[Page 13858]]
dignity and rights and also has responsibility--even responsibility--
for government.
So, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have quite a bit of drama, I'm
afraid, in the coming days and weeks. Let's hope it doesn't add
cynicism to the deepening cynicism toward our institution. People in
America have entrusted us to represent them, to make judgments on their
behalf. I think most people in America want something constructive
done, something that's fair, that's not done in an emergency, 11th-hour
scenario, that doesn't disrupt economic well-being because it's either
too dramatic or too harsh or done at the last minute, that takes a
little bit longer view, gets past the politics of the moment and takes
a longer view as to what's right and good for America.
Mr. Speaker, the people who came behind us, who sacrificed so much to
build what we have, don't they deserve our best? Don't they deserve a
commitment to these higher ideals? Because our economic well-being is
tied to our ability to work constructively and creatively together to
get this fiscal house together, to get it on the right track, to
appropriately reduce spending while also delivering smart public
policies that are effective in helping people across this country, that
revitalizes our economic strength, that takes the duress off of
communities where people can't find jobs and can't find work, that
creates a fairer Tax Code that's less convoluted, that's a little bit
simpler, where you don't have to have an army of lawyers and
accountants to figure out ways around it. That's what we ought to be
focused on. That's what we need to get done. That's what I think our
people are demanding from us.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts
with you and my colleagues.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Rush (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for September 12 until
September 20 on account of attending to family acute medical care and
hospitalization.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 36 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Thursday, September 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
2995. A letter from the Director, Office of Management and
Budget, transmitting the OMB Sequestration Update Report to
the President and Congress for fiscal year 2014, pursuant to
2 U.S.C. 902(d)(2); to the Committee on Appropriations.
2996. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary, Department
of Defense, transmitting authorization of 21 officers to wear
the authorized insignia of the grade of brigadier general; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
2997. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary, Department
of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement
of Colonel David G. Bellon to wear the insignia of the grade
of brigadier general; to the Committee on Armed Services.
2998. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense,
transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Vice
Admiral James P. Wisecup, United States Navy, and his
advancement to the grade of vice admiral on the retired list;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
2999. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of the Treasury, transmitting A report
with regard to the Treasury's agenda with regard to the
international financial institutions; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
3000. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Student
Assistance General Provisions (RIN: 1880-AA87) received
September 5, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
3001. A letter from the General Counsel, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final
rule -- Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans;
Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits received September
9, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
3002. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting report prepared by
the Department of State concerning international agreements
other than treaties entered into by the United States to be
transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period
specified in the Case-Zablocki Act; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
3003. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel,
Department of the Treasury, transmitting three reports
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
3004. A letter from the Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Department of the Interior, transmitting copies of
the detailed boundaries for the Roaring Wild and Scenic River
and the Sandy Wild and Scenic River, Upper Portion, in
Oregon; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3005. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Endangered Species
Listing, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Austin
Blind and Jollyville Plateau Salamanders [Docket No.: FWS-R2-
ES-2013-0001; 4500030113] (RIN: 1018-AZ24) received September
9, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
3006. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Endangered Species
Listing, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Texas
Golden Gladecress and Threatened Status for Neches River
Rose-mallow [Docket No.: FWS-R2-ES-2010-0064] (RIN: 1018-
AX74) received September 9, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3007. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Endangered Species
Listing, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Texas Golden
Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow [Docket No.: FWS-R2-
ES-2013-0027, 4500030113] (RIN: 1018-AZ49) received September
9, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
3008. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Highly Migratory Species; 2006 Consolidated Atlantic
Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 8
[Docket No.: 120627194-3957-02] (RIN: 0648-BC31) received
September 11, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
3009. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South
Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands; Parrotfish Management Measures in St. Croix
[Docket No.: 120510052-3615-02] (RIN: 0648-BC20) received
September 3, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
3010. A letter from the Acting Deputy Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area [Docket No.: 121018563-3148-02] (RIN: 0648-
XC757) received September 3, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3011. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Western Pacific Fisheries; 2013 Annual Catch Limits and
Accountability Measures; Correcting Amendment [Docket No.:
121107617-3628-03] (RIN: 0648-XC351) received September 3,
2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
3012. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South
Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the South Atlantic
States; Regulatory Amendment 18 [Docket No.: 130312235-3658-
02] (RIN: 0648-BD04) received September 3, 2013, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3013. A letter from the Acting Deputy Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Northern
[[Page 13859]]
Rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska
[Docket No.: 120918468-3111-02] (RIN: 0348-XC769) received
September 3, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
3014. A letter from the Acting Deputy Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer
Flounder Fishery; Commercial Quota Harvested for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Docket No.: 111220786-1781-01]
(RIN: 0648-XC811) received September 11, 2013, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3015. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South
Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the South Atlantic
States; Regulatory Amendment 15 [Docket No.: 120924488-3671-
02] (RIN: 0648-BC60) received September 11, 2013, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3016. A letter from the Acting Deputy Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West
Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #6
Through #11 [Docket No.: 130108020-3409-01] (RIN: 0648-XC738)
received September 11, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3017. A letter from the Acting Deputy Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Fisheries [Docket No.: 130214139-3542-02] (RIN: 0648-XC789)
received September 11, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3018. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Visas: Documentation of
Nonimmigrants -- Visa Classification; T Visa Class (RIN:
1400-AD42) received September 3, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
3019. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting The Report to Congress on the
Application of Electronic Health Records (EHR) Payment
Incentives for Providers Not Receiving Other Incentive
Payments; jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce
and Ways and Means.
3020. A letter from the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction, transmitting the SIGIR's final report to
Congress; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and
Appropriations.
3021. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of the Treasury, transmitting A report
covering the operation and status of the relevant federal
fund accounts; jointly to the Committees on Oversight and
Government Reform and Ways and Means.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. SESSIONS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 351.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 687)
to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources
in southeast Arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange
of Federal and non-Federal land, and for other purposes;
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1526) to
restore employment and educational opportunities in, and
improve the economic stability of, counties containing
National Forest System land, while also reducing Forest
Service management costs, by ensuring that such counties have
a dependable source of revenue from National Forest System
land, to provide a temporary extension of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for
other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3102) to amend the Food and Nutrition Act 2008; and for other
purposes (Rept. 113-215). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. COLE: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 352.
Resolution providing for consideration of the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing appropriations
for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, and providing
for consideration of motions to suspend the rules (Rept. 113-
216). 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. PAULSEN (for himself, Mr. Lance, Mr. Reed, and
Mr. Kline):
H.R. 3119. A bill to prohibit enrollment under Health Care
Exchange plans until privacy protections are certified as
being in place, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. CUMMINGS (for himself and Ms. Schakowsky):
H.R. 3120. A bill to improve access to oral health care for
vulnerable and underserved populations; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on
Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, Veterans'
Affairs, and 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. ROE of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Scalise, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mrs. Ellmers, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Gosar, Mr.
Price of Georgia, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Flores, Mr. Pearce,
Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Culberson, Mr.
Wenstrup, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Ross, Mr. Stewart, Mr.
Palazzo, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Stockman, Mr.
Bucshon, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Salmon):
H.R. 3121. A bill to repeal the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and related reconciliation provisions, to
promote patient-centered health care, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to
the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and the
Workforce, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, House
Administration, Appropriations, and Rules, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BRALEY of Iowa:
H.R. 3122. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to promote student physical health and
well-being, nutrition, and fitness, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. CARSON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Cartwright,
Ms. Edwards, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Lewis, Mr.
Meeks, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Rangel):
H.R. 3123. A bill to ensure prompt access to Supplemental
Security Income, Social Security disability, and Medicaid
benefits for persons released from certain public
institutions; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois:
H.R. 3124. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social
Security Act to extend the adoption incentive payments
program to incentive payments for foster child exits to
reunification, adoption, and guardianship, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ENYART:
H.R. 3125. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Air
Force to make competitive grants to support research and
development, education, and training to produce a bio-based
aviation fuel for use by the Air Force and to provide an
initial infusion of funds for the grant program; to the
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee
on Appropriations, 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. FINCHER:
H.R. 3126. A bill to amend the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act to prohibit a government subsidy for the
purchase of a health plan by a Member of Congress; to the
Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. MAFFEI:
H.R. 3127. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow a credit to small employers for certain newly
hired employees, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Small
Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. MATSUI:
H.R. 3128. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide additional penalties applicable to
psychiatric hospitals and units that fail to comply with
Medicare discharge planning process requirements; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. MOORE:
H.R. 3129. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to make permanent the full exclusion applicable to
qualified small business stock; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD:
H.R. 3130. A bill to establish humane practices for the
repatriation of aliens at the border, establish effective
standards for the treatment of certain aliens in the custody
of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the
[[Page 13860]]
Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland
Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SABLAN (for himself, Ms. Gabbard, Ms. Hanabusa,
Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
Dingell, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Norton, Mr. David Scott of
Georgia, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Speier, Mr. Lewis, Ms.
Jackson Lee, Mr. Honda, and Mr. Holt):
H.R. 3131. A bill to authorize studies of certain areas for
possible inclusion in the National Park System, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 3132. A bill to ensure orderly conduct of Nuclear
Regulatory Commission actions; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. ADERHOLT:
H. Con. Res. 56. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that a certain lock and dam should be known and
designated as the ``Donald G. Waldon Lock and Dam''; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. BECERRA:
H. Res. 349. A resolution electing a Member to a certain
standing committee of the House of Representatives;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. ROKITA:
H. Res. 350. A resolution establishing a select committee
to investigate and report on the surveillance operations of
the National Security Agency; to the Committee on Rules.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
137. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the
State of Florida, relative to Senate Memorial No. 1266 urging
the President and the Congress to award the United States
65th Infantry Regiment, the Borinqueneers, the Congressional
Gold Medal; to the Committee on Financial Services.
____________________
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. PAULSEN:
H.R. 3119.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8
By Mr. CUMMINGS:
H.R. 3120.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, 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. ROE of Tennessee:
H.R. 3121.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, with respect to the power
to ``lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,''
and to provide for the ``general Welfare of the United
States.''
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution
gives Congress the power to ``regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes.''
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution,
which gives Congress the power to ``make all Laws which shall
be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in
any Department or Officer thereof.''
This legislation puts forth measures relating to the
treatment of existing commerce and the exchange of health
care products, services, and transactions, while retaining
the sovereignty and power of respective states as outlined in
Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution. The legislation also
makes amendments to the manner in which the United States
defines and enacts certain taxes, as implemented through the
power to collect taxes and provide for the general Welfare.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution
provides for those provisions which serve as a means to
secure the ends of Clauses 1 and 3 of Article 1, Section 8,
as cited above. Such provisions, include, but are not limited
to eligibility standards, reporting measures relating to the
practical implementation of tax provisions, and instructions
specifying the relationship among existing Departments and
programs.
Nothing in this legislation shall be construed to restrict
due process of the law as defined in Section 1, Amendment XIV
of the U.S. Constitution.
This legislation includes a provision to repeal Public Law
111-148 and title I and subtitle B of title II of Public Law
111-152, which exceeds the scope of power vested in Congress
by the U.S. Constitution.
By Mr. BRALEY of Iowa:
H.R. 3122.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United
States Constitution.
By Mr. CARSON of Indiana:
H.R. 3123.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 1 of section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.
By Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois:
H.R. 3124.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution
and its subsequent amendments, and further clarified and
interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.
By Mr. ENYART:
H.R. 3125.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
By Mr. FINCHER:
H.R. 3126.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I Section 8.
By Mr. MAFFEI:
H.R. 3127.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 1 of Section 8 and Clause 18 of Section 8, of
Article 1 of the United States Constitution.
By Ms. MATSUI:
H.R. 3128.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
By Ms. MOORE:
H.R. 3129.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8:
Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes.
By Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD:
H.R. 3130.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
By Mr. SABLAN:
H.R. 3131.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Under Article I, section 8, clause 3 and Article IV,
section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 3132.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 241: Mr. LaMalfa.
H.R. 358: Mr. Rothfus.
H.R. 419: Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 437: Mr. Israel and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 485: Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 508: Mr. Himes.
H.R. 541: Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 543: Mr. Honda and Mr. Murphy of Florida.
H.R. 679: Ms. Gabbard.
H.R. 685: Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Boustany, and Mr. Nolan.
H.R. 705: Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Messer, Mr. Olson, and Ms.
Jenkins.
H.R. 763: Mrs. Lummis and Mr. Woodall.
H.R. 797: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 809: Mr. Carney.
H.R. 901: Mr. Latham and Mr. Paulsen.
H.R. 911: Mr. Brooks of Alabama.
H.R. 920: Mr. Smith of Missouri and Ms. Pingree of Maine.
H.R. 924: Ms. Kuster and Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 938: Mr. Heck of Washington.
H.R. 975: Mrs. Beatty and Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New
York.
H.R. 1015: Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Clay, Mr. Sean Patrick
Maloney of New York, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas,
Mrs. Roby, and Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 1020: Mr. Delaney and Mr. Sablan.
H.R. 1024: Mr. Southerland, Mr. Rokita, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1077: Ms. McCollum and Mr. Smith of Texas.
H.R. 1098: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 1146: Mrs. Walorski and Mr. David Scott of Georgia.
H.R. 1176: Mr. Rokita.
[[Page 13861]]
H.R. 1317: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H.R. 1318: Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 1326: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 1354: Mr. Tiberi, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Terry, and Mr.
Peters of California.
H.R. 1461: Mr. Gohmert and Mr. Carter.
H.R. 1507: Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Horsford, Ms. Waters,
Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New
York, Mr. Joyce, and Ms. DelBene.
H.R. 1518: Mr. Joyce.
H.R. 1553: Mr. Roskam, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Schweikert,
Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Woodall, and Mr. Gibson.
H.R. 1573: Mr. Israel and Mr. Cooper.
H.R. 1588: Mr. Pocan.
H.R. 1628: Mr. Sensenbrenner.
H.R. 1658: Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Ms. Hanabusa, and Mr.
Conyers.
H.R. 1666: Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Pocan, Mr. David
Scott of Georgia, and Mr. O'Rourke.
H.R. 1701: Mr. Massie.
H.R. 1717: Mrs. Walorski.
H.R. 1726: Mr. Quigley, Mr. Farr, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mrs.
Negrete McLeod, Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Schneider,
Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, and Mrs.
Napolitano.
H.R. 1752: Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 1761: Mr. Rush, Mr. Heck of Nevada, and Mr. Bishop of
Georgia.
H.R. 1771: Mr. Garrett.
H.R. 1787: Mr. Walz, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois,
and Mr. Harper.
H.R. 1798: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 1801: Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 1844: Mr. Higgins, Mr. McNerney, Mr. DeFazio, and Ms.
DelBene.
H.R. 1846: Ms. Jackson Lee.
H.R. 1852: Mr. Pocan and Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 1861: Mr. Paulsen.
H.R. 1878: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Southerland, and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 1884: Ms. Speier, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Mr. Kilmer,
Mr. Maffei, Ms. Esty, Mr. Carney, and Ms. Sinema.
H.R. 1920: Mr. Lowenthal and Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 1971: Mr. Tonko.
H.R. 1985: Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 1999: Mrs. Hartzler.
H.R. 2003: Mr. Yarmuth.
H.R. 2019: Mr. McCarthy of California.
H.R. 2041: Mr. Rokita.
H.R. 2053: Mr. Simpson.
H.R. 2101: Ms. Castor of Florida.
H.R. 2134: Mr. Tonko.
H.R. 2146: Mr. Peters of Michigan, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Al
Green of Texas, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Courtney, and Ms. Sewell
of Alabama.
H.R. 2199: Ms. Castor of Florida and Mr. Jones.
H.R. 2247: Mr. Kingston, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, and Mr.
Walberg.
H.R. 2249: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 2296: Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Terry.
H.R. 2302: Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 2315: Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2330: Mr. Latham.
H.R. 2399: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 2415: Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois,
Ms. Brown of Florida, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Barletta, and Mr. Matheson.
H.R. 2500: Ms. Granger and Mr. Lamborn.
H.R. 2502: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 2523: Mrs. Bustos.
H.R. 2548: Mr. Roskam and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 2553: Mr. Peters of Michigan, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Foster,
and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 2575: Mrs. Bachmann.
H.R. 2619: Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Peterson.
H.R. 2638: Mr. Hanna.
H.R. 2654: Mr. King of New York.
H.R. 2663: Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois.
H.R. 2692: Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico.
H.R. 2717: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 2725: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 2738: Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 2744: Mr. Roskam.
H.R. 2772: Mr. Larsen of Washington and Mr. Meeks.
H.R. 2780: Mr. Waxman, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Kilmer, Mr.
Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Ellison, Mrs. Davis of
California, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Yarmuth, and Ms. Bonamici.
H.R. 2782: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 2785: Mr. Latham.
H.R. 2790: Mr. Andrews, Mr. Peterson, Ms. McCollum, and Mr.
Capuano.
H.R. 2801: Mr. Walz, Mr. Latham, and Mr. Simpson.
H.R. 2805: Mr. Roskam.
H.R. 2809: Mr. Long, Mr. Messer, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Salmon,
Mr. Walberg, Mr. Ross, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Posey,
Mr. Barton, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Jordan, Mr.
Rokita, and Mr. Marino.
H.R. 2810: Mr. Latham and Mrs. Brooks of Indiana.
H.R. 2822: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 2841: Ms. Moore and Ms. Hanabusa.
H.R. 2908: Mr. Long.
H.R. 2936: Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 2943: Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Conaway, Mr.
Pearce, and Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 2952: Ms. Clarke.
H.R. 2957: Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. DesJarlais,
Mr. Enyart, Mr. Kline, and Mr. Quigley.
H.R. 2998: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 3005: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 3040: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 3076: Mr. Boustany and Mr. Rokita.
H.R. 3077: Mr. Long.
H.R. 3082: Mr. Stockman.
H.R. 3089: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 3093: Mr. DeSantis.
H.R. 3095: Mr. Coble, Mr. Williams, Mr. Webster of Florida,
Mr. Massie, Mr. Nolan, Mrs. Bustos, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Smith
of Missouri, Mr. Schock, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Walz,
Mr. Walberg, and Mr. Bilirakis.
H.R. 3098: Mr. Ruiz.
H.R. 3103: Mr. Simpson, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. McNerney, Mr.
Rooney, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Miller
of Florida.
H.R. 3106: Mrs. Walorski.
H.R. 3108: Mr. McGovern, Ms. Norton, Ms. Moore, Mr. Rangel,
Ms. Clarke, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Jackson
Lee, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Brown of Florida, Ms.
Pingree of Maine, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Clay, Mr. Grijalva, Ms.
Fudge, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Rush, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr.
Ellison, Mr. Lewis, Ms. Titus, and Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 3116: Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Bucshon, and Mr. Crenshaw.
H.J. Res. 34: Mr. Cleaver.
H.J. Res. 43: Ms. Bonamici and Mr. Israel.
H.J. Res. 62: Mr. McClintock, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Barletta,
Mr. Rokita, Mr. Posey, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Mr.
Latta.
H. Res. 35: Mr. Luetkemeyer.
H. Res. 63: Mr. Tierney and Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New
York.
H. Res. 109: Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Schrader.
H. Res. 208: Ms. Chu and Mr. Schiff.
H. Res. 254: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr.
McCaul, Mr. Moran, and Ms. DelBene.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS
Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were
submitted as follows:
The amendment to be offered by Representative Raul M.
Grijalva, or a designee, to H.R. 687 the Southeast Arizona
Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013 does not contain
any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of Rule XXI.
The amendment number 1 to be offered by Representative
Daines, or a designee, to H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy
Forests for Healthy Communities Act does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.
Offered By Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin
The provisions that warranted a referral to the Committee
on the Budget in H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2014, do not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
in clause 9 of rule XXI.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:
49. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Town of
Millbury, Massachusetts, relative to Warrant Article No. 7
urging the Congress to enact H.R. 129; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
50. Also, a petition of the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin,
relative to Resolution No. 113-13 urging the passage of a
constitutional amendment reclaiming democracy from the
corrupting effects of undue corporate influence; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
[[Page 13862]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LT. GEN. EUGENE L. TATTINI
______
HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lt. Gen. Eugene L.
Tattini (ret.), as he concludes 12 years as Deputy Director of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. Throughout his tenure, Lt. Gen. Tattini has been a strong
institutional leader, a guiding force behind planetary science and an
exemplary contributor in his field.
Prior to his career at JPL, Lt. Gen. Tattini was a distinguished
graduate of the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at the
University of Illinois, and entered the United States Air Force as
second lieutenant. He received a Master of Business Administration
degree from Oklahoma City University and holds certificates from both
the Air War College and Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Lt.
Gen. Tattini was also selected to attend the Executive Development
Program at Cornell University and the Program for Senior Managers in
Government at Harvard University.
During Gene's 36-year military career, he served in 20 separate
assignments ranging from a Minuteman II missile combat crew member at
Grand Forks Base to an air staff acquisition policy staff officer at
the Pentagon. As commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center at
the Los Angeles Air Force Base, Lt. Gen. Tattini managed the research,
design, development and acquisition of launch systems and satellites.
He was also a member of the development team that launched the first
U.S. anti-satellite weapon against a cooperating space target. Lt. Gen.
Tattini's decorated and storied military career includes awards such as
the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with Oak leaf
cluster and the Meritorious Service Medal with Three oak leaf clusters,
to name a few.
As the Deputy Director at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he was
responsible for the daily management of JPL resources and activities,
and oversaw management of programs such as projects related to Mars and
interplanetary network programs. JPL's highly successful Mars rover
program has pushed the boundaries of robotic exploration and has
inspired a new generation of scientists. Other JPL missions will help
us understand Earth's climate and explore distant planets and galaxies.
These programs and activities have created job opportunities for
thousands locally and nationally, and have continued JPL's distinction
and prominence in space exploration.
It is with great appreciation and respect that I congratulate Lt.
Gen. Eugene L. Tattini today upon 48 years of public service. The time
and energy Lt. Gen. Tattini put in to his work is extraordinary and
people nationwide have benefited greatly from his dedicated service.
Applauding his commitment and dedication to NASA's JPL and its work, I
now proudly ask you all to join me in commending Lt. Gen. Eugene L.
Tattini for his lifetime of service to our country.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THOMAS WATSON HARRELL, SR.
