[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Issue]
[Pages 13531-13724]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 13531]]
VOLUME 160--PART 10
SENATE--Wednesday, July 30, 2014
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore (Mr. Leahy).
F_____
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Wondrous God, angels bow before You, heaven and Earth adore You.
As the days pass swiftly, we pause to thank You for surrounding us
with the shield of Your favor. Your anger is only for a moment, but
Your favor is for a lifetime.
Today, lead our lawmakers to greater maturity and wholeness in You.
May they grow in grace and in a deeper knowledge of You, becoming
better prepared to be Your ambassadors, reconciling the world to You.
May they continue to be controlled by Your Spirit, always walking on
the road that leads to life. Give them, O God, a common commitment to
the crucial cause of keeping America strong.
We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The President pro tempore 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.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 488, S.
2648, the emergency appropriations supplemental act.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 488, S. 2648, a bill
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.
Schedule
Mr. REID. Following my remarks and those of the Republican leader,
there will be 1 hour for debate equally divided prior to a cloture vote
on S. 2569, the Bring Jobs Home Act. If cloture is not invoked, there
will be an immediate cloture vote on the motion to proceed on S. 2648,
the emergency supplemental appropriations act.
Following those votes, there will be voice votes on confirmation of
the Akuetteh, Moritsugu, and Kennedy nominations.
Order of Procedure
I ask unanimous consent that the time from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. be under
the control of the Republicans and the time from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. be
controlled by the majority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 2685
Mr. REID. Mr. President, S. 2685 is due for a second reading.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill by title for
the second time.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2685) to reform the authorities of the Federal
Government to require the production of certain business
records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers
and trap and trace devices, and use other forms of
information gathering for foreign intelligence,
counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other
purposes.
Mr. REID. I would object to any further proceedings with respect to
the bill.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bill will be
placed on the calendar.
Bring Jobs Home Act
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wisely noted:
``It takes less time to do a thing right than it does to explain why
you did it wrong.''
In about 1 hour, Senators will be on the floor and have an
opportunity to follow what Longfellow said; that is, to do the right
thing. We have a bill that protects American jobs. The Bring Jobs Home
Act tackles the growing problem of American jobs being shipped
overseas. It is called outsourcing, shipping jobs overseas.
We Democrats are lined up against outsourcing. The Bring Jobs Home
Act would protect about 21 million jobs in our country.
Today in the United States, anytime an American company closes a
factory or a plant in America and moves operations to another country,
American taxpayers pick up part of that moving bill. It is hard to
believe, but it is true. A company moves from America, and American
taxpayers help them with the move. If they want to move, American
taxpayers shouldn't help them at all.
The Bring Jobs Home Act ends senseless tax breaks for these
outsourcers. It ends the ridiculous practice of American funding
outsourcing of their own jobs.
The Bring Jobs Home Act doesn't just fight to keep jobs here in
America, it also brings jobs back.
This bill provides a 20-percent tax credit to help American companies
with the costs of moving operations back to the United States. The
Bring Jobs Home Act will protect 150,000 jobs in Nevada. It could
potentially save as many as 325,000 at-risk jobs in Kentucky and jobs
all over the country.
Economically speaking, what else could be more important than
ensuring our working Americans' jobs are protected. Regardless of what
Republican leaders said and what the Republican leader has opined,
helping our constituents stay employed is our duty as a Senator.
Frankly, a vote against this bill is a vote against American jobs.
There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, for any Member of this
body to vote against this legislation. But as of late, Senate
Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation, such as the Bring Jobs
Home Act, which is good for the American people.
Remember, the Longfellow quote that I mentioned at the beginning of
my remarks: ``It takes less time to do
[[Page 13532]]
a thing right than it does to explain why you did it wrong.''
The wisdom of Longfellow's quote is there, and each time another good
bill is blocked by the Senate Republicans we must think of Longfellow
and what he said: ``It takes less time to do a thing right than it does
to explain why you did it wrong.''
Each time after Republicans have voted against legislation that is
good for working families, an odd scene has developed on the Senate
floor. A procession of Republicans makes it way to the floor and
individually Senators begin to explain why they voted against a good
bill, trying to explain why Americans don't deserve a fair shot. For
example, after voting against an increase in the minimum wage, after
voting against equal pay for women, after voting against cost-cutting
energy efficiency, and after voting against student loan refinancing,
after all of these votes, the same spectacle unfolds immediately after.
The Republicans come through that door and try to make their case.
All the American public wants is a fair shot at a good life. Instead
of voting for a good piece of legislation that would benefit folks back
home, they spend time explaining why they did the opposite.
Maybe our vote today will be different. Maybe Senate Republicans will
finally focus on the many families depending on the jobs we are trying
to protect. If they do, they will vote to bring jobs home. This
legislation is important and necessary. If they do, they will vote to
keep American jobs from going overseas.
Those of us who do the right thing and vote for this will not need to
explain because we have done the right thing; and that is because our
constituents know we work to give them a fair shot at good, secure
jobs.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The minority leader is
recognized.
epa regulations
Mr. McCONNELL. The Obama White House likes to pretend that its war on
coal is about protecting the planet. Yet his newest regulations would
hardly do a thing to impact global carbon emissions.
The President's own EPA Administrator basically admitted it when she
said a few years back that U.S. action alone won't meaningfully impact
global CO2 levels.
They don't seem to care that their regulations would devastate the
lives of whole families in my State, working-class Kentuckians who just
want to put food on the table and give their children a better life.
They don't seem to care that their regulations threaten to undermine
Kentucky's traditionally low utility rates, splinter our manufacturing
base, and shift well-paying jobs overseas. They don't seem to care that
the people who stand to be hurt most by their regressive policies are
those who can afford it the least.
As a candidate President Obama wasn't just open about his plan to
make American energy bills skyrocket, he was pretty cavalier about it
too. For him it was a necessary sacrifice to achieve an ideological
aim.
But for a working mom in Ashland, KY, a skyrocketing utility bill can
mean the difference between an annual trip to Lake Cumberland and a
tearful apology to her kids. It can mean choosing which bills to pay
this month and which to put off just a little longer. It can mean
birthday disappointments and missed credit card payments.
These types of consequences may not be a big deal to the President,
but for many people in the country and many in Kentucky, they are a
very big deal. Families have had to put up with enough in nearly 6
years that this administration has been in power: higher medical costs,
stubborn unemployment, and the feeling of less opportunity.