______
HON. JACK KINGSTON
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Thomas Watson
Harrell, Sr., a World War II Navy veteran who passed away recently at
the age of 91.
Born in Cuthbert, GA on October 12, 1921, Mr. Harrell enlisted in the
Navy in 1942 and was first stationed in Norfolk, VA. Mr. Harrell served
honorably and faithfully until 1945, rising to the rank of
Quartermaster Second Class. For most of his service, Mr. Harrell sailed
aboard the destroyer escort USS Crouter (DE-11). He was one of the
original crew members and a part of the initial shakedown cruise. The
Crouter would go on to see almost all of its action in the volatile
South Pacific, including escorting the invasion force bound for
Okinawa.
Mr. Harrell represents a part of this country's greatest generation,
distinguished by their honor and sacrifice. Mr. Harrell's story will be
preserved for future generations as a part of the Library of Congress's
Veterans History Project, which preserves and makes accessible to
future generations the personal accounts of American war veterans so
that others may understand their stories and sacrifice.
Mr. Harrell was proud of his service and was an active member of the
Destroyer Escort Sailors Association. Always mindful of his civic
duties, Mr. Harrell was active in supporting his elected
representatives and never missed an opportunity to vote, even voting in
the last election by absentee ballot from his nursing home.
I am honored today to recognize the service of Mr. Thomas Watson
Harrell, Sr. and his contributions to the United States of America.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE HUDSON LADY HORNETS FOR CLAIMING A SECOND TEXAS 3A
SOFTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE
______
HON. LOUIE GOHMERT
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I recognize
and congratulate the Hudson Lady Hornets on a stellar 2013 softball
season in which they once again captured the Texas State Class 3A
Softball Championship. The Lady Hornets have attained a dazzling level
of excellence with their second state championship title.
The Hudson Lady Hornets triumphed over a solid team of Lady Jackets
from Mineola with a final score of 12-9. Although Hudson dominated much
of the game for more than two hours, the Lady Jackets fought back
valiantly in the seventh inning. But that rally was short lived, with
the ladies from Hudson pulling away determinedly to achieve their
second state championship title win.
The lessons learned about teamwork and discipline should help
everyone who played, coached, and assisted in knowing that whatever the
obstacles that may lie ahead in life, they can overcome and they can be
champions.
The Hudson Lady Hornets' championship success is a tribute to the
coach, who brought his team back for another chance at victory, as well
as a tribute to the players and all who assisted them along the way.
Having practiced with the Lady Hornets in the last practice before
their defense of their State Title in Austin, I saw firsthand that
these gallant young women had the talent, the ability, the coaching,
the drive, and that intangible quality that makes a winner. It was an
honor for me to help Coach Eby in practice, just as I had promised to
do during an assembly at Hudson High School recognizing the team for
last year's championship.
This team has shown great faith in its journey to the championship
crown. The team scripture is 2 Corinthians 5:7, which reads ``For we
walk by faith, not by sight.'' And the Lady Hornets affirmed their
faith by painting the numbers 5 and 7 on their faces.
This recognition of their accomplishment is extended to all of the
athletic staff, including Coach Jimmy Eby, and Assistant Coaches Wes
Capps, Tanner Hines and Amanda Malone, as well as Hudson High School
Principal John Courtney and Superintendent Mary Ann Whiteker.
The team members responsible for bringing the second championship
title home to Hudson included Freshmen Alyssa Pierce, Katelyn Hanks,
and Cortny Luna; Sophomores Madison Jeffrey, Bryli Lee, Maria Mireles,
and Adriana Mosley; Juniors Kaylee ``KK'' Parker, Ashley Davis, and
Madison Selman; and Seniors Cassidy Brasuell, Alyssa Dotson, Kelsee
Selman, and Haley Willson.
The Hudson Independent School District staff and the community of
Hudson have devoted countless hours to support and encourage these
young ladies in the pursuit of their dream.
It is my most esteemed honor to congratulate everyone involved with
this endeavor. May God continue to bless these young women, their
families and friends, and all those individuals who call Hudson home.
[[Page 13863]]
Congratulations to the 2013 State Champion Hudson Lady Hornets, as
their back to back championship legacy is now recorded in the
Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United
States of America.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MARIO DIAZ-BALART
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family I was
unable to cast the following votes. If I had been present, I would have
voted as follows: rollcall vote 458--I would have voted ``yes,''
rollcall vote 459--I would have voted ``yes,'' rollcall vote 460--I
would have voted ``yes,'' rollcall vote 461--I would have voted
``yes,'' rollcall vote 462--I would have voted ``yes,'' rollcall vote
463--I would have voted ``yes,'' rollcall vote 464--I would have voted
``yes,'' rollcall vote 465--I would have voted ``yes.''
I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2775 because I believe there
needs to be protocols in place to verify eligibility of taxpayer funded
benefits. Without these practical verifications in place there will be
billions of dollars in fraud that will go undetected. We need to do
everything we can to protect the hard earned dollars of the taxpayers
and that's why I support this commonsense piece of legislation.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF REP. DEMETRIUS NEWTON
______
HON. TERRI A. SEWELL
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay
tribute to the life and legacy of Alabama State Representative and
Civil Rights Attorney Demetrius Newton, a beloved Alabamian remembered
for his remarkable display of leadership and civil rights activism.
Rep. Newton passed away on Wednesday, September 11 at the age of 85.
While I am deeply saddened by his passing I am comforted in knowing
that his legacy is one that will live on through his contributions to
the Civil Rights Movement and the State of Alabama.
Rep. Newton was born on March 15, 1928 in Fairfield, Alabama. In
1949, he received a degree from Wilberforce University in Wilberforce,
Ohio. Rep. Newton received a law degree from Boston University in 1952.
But while Rep. Newton understood the power of education, he is most
remembered for his lifelong commitment to justice and Civil Rights.
Upon receiving his law degree from Boston University in 1952, Rep.
Newton served in the United States Army. Following his time in the
military, he returned to Birmingham, Alabama where he fought
segregationist laws in courtrooms across the state as a private
practice attorney.
In 1986, Rep. Newton was elected to the Alabama House of
Representatives, representing District 53, Jefferson County. He held
this position for 27 years until his death. From 1998 to 2010, Rep.
Newton served as Alabama's first black speaker pro tempore. Rep. Newton
worked as a judge for the city of Brownville, Alabama from 1972-1978
and served as Birmingham's City Attorney from 1991-1999. He was also a
law professor at Miles College.
Rep. Newton paved the way for many black lawyers and elected
officials across the State of Alabama. As an attorney, he played an
instrumental role in the Civil Rights Movement representing icons such
as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. As a black attorney in
segregated Alabama, Rep. Newton faced many struggles fighting court
battles before all white judges and juries. He courageously dedicated
his career to strengthening the rights for blacks in Alabama's
courtrooms at a time when it wasn't safe to do so.
Rep. Newton was instrumental in fighting for the inclusion of blacks
on juries in Bessemer, Birmingham and Etowah County. On behalf of his
friend Dr. Martin Luther King, Rep. Newton was involved in a legal
battle for the rights of those who marched in the 1965 Selma to
Montgomery marches.
Rep. Newton filed many lawsuits throughout his career challenging
segregation in public places, specifically interstate and intrastate
travel. Rep. Newton is responsible for filing the first fair employment
case, McKinstry v. U.S. Steel, under Title VII of the 1964 Voring
Rights Act.
Until his death, Rep. Newton took his role as an Alabama state
legislator very seriously. He was an outspoken opponent of the 1901
Alabama Constitution. Throughout his legislative career, he introduced
legislation calling for a constitutional convention to rewrite the
outdated document. Rep. Newton remained committed to his cause and
continued to introduce amendments to the legislation throughout his
legislative career.
As a veteran of the Alabama State House of Representatives, Rep.
Newton gained the respect of his colleagues from both sides of the
aisle. When the Republicans gained control of the State Legislature in
2010, they reserved his seat on the front row although it is
traditionally reserved for the majority's leadership. His Republican
colleagues have noted that when Rep. Newton walked to the podium to
speak, members from both parties would pause their otherwise
uninterrupted conversations and direct their attention to the podium.
His presence and his legacy demanded respect.
Rep. Newton has been described by his colleagues in the legislature
as a fine gentleman, a true statesman, and a scholar who was ``always
prepared and always articulate.''
His instrumental role in the Civil Rights Movement and his 27 years
of service in the Alabama Legislature has made an indelible mark on the
State of Alabama. Today we honor him for his role in the story of
Alabama. As the first black woman elected to Congress from Alabama I am
humbled to stand before the nation and share his story of strength,
compassion and courage.
Saying thank you to Rep. Newton seems woefully inadequate. But, we
are truly grateful for the life of this extraordinary public servant.
On behalf of the 7th Congressional District, the State of Alabama and
this nation, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and
legacy of Rep. Demetrius Newton.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE CAREER OF JERRY DENNIS, PRESIDENT, SEIU LOCAL 200UNITED
______
HON. DANIEL B. MAFFEI
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the career of Jerry
Dennis, who has retired from the Service Employees International Union
(SEIU) Local 200United after 37 years of dedicated service.
Jerry lives in Central New York and has tirelessly committed his
career to strengthening our middle class and the local economy. He has
many achievements to be proud of and deserves our commendation and
public recognition for everything he has done for our community.
Jerry started out as a servicing representative for SEIU Local 200 in
1978. He quickly moved up the ranks and was elected president of Local
200 in 1986, after the statewide Local was restructured into four
regional entities. Soon after, Jerry turned his focus to organizing new
members through the challenging union-busting times of the 1980s and
1990s. Moreover, Jerry helped grow membership by more than 1,000 people
in just over a decade.
When SEIU announced that it was working to build industry-focused
locals on a state wide basis in 2000, Jerry led the charge in Central
New York. With the backing of all five member unions, Local 200United
was chartered in 2001, with Jerry as President.
Jerry was elected to the Board of Auditors at the SEIU convention in
2004. Highly regarded in the labor community for his expertise and
longstanding record of accomplishments, Jerry was elected to the SEIU
Executive Board on June 4th, 2008. In May 2013, Jerry stepped down as
president of SEIU Local 200United. He continues to be involved as a
Trustee on the SEIU Local 200 Executive Board.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize Jerry Dennis for
his outstanding record of union and civic leadership and extend our
sincere best wishes for a rewarding and gratifying retirement.
____________________
HONORING LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALFRED RASCON
______
HON. JOHN P. SARBANES
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate
Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Rascon for over 40 years of dedicated service
to the people of this country. Over those years, Lt. Col. Rascon has
displayed unparalleled heroism, courage, and dedication to his duties
which will serve as an inspiration
[[Page 13864]]
to servicemen and the American people for years to come. We pay tribute
to Lt. Col. Rascon's service as we celebrate him and the other Medal of
Honor recipients that are part of today's special order.
Lt. Col. Rascon was born in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1942. His family
soon emigrated to Oxnard, California, where the lieutenant colonel
graduated from high school and fulfilled his childhood dream of joining
the United States Army. After completing specialist medical and
airborne training, Lt. Col. Rascon was eventually deployed to Vietnam.
As a medic, Lt. Col. Rascon assisted countless injured soldiers on
the battlefield, but one event in particular exemplifies the remarkable
courage he displayed that made him the quintessential Medal of Honor
recipient. On March 16, 1966, Lt. Col. Rascon's platoon came under
intense fire from an enemy force near the Long Khanh Province. Lt. Col.
Rascon crawled under heavy machine gun fire and avoided grenade
explosions in order to treat his fellow soldiers, shielding their
bodies with his own and suffering grievous injuries from the shrapnel
and gunfire that filled the air. After the fighting ceased, he ignored
his own wounds, and instead treated the wounded and directed their
evacuation.
Lt. Col. Rascon's selfless acts of heroism are remarkable, yet what
makes them even more extraordinary is that he only became a United
States citizen after he left Vietnam. Lt. Col. Rascon displayed such
unparalleled patriotism for our country even before he could officially
call it his own.
Lt. Col. Rascon now lives in Maryland's third congressional district
and we are proud to call him one of our own. He has continued to serve
his country proudly. He returned to Vietnam, then served as a military
liaison to Panama and finally completed his service in the Army Medical
Service Corps in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Lt. Col. Rascon's heroism
and dedication to the United States are an inspiration and are
extraordinary reminders of the sacrifices our servicemen and women make
for our country every day. I extend him my deepest gratitude for his
years of service, and congratulate him once again for his well-deserved
Medal of Honor.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF JULIUS L. CHAMBERS
______
HON. MELVIN L. WATT
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Julius L.
Chambers, an extraordinary American, civil rights leader and my friend
and mentor, who died on August 2, 2013.
Julius Chambers committed his professional and personal life to
improving the lives of others by working tirelessly for civil rights,
social justice and human rights. After overcoming substantial odds and
graduating number one in his class from the University of North
Carolina School of Law, Julius founded the first integrated law firm in
North Carolina in 1964. I was fortunate to have had Julius as a source
of inspiration and advice throughout my undergraduate and law school
years and I was privileged to join his law firm in 1971. Under his
leadership, the firm did as much to influence evolving civil rights law
as any private law firm in the United States. Julius litigated a number
of landmark civil rights cases, including Swann v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education which resulted in the desegregation of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County public schools.
In 1984 Julius left his law firm to become Director-Counsel of the
NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) in New York. Under his leadership, the
LDF continued to be the leading civil rights organization engaged in
defending against legal assaults on civil and constitutional rights.
In 1993 Julius Chambers became the Chancellor of North Carolina
Central University, his undergraduate alma mater, where he provided
exceptional leadership and continued to be a role model and to have an
important influence on young people. Even as he did so, he also
continued to make significant legal contributions in the area of civil
rights as one of three lawyers who argued the Shaw v. Hunt case before
the Supreme Court in December 1995. In Shaw v. Hunt and a subsequent
case, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the constitutionality of
North Carolina's 1st Congressional District and North Carolina's 12th
Congressional District, the district I am honored to represent. In
fact, during his career Julius Chambers argued a total of nine cases in
the United States Supreme Court and won all of them, a record that
probably has never been matched.
Mr. Speaker, not only was Julius an outstanding citizen and lawyer,
he was also a devoted husband to Vivian Chambers, to whom he was
married for 52 years before she predeceased him in June 2012, and he
was a loving father to Derrick and Judy.
I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring and remembering the
life of Julius Chambers and celebrating the far-reaching influence of
his life. Julius' example and the lasting legacy of his incredible work
will continue to inspire me and countless others to continue working to
advance us toward a fairer and more just society.
____________________
CONGRATULATING MANUEL MUNOZ
______
HON. JULIA BROWNLEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize
Manuel Munoz, an activist and entrepreneur, whose leadership and
dedication to his community have played a vital role in ensuring that
the residents of Ventura County be informed and engaged on issues of
local, national and international importance.
On September 15, 1983, Manuel founded VIDA Newspaper--the only
bilingual newspaper in Ventura County. This publication reaches
thousands of bilingual individuals in the county, safeguarding and
continuously maintaining the right of members of our community to have
access to critical news and information. Since its founding, Manuel has
served as Publisher and Director of VIDA Newspaper.
Manuel has played a vital role in not only the founding of this
publication, but the successful manner in which it has thrived. While
journalism and publishing can be a difficult industry and at times an
unpredictable one, VIDA Newspaper continues to grow under Manuel's
leadership.
Manuel's editorial leadership and proficiency in journalism have been
recognized on both a local and national level. Manuel has been the
recipient of several resolutions and commendations from the Mexican
Government, the City of Oxnard and the California State Assembly and
State Senate. Additionally, Manuel has been recognized as the
Journalist of the Year by the National Association of Hispanic
Publications.
Today, almost thirty years since VIDA Newspaper's founding, I am
pleased to join the Institute of Mexicans Abroad in honoring Manuel
Munoz with the Ohtli Award. The Ohtli Award is presented to an
outstanding civilian who has dedicated most of his or her life to the
well-being of Mexicans residing abroad, thus paving the way to create
for them new professional opportunities. The Ohtli Award, which
includes a medallion, a silver rosette, and an official diploma, is the
highest honor that the Mexican government can present to a Mexican or a
Hispanic of Mexican descent residing outside Mexico.
I am pleased to join the Consulate of Mexico in Oxnard in honoring
Manuel Munoz as an exemplary trailblazer who has without a doubt paved
the way for many in Ventura County.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall
votes 460-462. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all
three.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent
during the week of September 9, 2013. If I were present, I would have
voted on the following.
Monday, September 9, 2013: Rollcall No. 448: On Motion to Suspend the
Rules and Pass H.R. 2052, ``yea''; rollcall No. 449: On Motion to
Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2844, ``yea''.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013: Rollcall No. 450: On Motion to Suspend
the Rules and Pass H.R. 1155, ``yea''; rollcall No. 451: On Motion to
Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2747, ``yea''; rollcall No. 452: On
Motion to
[[Page 13865]]
Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 130, ``yea''; rollcall No. 453: On Motion
to Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 304, ``yea''; rollcall No. 454: On
Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 256, ``yea''; rollcall No. 455:
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass S. 459, ``yea''.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013: Rollcall No. 456: Motion on Ordering
the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 2775, ``nay''; rollcall No.
457: On Agreeing to the Resolution providing the Rule on H.R. 2775,
``nay''.
Thursday, September 12, 2013: Rollcall No. 458: On Passage of H.R.
2775, ``nay''; rollcall No. 459: On passage of the Journal, ``aye''.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE WORK OF ZETA PHI BETA SORORITY
______
HON. JAMES P. MORAN
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work and
community impact of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. Founded in 1920 on the
campus of Howard University, Zeta Phi Beta has been at the forefront of
social change since its founding. As advocates of the people, members
of Zeta from across the world are dedicated to serving their
communities.
Specifically, Zetas are committed to:
Elder Care--Zeta manages a comprehensive program that focuses on
elder abuse awareness, financial peace, supporting the caregiver and
volunteering at senior care facilities.
Stork's Nest--A 40-year-old partnership between Zeta Phi Beta and
March of Dimes, Stork's Nest is a community-based, prenatal, health
promotion program for low-income pregnant women.
Prematurity Awareness Sundays occur every year in the month of
November. More than 300 churches across the country are sites for
distributing information on prematurity awareness, causes of
prematurity and the importance of seeking prenatal care in an effort to
decrease infant mortality and decrease the number of low birth weight
babies.
Adopt-A-School allows members of Zeta Phi Beta to identify low
performing schools and provide assistance in a number of ways to
enhance the educational experience, increase test scores and grades.
Triple Negative Breast Cancer--Breast cancers found in African
American women are more likely to be triple negative. Zeta chapters
have begun adding information about triple negative breast cancer to
existing projects and programs on breast cancer to build awareness and
support efforts of health care professionals and organizations
recommending earlier breast health testing.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to recognize Zeta
Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. as it marks 93 years of dedicated service by
coming to Capitol Hill, and continuing to advocate for communities
across the world.
____________________
HONORING JOE WICKS
______
HON. TIM WALBERG
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank a true friend,
patriot and public servant, Joe Wicks, who will soon be departing the
Hill and returning to Michigan after years of outstanding work as my
Chief of Staff.
With an unassuming nature and an always positive demeanor, one might
not guess at first glance that Joe possesses a keen political intellect
and wisdom far beyond his years. Joe first came to work for me when he
offered to serve as campaign manager during my first run for Congress
in 2004, and has been at my side every day I've served in Washington.
A proud native of Saugatuck, Michigan and a 2002 graduate of
Hillsdale College, Joe brought his strong Midwestern values and his
belief in the primacy of the free enterprise system to Washington to
serve on my staff. Often soft-spoken, I've come to learn over the years
that when Joe speaks you should listen. His commitment to American
exceptionalism, liberty and the enduring belief that government is at
its best when it champions competitive freedom has been a great asset
to my office and I believe has been of service to Michigan and our
country.
While everyone in the Walberg office is sorry to see Joe go, we will
always appreciate his good-natured disposition and his love of NASCAR.
Joe is to be commended for his outstanding and faithful service to the
state of Michigan. On behalf of myself, Sue and all of Team Walberg,
thank you Joe for your loyalty and faithfulness, and God bless you in
your next and future endeavors.
____________________
RECOGNIZING RYAN DOWD
______
HON. BILL FOSTER
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to
recognize Ryan Dowd, a native of Oswego, Illinois who has devoted more
than half of his life to serving Aurora's homeless.
After 14 years of service, Friday, September 20th will be Ryan's last
day serving as the executive director of Hesed House, the second
largest shelter in the State of Illinois, and the largest shelter
outside of the city of Chicago. Under his leadership, Hesed House
ministries have tripled in effectiveness, housing more than 1,000
individuals annually.
Ryan began volunteering at Hesed House when he was just 13 years old
and started working at the shelter during college. Upon graduating from
Northern Illinois University's College of Law in 2003 with a dual JD
and MPA degree, Ryan accepted a position as the associate director of
Hesed House and would eventually become executive director in 2004.
I am humbled by Ryan's commitment to serve our community. While
Ryan's work in Aurora is sadly coming to an end, I know he will
continue to serve his fellow man and make the world a better place as
he begins a career in international human rights.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ryan Dowd
and his service to the community. His tireless commitment and
dedication will be missed, and I wish him and his family the best of
luck in all of their future endeavors.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE SAN LUIS CANAL COMPANY
______
HON. JIM COSTA
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the San Luis Canal
Company (SLCC) during their centennial celebration. SLCC serves
hundreds of landowners throughout Merced County, and we thank them for
all of their hard work.
In 1913, SLCC was established as a private mutual water company. SLCC
is comprised of 45,000 acres between Los Banos and Dos Palos. They
strive every day to protect the land by managing water resources
efficiently and effectively. Currently, SLCC is working diligently to
resolve the land subsidence issues throughout the Central Valley.
SLCC has a long standing history of working with the neighboring
water districts as well as communicating with the landowners in the
area. Keeping the farmers involved and informed is extremely important
to SLCC, so that all stakeholders can work to come up with solutions to
the significant water issues.
SLCC's focus on sustainable irrigation practices is both impressive
and commendable. The conservation techniques undoubtedly contribute to
maintaining the Central Valley's status as an agricultural leader.
Farmers in the Valley feed our great nation, and SLCC is a vital
component to ensuring the success of farmers throughout Merced County.