What I am saying is middle-class families deserve a break. They
deserve to have Washington battling in their corner instead of against
them. That is why I keep fighting this war on coal.
Later this morning I will take my message to one of the
administration's so-called listening sessions on these extreme energy
regulations. The Obama administration may have been too afraid to hold
a hearing anywhere near coal country, but that doesn't mean they will
be able to ignore the voice of my constituents. I will be joined by
Kentuckians who have had to travel hundreds of miles just to get here.
One of them is Jimmy Rose, the former coal miner from Pineville who
rose to national attention with his song: ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.''
As Jimmy puts it: ``Coal keeps the bills paid, clothes on the backs,
and shoes on the feet.'' And that is true for so many in our State.
I will note the irony that the administration's so-called listening
session in Atlanta had to switch locations due to a significant power
outage.
As one person put it, the power outage is either cruel irony or a
glimpse of coming cruel reality; that is, of course, if the Obama
administration and the EPA are successful in their quest to end the use
of affordable, reliable coal. It is hard to disagree.
The point is the President's extreme energy regulations are little
more than a political turnout strategy masquerading as a serious
environmental policy. Not only could they end up making the environment
worse rather than better but they threaten to hurt countless middle-
class families in the process while shipping American jobs overseas.
So they need to be stopped. The administration needs to be stopped.
Kentuckians aren't going to take this lying down. We are going to keep
fighting back.
Reservation of Leader Time
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time
is reserved.
____________________
BRING JOBS HOME ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2569, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2569) to provide an incentive for businesses to
bring jobs back to America.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 3693, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 3694 (to amendment No. 3693), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance,
with instructions, Reid amendment No. 3695, to change the
enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 3696 (to (the instructions) amendment
No. 3695), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 3697 (to amendment No. 3696), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 1
hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders
or their designees.
The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. I am going to be joined shortly on the floor by Senator
John Walsh of Montana and Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who are
going to speak to the bill that is pending before us.
Until they arrive I wish to set the context here. We are trying to
create incentives in the Tax Code to bring good-paying manufacturing
jobs back to the United States, to incentivize companies that will
bring jobs from their overseas facilities back into our country and put
Americans to work. How we pay for it is we reduce the current subsidies
which we give to American companies to ship jobs overseas. Pretty
simple.
So the vote really comes down to the question of whether Democrats
and Republicans in the Senate want to create an incentive in the Tax
Code to keep jobs--good-paying jobs--in America, to build the workforce
in America so that they have a future, and to discourage shipping
American jobs overseas. I don't know what the debate is about. I don't
know what Republican can go to a town meeting in any State in the Union
and argue that this is not a good idea. It is a very important idea,
and it is one that we want to use to repopulate the United States with
good-paying jobs and hard-working families getting the kind of money
they deserve.
[[Page 13533]]
We are in the midst of a debate now--a national debate that has
touched the State of Illinois--about something called inversion. Most
people are not familiar with that term. It is a situation where, at
least on paper, an American company moves its headquarters and
operations to a foreign country to avoid paying American taxes. We have
major companies that are doing that. Some are considering making that
move. The President spoke to it last week, and I think the President
hit the nail on the head. It isn't a question of whether it is legal;
it is a question of whether it is right.
Is it right for a pharmaceutical company that is dependent on the
Federal Government to build their company, build their products, and
build their profitability, to walk away from their tax responsibilities
in America? You don't put a successful drug on the market unless it
starts with research, and most research begins with our government. The
National Institutes of Health, for about $30 billion a year, does basic
research that leads to new discoveries, new drugs. Those efforts of
basic research are converted into pharmaceuticals and drugs that are
then developed by these private companies.
When the private companies think they have finally found the right
combination, they have to submit their drug to the Food and Drug
Administration, which is a regulatory agency in Washington that tests
their drug to make sure that it doesn't harm people and that it
performs as promised. It takes some time. It takes a lot of taxpayer
money. But when the Food and Drug Administration then hands down its
decision that your drug is safe to go on the market, you have just
received the most amazing endorsement possible in the world for a
drug--that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved it for
sale in the United States of America. That is a ticket to success and
profitability, but that isn't the end. You have to protect your right
in that drug, and to protect it you go to the U.S. Patent Office and
make sure there is a registration that protects your legal right to
make a profit on that drug and keep others from duplicating it at your
expense.
Look at the process that led to the profitability of these
blockbuster drugs--National Institutes of Health research, taxpayer
funded; Food and Drug Administration approval, taxpayer funded; Patent
Office protection, taxpayer funded.
Now major pharmaceuticals are saying: Well, it sure would be nice to
stay in America, but what we are going to do is move our corporate
headquarters to a European country or perhaps to the island of Jersey--
which I am not sure I could find on the map--and in doing so, we won't
have to pay as much in Federal taxes to America.
Is that ingratitude? It certainly is. You have used all these Federal
agencies to become profitable, and now you walk away from your Federal
tax responsibility.
There is another side to this coin. When these companies invert and
move overseas, the tax they don't pay is a burden shifted to other
American companies and other American taxpayers. They are getting off
the hook for American taxes, but they are pushing the burden on to
others.
We have to come to grips with the reality that many major companies
are using global commerce and global opportunities at the expense of
America. We have to encourage good-paying jobs in this country and
companies that stay in this country. In our Tax Code we need to reward
American-based companies headquartered in America, with their jobs in
America, paying a good wage, good benefits, and veteran preferences.
Give them a break in the Tax Code. Don't subsidize companies that want
to move their jobs overseas.
The bill before us gets to that basic question: Should our Tax Code
incentivize bringing jobs back from overseas or should it incentivize
and encourage shipping jobs overseas? It is a simple vote, and I hope
it is overwhelmingly positive and bipartisan when it comes before us.
We know our country can grow with the right encouragement because we
are lucky. For those of us who were born here, we were born into one of
the strongest democracies in history. We were born into an economic
system that creates opportunity for those who are educated and trained
and strive to improve themselves. We also know we have a responsibility
here in the Senate, in the House, and in the White House to create a
tax climate and an economic climate for that kind of growth. That is
what we are trying to do with this bill--give a fair shot for American
companies so they can bring jobs home and be incentivized and rewarded
to do it and discourage the companies that do just the opposite.
I think this is a front-and-center issue. Good-paying jobs are the
key to restoring the middle class in America--something I think is long
overdue to create an incentive for people who are struggling to see at
the end of that rainbow the chance to raise a family in a good
neighborhood and a good church and parish and a good State that really
helps America.