In addition, SLCC manages some of the most substantial water projects
in the State of California including the San Luis Canal. It is the
largest earth-moving project in the Bureau of Reclamation's history.
The Canal ranges from 8,350 to 13,100 cubic feet per second and extends
102.5 miles.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the San
Luis Canal Company as they celebrate this momentous occasion. Their
outstanding service and dedication to the farmers and residents in our
Central Valley must be honored.
____________________
HONORING ALEXANDRA BOSTIC
______
HON. LUKE MESSER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Alexandra Bostic
of Aurora, Indiana, and her parents, Noel and Jennifer Bostic, on
Alexandra being selected as one of two national scholarship winners by
the National
[[Page 13866]]
Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association (the NIAAA). The
NIAAA is an organization founded in 1977 to promote the educational
value of interscholastic athletics through the professional development
of its member athletic administrators. Alexandra was awarded the
scholarship, from among entries from all 50 states, based on her
academic achievement, athletic accomplishments, and her essay on how
participation in high school athletics impacted her life. In
Alexandra's essay, she talked about leadership, teamwork, and time
management. She also discussed the value of work ethic, not only on the
playing field, but also in the classroom.
These are all important skills that will give Alexandra an
opportunity to become a very successful person, but Alexandra's
thoughts about the word ``sportsmanship'' were most touching to me. A
rival high school lost one of its players in an ATV accident, and
Alexandra's team faced their rival the next game after the accident.
However, that day, it was about more than sports. It was about coming
together to honor the life of their fellow player, not as opponents,
but as friends. As Alexandra said, ``this to me is the perfect example
of sportsmanship.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing
Alexandra's achievement and the accomplishments of all her fellow
student athletes.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE ``NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REORGANIZATION
CODIFICATION AND COMPLEMENTS ACT''
______
HON. LEE TERRY
of nebraska
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, one of our most important responsibilities
here in Congress is oversight of executive branch agencies. Such
oversight illuminates flaws either in the structure or the conduct of
these agencies that sometimes requires legislative action. Today, I am
speaking for just such a reason.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had operated with acceptable
performance for quite some time until a few years ago when a new
chairman took over the leadership of the agency in 2009. Unlike his
predecessors, this chairman did not seek to work collegially with his
fellow Commission members, but sought to consolidate and expand his
authority as chairman. This abuse of power led to multiple
investigations by Congressional committees and the NRC's Inspector
General.
In 1980, during Congress' consideration of President Carter's
proposal to reorganize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Members
raised concerns about the potential for just such an abuse by a rogue
chairman: namely that the President's plan concentrated too much
authority in the chairmanship of the agency.
I believe it is incumbent upon us, as Members of Congress, to
exercise our legislative responsibility and address this situation.
For that purpose, my colleagues Mr. Barton, Mr. Burgess and Mr.
Kinzinger, and I are introducing the ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Reorganization Plan Codification and Complements Act.''
Following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the President and
the Congress saw the need to improve the NRC's ability to respond to an
accident. President Carter responded by proposing the ``Reorganization
Plan of 1980'' to strengthen the power of the chairmanship by
consolidating administrative and emergency authorities. A little known
artifact of this history is that the 1980 Plan was subsequently
approved by Congress as a resolution, not enacted as a law. Our bill
would correct that artifact by seeking to codify a modern version of
the 1980 Plan while limiting the potential for a chairman to abuse his
authority as I described a moment ago.
While the Fukushima accident happened on foreign soil, the then-NRC
chairman exercised emergency authority--authority reserved for
emergencies within the NRC's jurisdiction--without making a declaration
and without adequate reporting of his actions. Clearly, there must be
clear operating authority and accountability in an emergency, including
a declaration and termination of any special authority. This bill
clarifies those requirements.
If the NRC chairman is the subject of an investigation by the
Inspector General as a result of allegations of wrongdoing, the
Inspector General should not remain under the chairman's supervision.
This bill would require delegation of that supervisory responsibility
to another member of the Commission.
These are just a few examples of the provisions in this bill. This is
about good government. While the current NRC chairman worked to
reestablish collegiality at the Commission, I believe we must act to
preclude future leadership breakdowns akin to her predecessor. These
are common sense changes to ensure the proper conduct of the people's
business at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion toward passage of
this bill into law.
____________________
HONORING THE FRIENDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER 20TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the vital work of
the Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) on the 20th anniversary of
its founding. Since its inception in 1993, this organization and its
army of volunteers has dedicated itself to protecting America's
greatest river here at the head of navigation. Countless hours of hard
work and dedication by FMR in partnership with many other organizations
and individuals is making a difference for generations to come.
When the Friends of the Mississippi River was founded in 1993 its
mission was to engage citizens in an effort to protect, restore and
enhance the Mississippi River in the Twin Cities region. The river is
one of our nation's most important natural resources, cherished each
year by millions of residents and visitors alike. As one of the world's
longest rivers, the Mississippi is a defining geographic feature of
North America and its watershed drains all or parts of 31 states. The
river's ecosystem is a natural resource of global significance, with
nearly half of North America's ducks, geese and swans relying on the
Mississippi River for food, direction and resting places during
seasonal migrations.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of its staff, board and the hundreds
of members and volunteers that support it, FMR is a one of Minnesota's
leading citizen organizations for land conservation, watershed
protection and river stewardship. As the ecological vitality of the
Upper Mississippi River continues to be under threat, FMR faces the
important task of protecting the river's ability to support native
plant and animal species. Today, FMR continues to lead efforts critical
to the long-term wellbeing of the Mississippi River and the Twin Cities
region. FMR provides expertise and technical assistance critical to the
protection of the Mississippi River and it continues to engage public
and private landowners, local governments and concerned citizens as a
steward for current and future generations.
FMR advocacy has helped to make the Twin Cities a model for watershed
planning and decision-making. Over the past two decades, FMR has nobly
fought for the protection and improvement of the Mississippi River and
watershed, and their hard work deserves recognition.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in rising to honor the commitment and
dedication of the Friends of the Mississippi River as we commemorate
their 20th anniversary today, as they continue the legacy to restore
and protect this river for future generations of Minnesotans and indeed
all Americans.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 462, I was unable to be
present for the vote on S. 793. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
____________________
RECOGNIZING HOLY NAME HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. MARCY KAPTUR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a milestone in the
life of a high school in Ohio. Holy Name High School in Parma Heights
begins a yearlong centennial celebration in 2014.
In the first decade of the Twentieth Century, the people of Holy Name
Parish determined the grade school must be expanded to offer college
preparatory second level higher education. In the fall of 1914, Holy
Name High
[[Page 13867]]
School admitted its first classes. Educated by the Sisters of Charity,
Holy Name was the first Catholic high school in the Cleveland area to
enroll both male and female students. In its ensuing century of
education, both the school and its nearly 20,000 alumni have gone on to
make a difference throughout the community, nation and world.
The school's motto, ``The School's The Thing,'' was adopted in 1926.
Its message conveys the credo that personal glory in school activity
means little. The school encourages its students through the teachings
of the Gospels to live Catholic values and develop abilities that
prepare them to lead responsible, constructive, and meaningful lives.
Name High School seal consists of the Chi Rho encircled by the school
of identification. Its seal, the Greek Chi Rho, is an official
expression of Holy Name's desire to do all things in Christ, with Him,
and through Him.
Holy Name High School's rigorous academic standards are echoed in its
extra-curricular activities. From clubs to performances to sports, the
``Green Wave'' excels. Coined in the 1920, the Green Wave was first
used to described the perfect coordination of the Holy Name football
team, which gave the appearance of a giant green wave engulfing
opponents.
Through its century of education, Holy Name High School has educated
its students, promoted strong values and prepared them to live lives of
service. Its alumni include people in public service as well as the
private sector, community leaders and those in service to our nation.
As the school, its students, parents and alumni celebrate its 100th
anniversary milestone, we know they will look upon their years at Holy
Name High School with fond recollection, warm memories and pride.
Turning toward the future, Holy Name High School walks confidently,
ensuring a quality well-rounded education for the generations to come.
Onward!
____________________
RECOGNIZING MR. WILLIAM ``POPSIE'' THOMPSON AND ``THE WORLD FAMOUS
RAINBOW CRUSADERS''
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of
one of my most distinguished constituents, Mr. William ``Popsie''
Thompson, and the young people who work with him as part of ``The World
Famous Rainbow Crusaders'' community musical group. A gifted performer,
he uses his talents and abilities to keep our children safe and prepare
them for a brighter future.
In 1986, Popsie noticed a group of bored children gathering around
his tailor shop in Sunrise, Florida. It occurred to him that what these
kids needed was an activity to boost their self-esteem and academic
potential. This inspired Popsie to form The World Famous Rainbow
Crusaders, a diverse troupe of over 200 young singers and dancers
ranging from ages 2 to 20.
The group has since become a fixture at local celebrations and
parades in the south Florida area, representing the community values of
tolerance and racial harmony. Furthermore, they are the first drug
awareness program to be officially recognized by the Boy Scouts of
America. Popsie and his Crusaders have traveled throughout the country,
with performances in Tennessee, Georgia, and Washington, DC being among
their most notable appearances.
Mr. Speaker, due to their continued efforts to promote the values of
anti-drug use, education, and racial harmony, I am proud to recognize
Popsie Thompson and The World Famous Rainbow Crusaders. Thanks to them,
hundreds of children and young adults in south Florida have greater
opportunities to excel and make a difference in their community.
____________________
RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING CSM (RET.) ELLIS DANDY
______
HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Command Sergeant Major (Retired) Ellis Dandy, who will be retiring from
Fort Benning's Equal Employment Office after more than 52 years of
combined active duty military and civil service. He will be honored at
a retirement ceremony on Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. at
McGinnis Wickam Hall at Fort Benning.
A Columbus, Georgia native, Mr. Dandy enlisted in the United States
Army after graduating from high school in 1960. Throughout his military
career, he served tours of duty in Europe, Southeast Asia and Korea. He
taught at Army schools and served first as an Instructor/Facilitator
and later as a Senior Instructor at the former Department of Defense
Race Relations Institute, which is now called the Defense Equal
Opportunity Management Institute. His last assignment on active duty
was at the Pentagon where he served as the Army's Sergeant Major for
Equal Opportunity (EO).
After 25 years of military service, Mr. Dandy retired in 1986 with
the rank of Sergeant Major (E9). He earned both an Associate and
Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology/Psychology from the University of
Maryland while on active duty. He also completed the requirements for a
Master's in Management from Troy State University shortly after his
retirement. His military decorations include the Legion of Merit Medal,
Bronze Star Medal, Department of Defense Commendation Medal, Army
Commendation Medal (2), Purple Heart Medal, Combat Infantryman's Badge
and the Army's General Staff Badge, among others.
Not long after his retirement, Mr. Dandy chose to again serve his
country as a civil servant and accepted a position as Equal Employment
Officer with the United States Food and Drug Administration in
Rockville, Maryland in 1987.
In 1988, the Second Congressional District of Georgia gained an
extraordinary and hardworking citizen when Mr. Dandy moved to Fort
Benning, Georgia where he has served as the Equal Employment Manager
ever since. Under his leadership, the office has been honored with
numerous Department of the Army and Army Major Command awards,
including three times Best EEO Program Management, Most Supportive EEO
Officer, Best EEO Complaints Program Management, and four times Best
EEO Program Activities.