I will be supporting this measure before the Senate this morning.
I yield the floor and suggest that during the quorum call the time be
equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Returning Austin Tice
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks about the
ongoing humanitarian crisis that is occurring on our southern border in
Texas. I have spoken on this subject a number of times. Before I do
that, I would like to say a word about a decorated U.S. Marine Corps
veteran, an award-winning journalist, and a courageous seventh-
generation Texan by the name of Austin Tice.
In 2012 Austin went to Syria as a civilian. He went to report on the
brutal civil war that has now claimed the lives of more than 170,000
Syrians, caused a huge refugee crisis in Turkey, Lebanon, and in other
countries in that region and has destabilized that entire region.
Austin was a strong believer in the freedom of the press and the
importance of letting his fellow countrymen know what was happening in
the Syrian civil war.
During his time in Syria his works were published in The Washington
Post and the McClatchy News, among other news outlets.
On August 14, 2012, he was kidnapped and no one has heard from him
since. His family is understandably concerned about his well-being and
his whereabouts. It has been nearly 2 years and his family and friends
still have no idea where he is, who is holding him or what they might
want in exchange for his freedom.
I once again call on the Obama administration to do whatever they
can, through the resources the Federal Government has, to locate and
safely return Austin Tice to his family.
I say once again to Austin's family: We have not given up. We will
never give up until we find your son and bring him safely home.
Border Crisis
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 1 month ago President Obama gave an
interview with ABC News in which he was asked about the massive influx
of unaccompanied minors--mainly from Central America--who are crossing
the southwestern American border, most notably into Texas where we have
seen 57,000 unaccompanied children since October.
Unless any of my colleagues think this problem will just go away, let
me remind everyone some of the projections are that if we don't do
anything to deal with the causes or deal with the remedy to this
growing humanitarian problem, it will get worse. Indeed, some estimates
are that as many as 90,000 unaccompanied minors will come this year
alone, and the number could well rise to 145,000 next year. That would
tend to track the historical trend we have seen--both the combination
of the impression that the Obama
[[Page 13534]]
administration is less than serious about enforcing our immigration
laws, as well as this loophole in the 2008 human trafficking law that
is being exploited by the cartels which is helping them make money.
This is part of their business model because they charge by the head,
by the child, by the person, and then they bring them through these
smuggling corridors from Central America, through Mexico, into South
Texas. It is a great business model for them.
The problem is it is a horrific experience for the immigrants who
subject themselves to the tender mercies of the cartels that care
nothing about them as human beings. They rape the women, kidnap the
migrants, and then hold them for ransom. We know--because of the perils
of that journey on the top of that train called The Beast--that many
immigrants are severely injured, some losing limbs, and others are
killed or die from exposure as a result of the process from Central
America.
I say to my colleagues who think doing nothing is an option that
people are losing their lives, people are being injured, and women are
being assaulted. These migrants are being held for ransom and
kidnapped. It is not compassionate to allow this to continue, but that
is what illegal immigration looks like in 2014.
For those people who come into the country legally, they obviously
don't have to turn themselves over to the cartels--these transnational
criminal organizations that traffic in drugs and people. These drug
cartels are despicable and they will prey on these migrants and those
who want to come to the United States. As long as it happens outside of
the legal system, they are going to continue to be victimized.
About 1 month ago the President said: ``The problem is that under
current law, once these kids come across the border, there's a system
in which we're supposed to process them, take care of them, until we
can send them back.''
That is what the President of the United States said 1 month ago. Of
course he was referring to a 2008 law that I referenced earlier and has
been talked about a number of times. This was a law that was passed by
essentially unanimous consent and acclimation. It was a human
trafficking law, but unfortunately what we didn't know at the time is
that the creative minds of the cartels would learn to exploit a
loophole in the law, which treats migrants, particularly unaccompanied
children, from contiguous countries differently than we treat migrant
children coming from Mexico.
Specifically what happens is they are released after being processed
by the Border Patrol, and they are given a notice to appear at a future
court date. They are then released into the custody of a family member,
many of whom are not legally present in the United States themselves.
What we have seen from experience is that many of them don't show up
for their court hearings. We don't have sufficient resources committed
to make sure people do appear, so they melt into the great American
landscape and have essentially succeeded in coming to the United
States--outside of our legal immigration system--and staying here. As
long as this loophole continues to exist, they will keep coming.
The President was referring to this human trafficking statute that
has become an effective magnet for illegal immigration, and it is not
just children who are taking advantage of it. I talked to the Secretary
of Homeland Security yesterday morning. We have seen a huge surge in
parents with young children as well. They are exploiting the same
loophole because we don't have adequate detention facilities to keep
them safe pending any court hearing and pending repatriation back to
their country of origin unless they have a valid claim for asylum or
some other claim for immigration relief.
The loophole that is in the 2008 law is effectively part of the
cartel business model. We have colleagues who believe the compassionate
response is to do nothing to close that loophole, and I hope they will
come to understand it is the opposite of compassion to allow this
loophole to exist and allow the cartels to continue to use these
children and other migrants as a commodity by smuggling them into the
United States.
This situation has also overloaded the capacity of many of our local
communities that have big hearts and want to treat these migrants,
particularly the children, with compassion, but they have become
overwhelmed. We have seen, as these children have been warehoused in
other parts of the country, many communities are starting to feel the
backlash. While people have big hearts and believe we ought to try to
help people in need, particularly children, they realize that
ultimately they are the ones who will have to pick up the tab for
health care, education, and the like.
They are also concerned about whether they will actually be able to
assimilate these immigrants, which has always been the American way,
and the way we have done that is through legal immigration and an
orderly immigration process which complies with the rule of law.
We are a nation of immigrants and we should be proud of that, but we
should not be proud of this uncontrolled flow of people coming into the
country, exploiting this gap in the 2008 law, making money for the
cartels, and exposing these migrants to horrific treatment, some of
whom don't even make it here. We should not consider that compassion;
it is not. It is the opposite of compassion. We ought to try to do
something to fix it, and we have it within our capacity to do so.
Earlier this week the White House Domestic Policy Council Director
Cecilia Munoz said the administration was ``absolutely interested'' in
reforming this law to create an efficient repatriation process for the
unaccompanied minors. Good for them. I hope that is the case, but
unfortunately I get the sense that the people who understand this gap
in this 2008 law--this flaw or this loophole--have not been able to win
the argument with the political folks at the White House who don't want
to be seen repatriating these children back to their home country
because they are worried about the upcoming election.