Mr. Dandy wears many hats, both in his line of work and out in the
surrounding communities. He is a Certified Mediator, Race/Human
Relations Trainer, and Small Group Facilitator. He is also an Ordained
Baptist Deacon at his church, where he serves on the Trustee Board and
sings in the Senior Gospel Choir.
Mr. Dandy has served in various capacities including president and/or
board member with the American Red Cross West Central Georgia Chapter;
Muscogee County Junior Marshall's Program; Greater Columbus Urban
League and the League's Guild Affiliate; Annual Black History Breakfast
Committee; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP); Columbus Consolidated Government's Personnel Review Board;
Columbus Mayor's Commission on Diversity; Columbus Times Newspaper
Advisory Board; Lupus Foundation of America; Controller's Civic and
Social Club; and the American Cancer Society, Columbus Chapter's
Minority Task Force.
On a personal note, I have been blessed over the years with Mr.
Dandy's longstanding friendship. He is one of the founding members of
my Black History Observance Committee in Columbus, Georgia and I can
personally attest to his strong commitment and enduring dedication to
his country and his community.
Mr. Dandy has certainly accomplished many things in his life but none
of this would have been possible without the love and support of his
wife Edith, their six children and twelve grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me, my wife, Vivian,
and the more than 700,000 people in Georgia's 2nd Congressional
District in recognizing, commending and extending our sincerest
appreciation to Mr. Ellis Dandy, a true jack of all trades, for his
years of outstanding service to our nation and his dedication to
serving his community.
____________________
HONORING THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF ARC OF ESSEX COUNTY
______
HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the ARC of
Essex County, New Jersey as it celebrates its 65th Anniversary.
When a group of dedicated parents, religious leaders and volunteers
gathered in September of 1948 to create services for individuals with
developmental disabilities, they not only created a service that would
benefit a community, but they formed a service that would change the
lives of people development intellectual disabilities forever. With the
efforts from these amazing individuals, came a place where people of
all ages can grow comfortably
[[Page 13868]]
and accomplish goals that would be very hard to attain otherwise.
Today, the ARC of Essex County is a private, non-profit agency
serving people who live in and around the region and it is one of the
pre-eminent organizations of its kind in the New York and New Jersey
metropolitan area. The ARC provides resources to over 1,300 individuals
and their families with both traditional and self-directed options.
Offering a large number of programs, family resources and education
outlets, the ARC is happy to individually tailor fit their programs to
address the unique needs of each person and family. The group also
allows for more traditional services such as Adult Day Care Service and
community service programs. Each of these programs has proven to be a
valuable asset to everyone involved with the ARC.
The dedication of the volunteers of the ARC is to be commended as
well. Their work allows the important programs and advocacy of the ARC
to continue and be extraordinarily successful. These passionate
volunteers are consistently providing services and assistance to
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Much of the success of the ARC of Essex County may be seen through
its accomplishments. Their educators, volunteers and staff have created
opportunities for people with developmental disabled people that would
have been unthinkable 65 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the ARC of Essex County, New
Jersey as it celebrates its 65th Anniversary.
____________________
RECOGNIZING SAN ANTONIO JOURNALIST MONICA NAVARRO
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize San Antonio
Journalist Monica Navarro, an award recipient of the San Antonio
Association of Hispanic Journalists--Henry Guerra Lifetime Achievement
Award for Excellence in Journalism.
For 30 years, Monica has been a reporter and anchor for San Antonio's
Univision Channel 41, and her name has become synonymous with community
news. Before joining Univision in 1983, she worked in Mexico City for
seven years as a national sports reporter and anchor. A two-time Emmy
Award winner, Monica was named the 2003 National Journalist of the Year
by the Hispanic Media Awards.
Over the years, she has reported on stories that have a direct impact
into people's lives, becoming a reliable source for Latino news. As a
result of a California Endowment Health Journalism Fellowship at the
University of Southern California, she produced an award winning four-
part project titled, ``El Peso de la Obesidad,'' which focused on the
impact of obesity and diabetes on the Latino community. She now has a
crucial health segment in the newscast called ``Reforma de Salud'' to
inform the Hispanic community about the recent health reform.
I am honored and pleased to have had this time to recognize Monica
Navarro on her career and community involvement. She has contributed
her time, knowledge, and efforts to journalism and to serving her
community.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO MAYOR DANIEL EVANS
______
HON. MIKE McINTYRE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly
outstanding North Carolinian, Mayor Daniel Evans, of Smithfield, North
Carolina. Mayor Evans was elected to his post sixteen years ago and has
since dedicated himself wholly to bettering this great community. I ask
you to join me in recognizing his long and honorable career.
Mayor Evans' hard work and leadership have been vital to the
continual development of Smithfield. During Mayor Evans' tenure, he has
administered projects to fix water and sewer infrastructure in the East
and South Smithfield and was instrumental in the expansion of Neuse
Charter School, an institution that has made a tremendous impact in the
community since its opening in 2007. He has also been a great force for
economic progress through his pivotal role in the development of
innovative projects, such as the Smithfield Farmer's Market, as well as
securing lower energy prices for the citizens of Smithfield. All of
these achievements have contributed to the growth of Smithfield.
Mr. Speaker, even as Mayor Evans has dedicated many years of his life
to solving the complex problems facing Smithfield, he has managed to
remain openly accessible to its citizens. His enduring commitment to
his community makes him an exemplary public servant, and his
accomplishments will continue to benefit Eastern North Carolina for
many years to come. As his time as Mayor of Smithfield comes to a
close, let us honor Mayor Evans and pray that both he and his family
may receive God's richest blessings upon them.
____________________
AMERICORPS 20TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. DAVID E. PRICE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
AmeriCorps on its 20th anniversary.
As a co-Chair of the National Service Caucus, I am proud to recognize
the hard work and dedication of the men and women who have served our
nation through AmeriCorps.
Since its inception in 1994, more than 820,000 Americans have taken
the AmeriCorps pledge, serving over one billion hours with more than
15,000 nonprofits, public agencies and faith-based organizations across
America. In my home State of North Carolina, 10,000 people will
participate in one of hundreds of AmeriCorps programs this year alone.
Their common goal is to improve the lives of the American people, and
they have done so immeasurably. Every day, these dedicated men and
women work with community-based organizations to deliver services,
address local needs, and deliver aid where it is needed most, and in
innovative ways. They support and improve low-performing schools, build
and renovate homes for low-income families, fight poverty, expand
access to health services, rebuild communities after disasters, and
help veterans transition back to civilian life.
Building on the service of individual AmeriCorps members, the
AmeriCorps national program provides benefits far beyond the sum of its
parts and multiplies a modest federal investment many times over.
First, AmeriCorps members help tens of thousands of faith-based and
community groups expand services, enhance their capacity, raise funds,
develop new partnerships, and create innovative, sustainable programs.
In fact, AmeriCorps is the most effective multiplier of volunteers in
service, with its members helping to recruit, train, and supervise more
than 4 million volunteers in 2012.
Along the way, AmeriCorps helps organizations leverage substantial
private investment from businesses, foundations and other sources,
thereby stretching our federal dollars and broadening the reach of the
AmeriCorps mission.
But our national service programs not only transform the lives of
those who receive services; they transform the lives of those who
deliver them. Participants learn marketable skills and earn post-
service education scholarships, which helps them jumpstart their
careers and increase earning potential over the course of their
professional careers. And AmeriCorps alums are also more involved in
their communities and more likely than their peers to enter into a
career of public service.
This September is just the beginning of a year-long celebration of
the extraordinary impact AmeriCorps has had in its past twenty years.
It is also a time to look ahead and to ensure AmeriCorps is poised for
even greater impact in future years.
To all of our remarkable AmeriCorps members and alums, I want to
personally thank you for your service and commend your efforts to help
our local communities. And once again, I extend my congratulations to
AmeriCorps on this twenty year anniversary and my excitement for what
is to come.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 462, had I been present,
I would have voted ``yes.''
[[Page 13869]]
____________________
CELEBRATING 100 YEARS OF SCOTT HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY
______
HON. MARCY KAPTUR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a milestone in the
life of one of the oldest high schools in our district. Toledo's Scott
High School celebrates its 100th birthday this month.
When young Toledoans in the first decade of the last century began to
outgrow the former Central High School, construction on two new schools
began: Morrison Waite High School on Toledo's East Side and Jessup W.
Scott High School on Toledo's West Side. Scott High School was named
for a mid-19th century Toledo Blade newspaper editor who was a well-
known civic leader and philanthropist. Eight thousand people reportedly
attended Scott High School's dedication ceremony and 1,193 students
were enrolled on that first day of classes, September 8, 1913.
From the start and through the decades, Scott High School was a
sports powerhouse. Many of its alumni have gone on to professional
careers and even the Olympics. Scott and Waite High Schools have been
friendly rivals from the start. Beginning in 1914 until 1963, the two
schools came together in an annual Thanksgiving Day match up which
generated interest far beyond the bounds of Toledo. Perhaps even more
famous than its sports teams, Scott is also known for its
internationally known marching band the ``Fantastic Dancing Machines.''
Truly one of the premier marching bands in the Midwest, the band has
won many awards in band competitions throughout the United States and
has performed all over the country. With a fine music tradition, Scott
High School boasts famed jazz pianist Art Tatum among its illustrious
alumni.
Scott High School's alumni are proud of their roots, proud of their
traditions, and proud of their school. Many graduates live in Toledo
and have made their mark in our hometown. As they look back with
fondness on school days gone by and reminisce at the passage of 100
years, so too they look forward with hope to new accomplishments in the
century to come.
____________________
IN HONOR OF DR. LAWRENCE J. SCHWEINHART FOR HIS EXCEPTIONAL DEDICATION
TO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
______
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Lawrence J.
Schweinhart, president of the HighScope Educational Research
Foundation, who retires next month after nearly 40 years of exceptional
service to the organization and a career of commitment to early
childhood education.
Dr. Schweinhart has made the economic and social benefits of high
quality preschool programs well known to educators, researchers,
legislators, philanthropic organizations, parents, and the general
public worldwide while demonstrating extraordinary leadership through
his service on local, state, national, and international boards and
policymaking committees
He has provided an example of ethics and integrity the public seeks
in those who serve as role models for young children and the people who
care for them and has brought the highest standards of research and
practice to the field of early childhood education. Dr. Schweinhart has
simultaneously earned the esteem and affection of long-time colleagues
and inspired a new generation of early childhood educators.
After a professional lifetime of securing active participatory
learning for children throughout the country and around the world, he
is retiring on October 31, 2013. I honor Lawrence for all he has done
for the education community and for children. Please join me in
thanking Lawrence for his unparalleled leadership. We wish him well in
his retirement.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 461, I was unable to be
present for the vote on H.R. 2449. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yes.''
____________________
HONORING DR. MARTY FENSTERSHEIB
______
HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues from
California, the Honorable Anna G. Eshoo and the Honorable Zoe Lofgren
to express our most sincere congratulations to Dr. Marty Fenstersheib,
who is retiring after a 30-year career with the Santa Clara county
government.
Dr. Fenstersheib is a Board Certified Pediatrician who trained in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and at the Milwaukee Children's Hospital in
Wisconsin, and was in private practice in Greensboro, North Carolina.