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has repeatedly emphasized
to me in private as well as publicly the need to change this law and to
establish a more efficient system of removal to one's home country.
To be sure, there are going to be valid claims for asylum. If someone
is a victim of human trafficking, they can get a T visa, they call it,
so they can cooperate with law enforcement in the United States. If you
are like the young boy whom I saw in McAllen, TX, 2 weeks ago--I asked
him where his parents were. He said they were dead. That young boy
could qualify for a special immigrant visa as a minor child having been
abandoned or who is an orphan. So there are ways valid claims for
relief can be processed, but right now these claims are not being made
because people are just melting into the great American landscape, and
they keep coming.
So Jeh Johnson understands this, Cecilia Munoz said she understands
this, and the President has said he understands it, and it has also had
bipartisan support. The senior Senator from Missouri Mrs. McCaskill has
acknowledged this issue, the senior Senator from Delaware, who happens
to be chairman of the Homeland Security Committee Senator Carper, and
the junior Senator from West Virginia Mr. Manchin have all publicly
acknowledged it, as well as Democratic representatives in the border
district in Arizona, and the No. 3 Member of the House Democratic
leadership. All of them have acknowledged what the problem is and what
we need to do to fix it.
Let's review: President Obama described the border situation as a
crisis, and I agree with that; it is. He described the 2008 law, which
I have talked about, as a problem, which it is. Some leading
Republicans and leading Democrats and senior members of the
administration believe that reforming this 2008 law is part of the
solution and would help resolve the crisis, which it
[[Page 13535]]
would. They called upon Congress to make the necessary changes, which
we should.
At a time of intense political gridlock in Washington, we actually do
have some bipartisan agreement on what we need to do to help address
the problem. Yet none of these critical reforms can happen in the
Senate unless the majority leader allows a vote on the bill I
anticipate will come over from the House which will contain a solution
to this problem. We have seen a bipartisan group of political leaders
contend it is necessary, if we are actually going to address it, but so
far my impression is the majority leader is not going to allow us to
have that vote.
Indeed, the majority leader, the majority whip, and the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee have all said they reject the need for changing
this 2008 law that I have described. The majority leader has gone so
far as to say the border is secure. It may look secure from Nevada,
where he is from, but it is not secure in Texas, where I live, and it
just defies reality.
I wish the majority leader and the President would actually come
visit the border. I wish they would visit these processing centers,
meet these children, and congratulate the Border Patrol for doing a
great job under very difficult circumstances, but so far they have
declined. I hope they will reconsider.
Ms. Collins, the Senator from Maine, is getting a bipartisan codel to
go down to McAllen on Friday, and I look forward to accompanying her on
that trip. But if people can make that one trip--at least one trip--
they would learn for themselves that the border is not secure.
This isn't a trick. Sometimes I get the feeling that some of my
friends in the Senate think we are going to always claim the border is
insecure, so we are never going to do the other parts of immigration
reform that they want to do or that need to be done. As a matter of
fact, in 2011 the President notably said: Well, people won't be
satisfied until we create a moat and fill it full of alligators. He
ridiculed those who said the border is not secure. Yet last year alone
414,000 people were detained on the southwestern border, 414,000 from
100 different countries--100 different countries--most of them
admittedly from Mexico and Central America and South America.
But people should come visit in Falfurrias, TX. They have a Border
Patrol stop there where many migrants are let out of the vehicle by
their coyote, which is a human smuggler, and forced to walk around this
checkpoint in 100-degree-plus weather. Colleagues will find that some
of them die from exposure. People can imagine coming from Central
America or South America and coming in that hot weather under those
conditions. Some of them literally die. So the Border Patrol has
established rescue beacons, they call them, where if the immigrant says
``I have to get some help,'' they can actually hit the button on this
rescue beacon, and the Border Patrol will come and find them and make
sure they get some medical care. Those rescue beacons are in English,
they are in Spanish, and they are in Chinese. I assure my colleagues
there are not many native Chinese speakers in Brooks County, TX.
The point is, to anybody who will listen, the border is not secure.
It is a national security challenge in addition to our other issues.
I ask people to talk to GEN John Kelly, who is head of Southern
Command, who says right now 75 percent of the illegal drug traffic
coming from Central and South America into the United States--they have
to sit and watch because they don't have the adequate resources to stop
it. It is the same cartels that are smuggling those drugs that are the
criminal organizations that are smuggling the people. They are
trafficking in human beings, and they will transport any commodity, any
weapon, any person, anything into the United States as long as they can
make money off of it. It is just the way they do business.
It is enormously frustrating to hear the majority leader declare the
border is secure in spite of the facts and in spite of the bipartisan
acknowledgment that we need to fix this 2008 loophole in order to help
solve this problem. But there are people who have shown some courage,
people such as Secretary Johnson and others, other Democrats who have
said, despite the majority leader's pronouncement that we should
actually do something, we should actually solve the problem, and we
have it within our ability to do that.
I wish to particularly acknowledge the courage of my friend and
colleague Henry Cuellar from Texas. He is a proud blue dog Democrat, as
he reminds me almost every time I see him, and he has partnered with me
in bipartisan bicameral legislation that would actually fix this flaw
in the 2008 law. If we could just get a vote on it here in the Senate,
maybe we would have a chance to fix the problem and do what the
President acknowledged was the problem in the first place.
I am hopeful we can achieve a breakthrough, but we have about 2 more
days that we will be in session before the August recess. My
constituents back home don't understand why in the world we would leave
without fixing this problem, without addressing this humanitarian
crisis, because they see the numbers as we see the numbers. They are
going to continue to grow and the crisis will get worse unless we act
in a sensible way.
The only way we are going to get that breakthrough is if we get some
leadership here in the Senate and the majority leader allows a vote on
either what the House is going to send us on Thursday or allow an
amendment, which I am proud to offer, which has broad support here in
the Senate.
But leadership requires more than just giving a speech or an
interview and then heading off to the next fundraiser. It requires
thoughtful, persistent engagement and a willingness to spend political
capital.
We know all of this is controversial. We get that. But it strikes me
that when you are getting attacked from the right and the left, that
means you are probably doing something that could at least have the
potential for being a bipartisan consensus, which, as we know, is the
only way anything gets done here because none of us get everything we
want. I would love it if I could get everything I want, but that is not
democracy. That is not our system. That is not our constitutional form
of government.
I hope the President would tell the majority leader that he believes
this 2008 law is a problem, as he said a month ago on ABC News, and I
hope he will offer support for his own Secretary of Homeland Security,
who I know understands the nature of the problem, but unfortunately I
fear he is being outvoted by the political advisers at the White House,
not the people making public policy.
The folks in my State and particularly in the region of South Texas
and the Rio Grande Valley are watching and waiting and hoping that
Washington will act to resolve this ongoing crisis. But we can't act
unless the majority leader allows us to act. That is the nature of this
institution. He won't allow a vote unless President Obama steps up and
leads in order to do what he has acknowledged is the right thing to do
and what we must do in order to address this problem.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Medicare Anniversary
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to speak very briefly about
Medicare.
Before 1965, as the Presiding Officer and many others in the Chamber
know, nearly half of America's seniors had no health insurance at all.
Medicare made certain that seniors had access to affordable health
care, and it has lifted millions out of poverty in this country.
Seniors earn their Medicare benefits; they are not given to them.
Seniors earn their Medicare benefits through a lifetime of hard work
because, as we know, for all of our working lives a portion of every
single paycheck is deposited and is guaranteed for benefits for when we
turn 65. This is a bedrock commitment. We pay into it and it should be
there for all of us when we reach the age of 65.
Today we celebrate the 49th anniversary of Medicare, but I encourage
my
[[Page 13536]]
colleagues to hold the balloons and cake because over the past few
years what we have seen down the hall in the House of Representatives
is a group of House Members who try to continually chip away at the
promise of Medicare. They want to turn Medicare into a voucher system.
They even tried to raise the eligibility age.
These proposals in effect shift the cost on to those who can least
afford to pay it. They will increase out-of-pocket expenses for our
seniors on benefits such as wellness visits, cancer screenings, and
lifesaving drugs. These plans will allow insurance companies to cherry
pick who they want to cover, setting off a premium spiral that would
leave sicker seniors with higher premiums and higher costs, leaving
many American seniors without the care they need and the protection
they have earned.
These proposals we see coming out of the House of Representatives
undermine the integrity of the program. I think it is important for us
in the Senate to not allow them to put the health and financial
security of our seniors in jeopardy. That is why I have introduced the
Medicare Protection Act. It is a responsible commonsense solution. It
prevents budget schemes that would reduce Medicare benefits and
restrict eligibility, and it sends a strong message that Medicare
should not be dismantled, privatized, or turned into a voucher system.
The promise of Medicare is one we must keep. The Senate should pass
the Medicare Protection Act. I ask that we keep Medicare strong and
affordable for today's seniors and for future generations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I applaud and commend my friend the Senator
from Arkansas. This is very visionary legislation. I support what he is
doing, and we are going to do everything we can to move forward on this
legislation. We would do it more quickly except we have a few problems
with people over here. So we are going to do our best.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF JILL A. PRYOR TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to executive session to consider
Calendar No. 848.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The bill clerk read the nomination of Jill A. Pryor, of Georgia, to
be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. There is a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of
Jill A. Pryor, of Georgia, to be United States Circuit Judge
for the Eleventh Circuit.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher A. Coons,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, Amy Klobuchar, Maria
Cantwell, Jack Reed, Bill Nelson, Elizabeth Warren, Tom
Udall, Mazie K. Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara
Boxer, Tom Harkin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Charles E.
Schumer.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under
rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
____________________
BRING JOBS HOME ACT--Continued
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my
remarks, Senators Coons, Sessions, Stabenow, and Walsh be permitted to
speak for up to 5 minutes each prior to the cloture vote on S. 2569,
with Senator Coons being the first to be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware.
Partnership With Africa
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I have never been more optimistic about
Africa and about the potential for a U.S. partnership with Africa than
I am today.
Every year I host a conference in my home State of Delaware called
``Opportunity: Africa'' that brings together Delawareans and Africans,
leaders from across our country and from the continent interested in
building and strengthening new ties. Every year it has grown in
participation, in the scope of issues we have looked at, and in the
number of Delaware businesses interested in the opportunities in this
continent of 54 countries. At this past March's conference, President
Clinton delivered the keynote.
The hunger to build new relationships between business, government,
the faith community, and those in the African diaspora is undeniable.
What is required of us is to think anew and dedicate ourselves to
building partnerships of mutuality and that last. In this Chamber that
will mean passing a reauthorized African Growth and Opportunity Act
that does more to encourage and facilitate real two-way trade than the
current law and to take up and pass the bipartisan Power Africa law
that will strengthen investment in infrastructure and in electricity
across the continent.
Next week it means coming together with Africa's government and
business leaders to forge new relationships built on mutual respect and
the opportunities we share.
I urge my colleagues and my friends throughout the business community
to seize this opportunity and focus on the bright future it could
create. An Africa that trades with us, that can defend itself, that can
secure itself, and that empowers its citizens is the Africa we see, and
that is an Africa which we in the United States are uniquely suited to
help its people build. We have already built a powerful foundation for
partnership through our investments in public health and education,
clean water, democracy, and good governance.
After 50 years in the Peace Corp and more than a decade of PEPFAR--
President Bush's groundbreaking commitment to combating HIV and AIDS--
we are better regarded in Africa than in anywhere else in the world.
From our universities, to our businesses, to our military training and
partnerships, to the vibrant Africa diaspora community spread
throughout this land, we have tools no other Nation has. The
opportunity for progress is extraordinary. By helping to build a broad
and sustainable middle class across this continent, American workers
and businesses will have more people to sell their products to and more
markets in which to invest. The more we partner with African
businesses, the stronger they will become.
Genuine partnerships such as this must be the foundation for our
relationships with Africa going forward, and we have a lot to gain as
well.
As many have commented, in the last decade 6 out of 10 of the fastest
growing economies in the world have been in Africa, and that number
will only rise. Other countries have noticed the opportunity. China's
exports to Africa, for instance, have outgrown ours 3 to 1 since 2000,
and 5 years ago China eclipsed us as Africa's largest trading partner.
So it is no surprise that since 2000, China has hosted five summits
with African heads of state. Let's be clear, the Chinese, in seeking
opportunities for this century, will not miss the ``next China.'' So we
have a lot of ground to make up.
It is also critical we recognize that we should not just mimic the
ways in
[[Page 13537]]
which the Chinese are seeking opportunity in Africa. They bring a
policy of nonintervention in domestic affairs. We bring American
values--a focus on democracy, on governance, on human rights, as well
as the attractiveness of our technology, our resources, and the
relationship with our diaspora community.