He received his Masters in Public Health from the University of
California, Berkeley and became Board Certified in Public Health and
Preventative Medicine.
Throughout his career in medicine and public health, Dr. Fenstersheib
has shown an ardent commitment to underserved communities. He has
worked with the Well Baby Clinics in San Francisco's Mission District;
La Clinica, a migrant workers' clinic in Watsonville; and with Luchesa
Migrant Workers Camp in Gilroy.
Dr. Fenstersheib began his career with the Santa Clara County Public
Health Department in 1984 as both the Medical Director of the
immunization program and as a pediatric clinician for the Department's
Refugee Health Program. In 1994, he became the Health Officer for Santa
Clara County and held that position until his retirement.
Dr. Fenstersheib founded the first HIV Early Intervention Clinical
Program in California in 1987. This program became the model for the
State of California and led to the establishment and funding of more
than two dozen similar clinics in California. Additionally, Dr.
Fenstersheib was at the forefront of combating the AIDS epidemic and
served as a clinician caring for HIV infected persons for more than 27
years. Drs. Fenstersheib and Robert Frascino co-chaired the annual
community education seminar on HIV in Santa Clara County for 11 years.
Through these seminars, they provided healthcare professionals and
patients with current information on HIV.
Community involvement and engagement were hallmarks of Dr.
Fenstersheib's career, as evidenced by the numerous boards and
leadership positions he served on in Santa Clara County. These
positions included: President of the California Conference of Local
Health Officers, President of the Health Officers Association of
California, Executive Member of the National Association of County and
City Health Officials, Vice President of the Santa Clara County Medical
Association, and Senior Fellow of the Silicon Valley Chapter of the
American Leadership Forum.
For his dedication, Dr. Fenstersheib was the recipient of several
esteemed honors and awards, including: Santa Clara County Medical
Association's Outstanding Contribution in Community Service award and
Special Recognition by the California Department of Health Office of
AIDS.
Furthermore, Dr. Fenstersheib's instrumental leadership helped to
pioneer the creation of two vital Santa Clara County programs. He was a
founding member of the Santa Clara County Health Services Planning
Council. He also served as the first chair of the Santa Clara Valley
Medical Center's Department of Community Health and Preventative
Medicine.
Dr. Fenstersheib has been an outspoken voice for the public's health
and the face of public health in Santa Clara County. He has been one of
the most respected voices on issues of pediatric obesity, tobacco
control, HIV, tuberculosis, childhood immunizations, and chronic
disease prevention.
It is in thanks for and in admiration of Dr. Fenstersheib that we
read this Congressional Record today. We hope his legacy of public
service will serve as an inspiration to others to support and serve
their communities.
____________________
REMEMBERING TOLEDO'S MACOMBER-WHITNEY HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. MARCY KAPTUR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this weekend in my home community of Toledo,
Ohio, hundreds of alumni from Macomber-Whitney High School will gather
together to renew friendships and recall their high school years in a
[[Page 13870]]
first all class reunion. The weekend events will feature riverside
gatherings, tours, and a dinner.
Vocational High School began training students in 1927. The school
was moved to its own location, and Irving E. Macomber Vocational
Technical High School opened its doors in 1938. Named for the man who
helped develop Toledo's schools and parks, Macomber educated boys
serving the entire city and was part of the Toledo Public School
District.
Harriet Whitney High School began providing a vocational public
education to high school age girls in 1939. The school's namesake was
Toledo's first school teacher nearly a century before. Whitney, too,
served the entire city and was part of the Toledo Public School
District.
In 1959, Whitney and Macomber High School became joint-operational.
The schools were next-door to each other and became known as Macomber-
Whitney. Despite the fact that they shared an urban campus and some
operations, the two schools remained completely separate in faculties,
enrollments, and curriculum until the 1973-1974 school year. In the
spring of 1972, an assembly was held for Macomber sophomores. They were
told that they could major in one of several programs offered at
Whitney, taking core courses at Whitney and other courses required for
graduation at Macomber. The available programs included Distributive
Education, Business Technology, Marketing, and Data Processing. About
fifty boys signed up. After initial adjustment, the program change
worked well.
The Macomber Macmen were members of the Toledo City League and
sported the colors of black and gold. Their main rivals were the Scott
Bulldogs, which was especially heated in their basketball match-ups.
The Macmen earned a team state title came in 1989, when the boys
basketball team won the Division I state championship. The Lady Macs
won two league titles: one for track & field in 1987 and one for
basketball in the 1990-91 season.
As enrollment declined toward the end of the last century, the
decision was made to close Macomber-Whitney High School at the end of
the 1990-91 school year. The Whitney building continued as home to
adult education classes, but was demolished in 2011 by Toledo Public
Schools. The Macomber building has been repurposed by a nonprofit
organization.
Macomber-Whitney High School educated thousands of students in the
proud tradition of Toledo Public Schools, teaching them practical
skills necessary to enter the workforce. Through those years values
were learned, traditions passed on, and friendships made. The memories
of their time at Macomber-Whitney not forgotten, its alumni will recall
past days with joy, fond recollection, and proud memories.
____________________
DOG TAG . . . LEFT BEHIND
______
HON. TED POE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it was 2010 when Australian John
Naismith traveled to Vietnam, a country rich with history, to teach
English. During his fascinating time there, Naismith explored an old
abandoned airstrip where the Battle of Khe Sanh took place in 1968. It
was one of the bloodiest, most violent, and longest (January-July)
battles of the Vietnam war between the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and
the Americans--primarily U.S. Marines, Soldiers, and Airmen and South
Vietnamese soldiers. In this mountainous, rainy, hot region of the
former South Vietnam, Naismith discovered an old discolored aluminum
dog tag shining lightly underneath the dirt. He picked it up. He held
the dog tag in his hand, looked curiously at it, and wondered about the
history of it.
The war had ended long ago; life started all over again for many. The
area of the battle had changed. A museum had been built where the
battle was once fought. But a dog tag remained where it was left
behind--for 43 years--presumably belonging to an American marine,
likely a casualty of the Vietnam war.
It represented someone's past. It wasn't something that Naismith
could put down. He carried it with him in hopes of putting together an
image of a young American warrior who had worn the dog tag into the
battle of Khe Sanh. Thus the search for history of the dog tag began.
The U.S. entered into the Vietnam war to prevent Communist North
Vietnam from taking over South Vietnam. However, the number of U.S.
casualties grew significantly during the war. Some Americans never
returned home. Some returned with the wounds of war. Those wounds were
both physical and mental. Until the war in Afghanistan, Vietnam was the
longest war in U.S. history.
American bodies of the fallen and wounded were sometimes difficult to
identify, so every member of the military wore, as their fathers had
done in previous wars, dog tags. In Vietnam, one tag was put around the
neck and the other laced onto the boot. The dog tags listed the
American's initials, last name, blood type, serial number, gas mask
size, and religion--everything anyone would need to know in order to
identify the individual who fell in battle.
But this dog tag found 43 years later . . . to whom did it belong?
Was the warrior dead or alive? Naismith was determined to find out. His
first source was the United States Government, but after months of
looking, it could provide no clues where the owner of the tag was or if
he was alive or dead. Naismith poured through casualty lists and could
find no record of the individual who owned the dog tag. He had hit a
wall.
The Government continued to search its own records. Meanwhile,
Naismith left Australia and traveled to the U.S., where he found others
interested in finding out what had happened to the U.S. marine.
Naismith met up with his friend Charlie Fagan, owner of Good Time
Charlie's Motorcycle Shop, in California. Motorcycle shops like
Charlie's were aware of numerous motorcycle groups made up of old ``war
horses'' from the Vietnam war. Naismith told Charlie the story of the
dog tag and his two-year quest to find the dog tag's owner. Charlie
knew of Tanna Toney-Ferris, a woman who worked intensely with Vietnam
vets on numerous issues, including locating them. So, using social
media, Tanna told the story of the dog tag. The dog tag saga spread
rapidly across several online social networks and websites. Finally, in
June 2013, ``Sparky'' in Florida posted the following message to an
online Marine network: ``[H]elp me locate the owner of the USMC Vietnam
Veteran's dog tag. [ . . . It was] found in Khe Sanh Vietnam 2 years
ago by an Australian teacher. The name is L.P. Martinson. His name is
NOT on the WALL, so he made it out of Vietnam.''
Finally, half way around the world in Afghanistan, Marine Staff
Sergeant Joshua Laudermilk, on active duty, saw the post, called
Information, and obtained Martinson's phone number. He then contacted
Martinson by phone. The marine had finally been located.
U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Lanny P. Martinson, from Minnesota, was a
part of the Khe Sanh Battle of South Vietnam. On June 4, 1968 his leg
was blown away during the fighting. The 23-year-old marine was carried
off the battlefield and immediately taken to surgery. When he woke up,
he did not realize neither of his dog tags were with him. Time passed
and Lanny Martinson dealt with his war wounds best he could. He became
successful in construction management in Minnesota. He worked until the
VA granted him 100% disability in 1998 and he took up art and portrait
painting. Four years ago, he and his wife Delphine moved to Texas.
When his daughter Bobby was 16 in 1998, she asked Martinson for his
dog tags. She admired her warrior father and wanted the tags to wear to
show he was part of the rare breed of Vietnam fighters. Martinson
looked in his ``war chest'' and was surprised that they were not there.
He surmised that the dog tag on the boot had been destroyed and the
other tag was left behind on the battlefield. His guess had been right.
It remained on that same battlefield for 43 years, until Naismith found
it.
On August 20, 2013, Naismith and some of the other searchers got on
motorcycles, left California and headed east--to Sugarland Texas. They
took L.P. Martinson's dog tag with them. Three days later--45 years
after Martinson was wounded in battle--Martinson and Naismith met for
the first time at Martinson's home. The day after they met, a special
ceremony was held in Missouri City, Texas, in honor of Sergeant Lanny
P. Martinson, United States Marine Corps. More than 100 people attended
the event, including motorcycle club members, Vietnam vets, citizens,
and City Councilmember Danny Ngyuen--who was a young child living in
South Vietnam during the war. Naismith presented Martinson the dog tag
that had been left behind.
The Australian teacher and the U.S. marine--now friends--plan to
travel to Vietnam together. They will visit the battlefield of Khe Sanh
where Martinson and his buddies valiantly fought, where he was wounded,
and where a dog tag . . . was left behind.
Lanny Martinson intends to bequeath his dog tag to his daughter.
And that's just the way it is.
[[Page 13871]]
____________________
OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on January 20, 2009, the day President
Obama took office, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.
Today, it is $16,738,492,645,235.04. We've added
$6,111,615,596,321.96 to our debt in 4 years. This is $6 trillion in
debt our nation, our economy, and our children could have avoided with
a balanced budget amendment.
____________________
HONORING THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHWEST NEW
JERSEY
______
HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Legal
Services of Northwest Jersey, serving five counties of northwest New
Jersey, which is celebrating its 10th Anniversary.
As a non-profit law firm, the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey
seeks to provide free legal assistance on matters affecting essential
needs of low-income and other vulnerable people in our community. In
the past ten years, Legal Services of New Jersey has provided services
for 42,873 low-income constituents in the area. Their services seek to
help individuals maintain safe and affordable housing, gain suitable
incomes, access quality health care and secure family stability. The
organization has attorneys and administrators working in Hunterdon,
Morris, Somerset, Sussex and Warren counties.