This week we have had remarkable opportunities for our President, our
Secretary of State, and several of us from this Chamber to meet with
young African leaders as part of a program that brought 500 inspiring
young African leaders to Washington.
Next week we will welcome more than 40 heads of state from across the
continent--a summit that I hope signals the next big step in building
strong and sustainable partnerships throughout the continent.
President Obama, leaders from this Chamber, leaders from the Cabinet,
and from across America's corporate community will join for 3 days to
allow us to refocus our efforts on the continent, to seize this moment,
and to move forward. It is my hope that this Chamber, this Congress,
will take advantage of the opportunity to enact the African Growth and
Opportunity Act on a longer reauthorization and to open it to truly
balanced trade, and pass the bipartisan Power Africa Act to
significantly improve our investment in infrastructure.
The opportunities are limitless. It is my hope that we will but seize
them.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Immigration
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today's Wall Street Journal has an
article that should send shivers through every Member of this body. The
article reports on what the President is planning to do with regard to
executive amnesty, using Executive orders to do that which Congress has
refused to do.
The article says this:
For months, President Barack Obama said there were limits
to his power to protect people living illegally in the U.S.
from deportation. Now, he is considering broad action to
scale back deportations that could include work permits for
millions of people, according to lawmakers and immigration
advocates who have consulted with the White House.
The President has been meeting regularly with immigration activists
and he has been promising them things that he has no power to promise.
He has promised them things that constitutionally he is not able to do,
and this Congress needs to say no to that. We can do that by simply
barring the expenditure of money in the future to execute such a
scheme.
Congressman Blackburn in the House has offered legislation, and
Senator Cruz in the Senate has offered legislation, which would do just
that. But it is not in the bill we are being asked to provide cloture
on that will come up in a few minutes.
The article goes on to say--just to stress the stark nature of what
is being considered--
The shift in White House thinking came after House
Republicans said they wouldn't take up immigration
legislation. . . .
So the President is saying: I have legislation and the House will not
pass it, therefore, I am going to do it myself. It is one of the most
pathetic excuses for abuse of power by a court or a President that you
can imagine. Congress considered his legislation. He promoted it
strongly. Members of both parties have advocated for it. But the House
considered it and rejected it. That is an action. That is a decision by
the House of Representatives. The President has no power to go beyond
that, and I think this Congress--this Senate--has a responsibility to
speak to that question and to avoid an issue. The Wall Street Journal
goes on to say:
An announcement is expected soon after Labor Day, an
administration official said.
They are going to announce this within weeks. The article goes on to
say that it could involve 5 million people or more, and the President
said himself he would ``fix as much of our immigration system as I can
on my own, without Congress''--without Congress. I will just use my
pen. I will just order my officers, who work for me, you know. The
Border Patrol, the ICE officers, they work for me. I will just tell
them to do A, B, and C. We will just not pay any attention to the fact
that plain law, section 274 of the INA, says that a person in the
country unlawfully is not entitled to work.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. He will just do that on his own.
So we are now being asked to move forward on legislation that
provides no opportunity to even get a vote on this issue. Certainly its
text does not fix this problem.
Let me be plain, colleagues. There are times when we have to rise
above politics. Maybe somebody believes in amnesty, and they would like
to see this happen, but we cannot acquiesce in having the President
unilaterally do so in an unlawful fashion.
The truth is that the people who are refusing to bring language up of
this kind and fix it--what they want is to see the President do this.
They are for it, they are supporting it, and they have rejected any
action, so far at least, to defend the rule of law, defend the Senate,
defend the entire Congress's legitimate powers. It is just breathtaking
to me.
So let me again say, colleagues, we need to take action. This
Congress needs to speak. We cannot allow Executive orders to be issued
by a President who eradicates plain law. To do so is wrong. The
American people are watching this. They are not going to be happy that
the Congress did not take action. Expressions of concern among Senators
are not enough. We need to bring this up.
But Senator Reid, I predict, is not going to allow that to happen,
and he is going to be supported by every Member of his Democratic
Conference. And every Member of the Democratic Conference, every Member
who supports him in this plan, will be, in fact, involved and
supportive of the President's plan.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I would ask the Presiding Officer
if he could notify me after I have spoken for 4 of my 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Presiding Officer.
In a few moments we are going to be voting on a very fundamental
principle and a very important bill that is literally about bringing
jobs home to America. The question before us is, Are we going to begin
to change the incentives in the Tax Code where instead of incentivizing
jobs being shipped overseas, we are going to support our companies that
are bringing jobs home?
This is a no-brainer. I think anybody listening to this debate,
anyone across America who is focused in, would say: Why were you not
even just having a voice vote and everybody voting yes and then go on
to the next tax policy, like inversion, that we need to be dealing with
that will keep jobs in America?
Unfortunately, we have had to go through a lot of procedures, motions
to proceed. We are now having to go through a supermajority vote here
to get to the final bill. I hope colleagues will join us in a
bipartisan way to vote to get to the final vote on this bill so we can
make it very clear we are on the side of American workers and American
businesses.
Here is what we have seen in the last few years, as shown on this
chart. In the last decade we have lost 2.4 million jobs being shipped
overseas. Now that, by the way, does not count the ones that are
leaving on paper right now, which is a whole other story. That is
something we need to be deeply concerned about and speaking out about
and calling people out on it. But these are the jobs where they are
packing up shop and moving overseas.
To add insult to injury, not only does a worker lose their job, the
community loses the factory or the business, but we as American
taxpayers foot the bill for the move.
[[Page 13538]]
Now, that is shocking. When you explain to people that is in the Tax
Code--yes, when you pack up shop, you do all the moving, you ship your
jobs overseas, you can write that off on your taxes and we all pay for
it--they probably look at us like we are crazy. And they are right. We
have been trying to close this now for the last few years. This is the
opportunity in just a few moments to have that vote to get it done.
What are we going to be voting on specifically? It is very simple:
end the taxpayer subsidies that pay for moving costs of corporations to
ship jobs overseas. On the other hand, if you want to bring your jobs
home, we will gladly allow you to write off the costs of bringing jobs
home. On top of that, we will give an additional 20-percent tax credit
for the costs of moving production back to the United States.
The good news is we actually have companies, for a variety of
reasons, that are moving jobs home. We want to applaud them. There are
a lot of reasons for that in a global economy: shipping costs, low
natural gas costs that we want to keep low so we have affordable energy
and we continue to bring manufacturing back. We have the most
productive, skilled workforce in the world. There are a lot of reasons
why companies now are bringing jobs home.
But a lot of companies are right on the edge. They look at the Tax
Code, and they are making decisions about whether they are going to
move overseas or stay, whether they are going to bring jobs home. The
bill we are voting on--and I want to thank Senator Walsh for his
leadership. He has been a passionate advocate in talking about it from
a Montana perspective. And the two great M States are involved here--
Montana and Michigan. We both understand deeply about the fact that you
are not going to have a middle class unless you make things in America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has now consumed approximately 4
minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, thank you very much.
We have to make things and grow things, and this is about making sure
it is in America when we make things and grow things so we have a
middle class. But the reality is we have to start in the Tax Code by
making it clear we are not going to incentivize moving your jobs
overseas. We are not going to incentivize somebody packing up--and, by
the way, oftentimes those workers end up having to train their
replacement. We have many stories in Michigan where the replacement
workers in another country are flown into our country and trained by
our people, to take their jobs; and then, to add insult to injury, they
pay for the move through the Tax Code. So it is very simple.
I am going to turn to Senator Walsh to close off this debate. But we
have a very simple message. If you want to bring your jobs home, we are
all in. You can write off the cost of that move and we will give you an
extra 20-percent tax cut. But if you want to ship your jobs overseas,
you are on your own.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. WALSH. Madam President, I rise today to thank my Senate
colleagues for joining with American workers and voting overwhelmingly
to consider the Bring Jobs Home Act. I want to particularly thank my
colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, for her tremendous
leadership and work on behalf of America's working families.
The vote last week was a procedural vote, but it was an important
signal that job creation here at home can be a bipartisan issue. I am a
strong believer in reaching across the aisle to promote good ideas. We
are not here to represent our parties, we are here to represent our
constituents. I made a promise to Montanans that I will support good
ideas from anyone and any party as long as they grow our economy and
create jobs.
Unfortunately, since I joined the Senate 5 months ago, what I have
mostly seen in Washington is the opposite. What I have seen in
Washington are people playing games. Washington is not broken because
there are not good ideas out there; Washington is broken because not
enough people reach across the aisle to find common ground. I have
insisted from the start that the Bring Jobs Home Act is a bill that
both Republicans and Democrats can get behind. We must not let partisan
politics and gamesmanship jam up the process.
The American economy is recovering from the long and deep recession.
Many Americans are still out of work and are desperately seeking the
stability and security that comes with a job and a reliable paycheck. I
am committed to leveling the playing field for American workers.
It is time for us to come together and show American workers we are
fighting for them, for their jobs, for their families, and for a better
economy.
I have heard from some of my colleagues who have commented on the
floor that we should only consider the Bring Jobs Home Act in the
context of comprehensive tax reform. That is not good enough. The
answer to disagreements is not to do nothing, the answer is to start
with manageable, commonsense reforms that everyone can get behind.
Montanans understand this. They know it is wrong that American
workers subsidize corporations' decisions to pack up businesses in the
United States and send our jobs packing. Imagine an American worker
whose final task before being laid off is to help shut down operations
so his job or her job can be sent overseas. That is baloney. If
Congress cannot come together to end that subsidy, then we deserve the
low approval ratings we are receiving.
Millions of American jobs have been sent overseas in recent decades.
Too many large corporations have opened factories in countries such as
China or Mexico while closing factories right here in the United
States. We need to do what we can to stem the tide and reward companies
that bring jobs back to America.
The Bring Jobs Home Act will help do that. My bill closes the
loophole that some multinational corporations use to claim a tax
deduction for the cost of moving jobs overseas. It also creates a new
20-percent tax credit for companies that bring jobs back to the United
States. These two parts complement each other. The first ends the
incentive for shipping jobs overseas. The second encourages the return
of jobs we have already lost.
Our Tax Code should not reward outsourcing. What we need is more
insourcing. Many companies are considering bringing jobs back home
today. This is especially true in the manufacturing sector. The Bring
Jobs Home Act could make a difference for some of those companies to
reinvest in America and American workers. So today I urge my colleagues
to stand with America's workers and pass this bill. Now is the time for
leadership to embrace good ideas that help create jobs in Montana and
all across America.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 2569, a bill to
provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to
America.
Harry Reid, John E. Walsh, Debbie Stabenow, Benjamin L.
Cardin, Barbara Boxer, Patrick J. Leahy, Kay R. Hagan,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Christopher A. Coons,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Bill Nelson, John D. Rockefeller
IV, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jeff Merkley, Mazie K. Hirono,
Tom Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S.
2569, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back
to America, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page 13539]]
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 42 as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--42
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--4
Cochran
McCain
Roberts
Schatz
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 54, the nays are 42.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 488, S. 2648, a bill making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Benjamin L. Cardin,
Barbara Boxer, Patrick J. Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse,
Jack Reed, Christopher A. Coons, Jeff Merkley, Debbie
Stabenow, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Bill Nelson, John D.
Rockefeller IV, Mazie K. Hirono, Tom Harkin, Bernard
Sanders, Richard Blumenthal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 2648, a bill making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rules.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote or to change their vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Ayotte
Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--33
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Coats
Coburn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Hagan
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Landrieu
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--4
Cochran
McCain
Roberts
Schatz
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 63 and the nays are
33. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF CYNTHIA H. AKUETTEH, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR
FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO
THE GABONESE REPUBLIC, AND TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF SAO TOME AND
PRINCIPE
______
NOMINATION OF ERIKA LIZABETH MORITSUGU TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
______
NOMINATION OF RICHARD A. KENNEDY TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read the nominations of Cynthia H. Akuetteh,
of the District of Columbia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign
Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Gabonese
Republic, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation
as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United State of
America to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe; Erika
Lizabeth Moritsugu, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and Richard A. Kennedy, of
Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for a term expiring May 30,
2016.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all
available debate time with respect to the nominations in this series be
yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Akuetteh Nomination
Hearing no further debate, the question is, Will the Senate advise
and consent to the nomination of Cynthia H. Akuetteh, of the District
of Columbia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of
Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
[[Page 13540]]
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Gabonese
Republic, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation
as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe?
The nomination was confirmed.
Vote on Moritsugu Nomination
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Erika Lizabeth
Moritsugu, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development?
The nomination was confirmed.
Vote on Kennedy Nomination
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Richard A.
Kennedy, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for a term expiring May
30, 2016?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to
reconsider are made and laid upon the table and the President will be
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senate will resume
legislative session.