Legal Services of Northwest Jersey is dedicated to the cause of equal
justice and each year prioritizes their work and mission to serve
different needs of the low-income community. Recently, the organization
has focused on disaster legal assistance, access to health care and
assistance for those affected by HIV/AIDS. In these areas, the
organization has helped those affected by Superstorm Sandy as well as
those seeking legal advice on accessing benefits of the Affordable Care
Act and Medicare/Medicaid. In order to provide these services, as a
public-private partnership, the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey is
funded by federal, state and county governments. Most notably, the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Violence Against Women, the Merck
Foundation and the County Bar Associations provide support for the
organization. In addition, the organization received a $20,000 grant
from the State of New Jersey in October 2012, specifically to provide
legal access to those constituents affected by HIV/AIDS.
To highlight one of their own, William F. Matrician, Esq., a veteran,
has served as an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of Morris County
since 1971. He was instrumental in helping the organization grow into
the well-recognized and respected non-profit law firm that it is today.
His colleague, Joel A. Murphy, Esq., describes Bill as ``a great
attorney with a very big heart''. Bill's character and dedicated
service to those less-fortunate in his community is indicative of all
those who devote their work and time to the Legal Services of Northwest
Jersey's mission.
In recent news, the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey has made
available its MENTOR (Meeting Education Needs Through Representation)
program to low-income constituents. The Daily Record, highlighted and
explained the mission of the program that seeks to meet the education
needs of its client families through representation over a broad range
of educational areas, including special education, school attendance
and registration, homelessness, educational access and school
disciplinary proceedings. Through the MENTOR and similar programs, the
Legal Services of Northwest Jersey provides constituents with help in
obtaining their basic rights as citizens, in this case, access to a
quality education.
Recently, the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey has struggled to
provide the civil legal services needed by their constituents due to
fewer resources. Despite such obstacles, the organization has continued
to provide the most comprehensive and helpful legal advice it can to
low-income constituents of northwest New Jersey.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating
the Legal Services of Northwest Jersey as they celebrate their 10th
Anniversary.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 460, I was unable to be
present for the vote on H.R. 3092. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yes.''
____________________
HONORING LEAH LAUDICK
______
HON. LUKE MESSER
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a young
constituent, Leah Elizabeth Laudick of Greensburg, Indiana.
Leah was a beautiful young girl who enjoyed collecting rocks, chasing
butterflies, and picking flowers. Leah loved being with her family
whether it was playing basketball with her brothers or caring for her
younger siblings. Leah's parents, Andy and Shelly Laudick, were both
good friends of mine, and Leah's dad, Andy, was a fellow member of the
Greensburg Pirates' varsity football team.
We mourn a life that ended too soon and pray for understanding and
comfort for family members and those in our community who knew and
loved Leah. While in times of turmoil we struggle to understand the
unexplainable, may we find peace and joy in our religious faith and the
memories of time shared with those we love.
I ask the citizens of the 6th Congressional District to join me in
keeping Andy and Shelly, their sons Brayden, Luke, Reid and Nicholas,
daughters, Lauren and Adalyn and the entire extended Laudick family in
our thoughts and prayers.
____________________
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DR. QUENTIN YOUNG
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and
hero, Dr. Quentin Young, and to wish him a very happy 90th birthday.
Quentin Young is the most cheerful, indefatigable, self-confident,
unrelenting and optimistic warrior for justice that I have ever known.
He is a tireless activist for health care justice, social justice, and
equality.
My physician (until he retired without my permission) and friend,
Quentin has been the nationally recognized, erudite and silver-tongued
spokesperson and irrepressible cheerleader for a single-payer national
health care system for the last many decades. He coined the phrase
``Everybody in, Nobody out.''
Literally ``walking the walk'', Quentin Young walked the state of
Illinois advocating for universal health care with now Governor Pat
Quinn. He was doctor, friend and advisor to Mayor Harold Washington,
and personal physician to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during his visits
to Chicago. Quentin never missed a chance to weigh in on what is now
known as Obamacare.
Dr. Young is Chairman of Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, a
group that he founded in 1980 to promote social justice and challenge
inequities in health and health care. He is also the national
coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. He served as
chairman for the Department of Internal Medicine at Cook County
Hospital in Chicago during the 1970s and early 1980s, where he
established the Department of Occupational Medicine. In 1998, Dr. Young
served as President of the American Public Health Association, and in
1997 he was inducted as a Master of the American College of Physicians.
In 2010, Dr. Young was appointed by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn as the
Illinois' Public Health Advocate.
A renaissance man, Quentin Young is a great supporter of the arts and
hosted his own radio show on WBEZ--Chicago area's PBS station. I am
honored to call him a treasured friend and to be among the legions of
people, young and old, who have relied on him as a mentor and for whom
he is a leader and example of how to live a meaningful and spirited
life. His work is making the world a healthier and better place. Happy
Birthday, Dr. Quentin Young.
[[Page 13872]]
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY VICTORIA NULAND
______
HON. WILLIAM R. KEATING
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ambassador
Victoria Nuland, who was sworn in this afternoon as the State
Department's Assistant Secretary for Europe and Eurasia. Assistant
Secretary Nuland, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, has
served with distinction under Democratic and Republican Presidents,
most recently as State Department Spokesperson, as U.S. Ambassador to
NATO, and as the former Vice President's Principal Deputy National
Security Advisor. Throughout her career, Ambassador Nuland has
demonstrated a fervent commitment to strengthening the transatlantic
partnership, a relationship based on shared devotion to democratic
principles and values. As Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on
Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, I look forward to working with
Assistant Secretary Nuland to strengthen America's ties with Europe, as
we work together to advance our mutual interests around the world.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP
______
HON. WILLIAM R. KEATING
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the people of
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. These six
countries are members of the European Union's Eastern Partnership, an
initiative that aims to promote democratic values, rule of law, and
economic opportunity in Eastern Europe.
Participation in the Eastern Partnership is strictly voluntary, in
line with the long-standing international principle that sovereign
states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own
alliances.
Each of these six countries, to one degree or another, has made clear
their interest in closer relations with the European Union and has
chosen--again voluntarily--to participate in the Eastern Partnership.
Three of the Eastern Partnership countries--Georgia, Moldova, and
Ukraine--are poised to make historic strides in their relations with
the European Union by initialing or signing Association Agreements at
this November's Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. These
Association Agreements, which include deep and comprehensive free trade
provisions, will accelerate the process of political reform in each
country and create conditions for extraordinary economic growth.
These Association Agreements pose no threat to other countries.
Indeed, I believe that the greater geographic neighborhood and peoples
of the Eastern Partnership countries would benefit from these
countries' integration into the European economy. For this reason, I
cannot understand nor do I condone threats of trade embargoes, energy
price hikes, gas supply cutoffs, and other forms of intimidation that
might dissuade Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine from a path they have
voluntarily chosen.
Mr. Speaker, I call on any government engaged in such coercive
practices to respect each country's right under international law to
define and conduct its own relations.
I call on the Administration to stand with the people of Georgia,
Moldova, and Ukraine at this important moment in Europe's history.
____________________
SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate of February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place and
purpose of the meetings, when scheduled and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, September 19, 2013, may be found in
the Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
SEPTEMBER 23
2:30 p.m.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine combating human trafficking,
focusing on Federal, state, and local perspectives.
SD-342
SEPTEMBER 24
10 a.m.
Committee on Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Eunice S.
Reddick, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador
to the Republic of Niger, John Hoover, of
Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Sierra Leone, Michael Stephen Hoza, of Washington, to
be Ambassador to the Republic of Cameroon, Mark Bradley
Childress, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the United
Republic of Tanzania, Thomas Frederick Daughton, of
Arizona, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Namibia,
Matthew T. Harrington, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to
the Kingdom of Lesotho, and Dwight L. Bush, Sr., of the
District of Columbia, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom
of Morocco, all of the Department of State.
SD-419
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To hold hearings to examine United States efforts to
reduce healthcare-associated infections.
SD-430
Committee on Rules and Administration
Business meeting to markup the Omnibus Budget resolution
for Senate committees for the period October 1, 2013,
through February 28, 2015.
SR-301
10:30 a.m.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast
Guard
To hold hearings to examine the role of certification in
rewarding sustainable fishing.
SR-253
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
To hold hearings to examine black carbon, focusing on a
global health problem with low-cost solutions.
SD-406
2:30 p.m.
Committee on the Budget
To hold hearings to examine the impact of political
uncertainty on jobs and the economy.
SD-608
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine
Infrastructure, Safety, and Security
To hold hearings to examine rebuilding the nation's
infrastructure, focusing on leveraging innovative
financing to supplement Federal investment.
SR-253
Select Committee on Intelligence
To hold hearings to examine Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) legislation.
SH-216
3:30 p.m.
Committee on Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Tomasz P.
Malinowski, of the District of Columbia, to be
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and
Labor, Keith Michael Harper, of Maryland, for the rank
of Ambassador during his tenure of service as United
States Representative to the UN Human Rights Council,
Crystal Nix-Hines, of California, for the rank of
Ambassador during her tenure of service as the United
States Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and
Pamela K. Hamamoto, of Hawaii, to be Representative to
the Office of the United Nations and Other
International Organizations in Geneva, with the rank of
Ambassador, all of the Department of State.
SD-419
SEPTEMBER 25
10 a.m.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
To hold hearings to examine reauthorizing the ``Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act'' (TRIA), focusing on the state of
the terrorism risk insurance market.
SD-538
[[Page 13873]]
Committee on Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings to examine the need to invest in
America's infrastructure and preserve Federal
transportation funding.
SD-406
2:30 p.m.
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade
and Finance
To hold hearings to examine assessing the investment
climate and improving market access in financial
services in India.
SD-538
Committee on Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Philip S.
Goldberg, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador
to the Republic of the Philippines, Robert O. Blake,
Jr., of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Indonesia, Karen Clark Stanton, of Michigan, to be
Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste,
and Amy Jane Hyatt, of California, to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Palau, all of the Department of State.
SD-419
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Carol
Waller Pope, of the District of Columbia, Ernest W.
Dubester, of Virginia, and Patrick Pizzella, of
Virginia, all to be a Member of the Federal Labor
Relations Authority.
SD-342
Committee on the Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Carolyn B.
McHugh, of Utah, to be United States Circuit Judge for
the Tenth Circuit, Vince Girdhari Chhabria, to be
United States District Judge for the Northern District
of California, and James Maxwell Moody, Jr., to be
United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.
SD-226
SEPTEMBER 26
10 a.m.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security
To hold hearings to examine the United States aviation
industry and jobs, focusing on keeping American
manufacturing competitive.
SR-253
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine reforming and renewing the
postal service, part II, focusing on promoting a 21st
century workforce.
SD-342
2:30 p.m.
Select Committee on Intelligence
To hold closed hearings to examine certain intelligence
matters.
SH-219
OCTOBER 1
9:30 a.m.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine S. 812, to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to take actions to implement
the Agreement between the United States of America and
the United Mexican States Concerning Transboundary
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico, and H.R.
1613, to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
provide for the proper Federal management and oversight
of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs.
SD-366