The Senator from Maryland.
____________________
MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending
business before the Senate.
The Senate just achieved cloture on the motion to proceed to the
emergency supplemental funding bill. Let me explain to the people who
are watching this either in the gallery or on C-SPAN.
The Senate has creaky rules, and these creaky rules are to make sure
we can cool the passions that may be raging in the Nation at any given
time so we can duly give consideration, that debate can be diligent and
we won't be gripped by the fire of the moment or the passion of the
motion. I appreciate that. However, now these rules require us to take
a lot of time to get to the meat of the matter.
We are now debating a motion to proceed to legislation related to
supplementing existing funding to meet new emerging crises. The Senate
votes on a motion to proceed not to the bill itself but on whether we
should even go to the bill. So what we are debating now is whether we
should proceed to the emergency supplemental funding bill. I want to
say yes. Yes, vote on the motion to proceed. Let's get on with it.
Let's have a real debate on real issues. Thirty hours has been set
aside to debate whether we should proceed. I am here to say let's
proceed, let's yield back our time, and let's get on the bill. We have
a lot of things we need to get done in the next 48 hours. I want to see
this emergency supplemental funding bill debated and voted on.
We have three elements in this bill that meet compelling needs--need
for our neighbors in our country; need for our treasured ally, the
State of Israel; as well as need for a crisis at the border where
children literally are marching across Central America in search of
refugee status. We need to deal with all three of these issues.
This emergency funding bill is about neighbor helping neighbor.
First of all, it is about our own country. Wildfires are raging in
the West. Over the last year 39 States have faced wildfires. Right this
very minute eight Western States are coping with unbelievable
wildfires, some of the largest fires in their history. What happens?
Vast amounts of territory are going up in smoke. We are losing towns,
businesses, homes. Our firefighters are worn out, as well as our first
responders, and they need help. This legislation will provide $615
million to the States facing this horrific Armageddon-like emergency.
In addition, this legislation includes $225 million to replenish the
rockets that are being used by Israel, deploying technology called the
Iron Dome. The Iron Dome is a missile defense system that is destroying
the rockets being sent into Israel by Hamas. The technology is working,
but they are using up the rockets and they need to be replenished.
Then there is the humanitarian crisis at our border. We have $2.7
billion to meet the needs of children seeking refuge, in order to be
able to deal with placing them while we determine their legal status
but also being able to fight the crime of the narcotraffickers and the
human traffickers who are creating this surge of children.
This is a total emergency funding level of $3.57 billion. Why do we
call it an emergency? Well, because under the law we can't just say
this is an emergency. In order to get emergency funding, we have to
meet the criteria of the Budget Control Act of 2011. The need has to be
urgent. It has to be temporary. It has to be unforeseen. It is either
to prevent the loss of life or in the interests of our national
security. All three of these areas of funding meet this need.
Under emergency funding, there are no offsets. That means we don't
take from another important program being funded by the U.S. Government
to meet that need. So in order to meet the needs of Iron Dome, we don't
take from other national defense money. It will replenish that. When we
help with wildfires, we don't take from other important areas, such as
agriculture or interior or from other bills. This will help to not only
meet the need but also not place an additional burden on other
communities.
Now I wish to speak about the urgency. This firefighting help is
really needed now. We listened to the Senators from Western States. We
see the photographs literally showing parts of our country going up in
smoke. The Forest Service--the agency that actually is in charge of
dealing with this--will run out of money in August. As I said, last
year these wildfires burned in 39 States.
Then we look at Iron Dome. Hamas--this violent terrorist organization
that actually rejects Israel's right to even exist--from its tunnels is
showering Israel with rockets. Iron Dome, Arrow Head, and David's Sling
are missile defense systems designed to help them. The up-close missile
defense system is Iron Dome. This bill will make sure we replace the
interceptor rockets that are being used to protect them against this
showering of rockets. The Israeli Embassy spoke to my staff yesterday.
There have been over 2,000 Hamas rockets fired in the last week. Israel
needs to replenish these rockets.
Then there is the issue of the surge of unaccompanied children
presenting themselves at our border, asking for refugee status. In
order to really be able to meet this crisis--and they are coming in by
the thousands; 59,000 kids have come this year. We know the immigration
and customs service, if we don't meet this emergency funding, will run
out of money in August. Border Patrol will run out of money in early
September. That doesn't mean the Border Patrol agents or the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will stop working; it means
the Department of Homeland Security--22 agencies--will take money out
of existing funds to fund this. So it means they could take money out
of Federal emergency management just as we are going into hurricane
season, just as we are in high tornado season. We could be taking money
out of FEMA to put it in Border Patrol unless we do this emergency
funding. We have to do it.
Health and Human Services runs out of money in August. They are the
ones in charge when the children present themselves while their legal
status is being determined. The children must be taken care of in a
humane way, the American way. We don't treat children in an abusive
manner. It means we will feed them, we will clothe them, we will
shelter them, we will meet any emergency health needs they have, and we
need to do that while we determine their legal status.
[[Page 13541]]
My bill--the supplemental I am presenting--helps accelerate the
determination of their legal status. My legislation and this
supplemental spending actually provide more immigration judges and
legal representation for the children. That is so we can quickly
determine if they have a right to asylum while we are also taking care
of them. We need to be able to do that.
I hope others will get the briefings that I had and visit the border
the way I did to find this out. The reason we have a crisis at the
border is because we have a crisis in Central America. This legislation
provides the money to do this. People say root causes such as poverty
have been going on for years. This doesn't only deal with poverty. We
want to work with the governments of Central America to really go after
the narcotraffickers, the human traffickers, and the coyotes engaged in
smuggling.
Why do we want to do that? If we ask these children where are the
home towns they are from, they will give us the names of little cities
and little towns, and when we look at their poverty rate, we find the
poverty rate in these communities has been consistent for a number of
years. That is a sad circumstance. But when we look at the crime rate,
the murder rate, the recruitment into violent gangs, the recruitment
into human trafficking, with the threat of death or torture--that is
where these kids are coming from.
We have to go after the criminals in Central America and not treat
these children as though they are criminals. We cannot treat children
in this country as though they are the criminals. We need to go after
the real criminals in Central America using our assets and working with
the assets in Central America. They have programs and they have plans.
Honduras is a great example of what they are trying to do. They need
our help. If we don't want the crisis at our border, we need to deal
with the crisis in Central America.
That also deals with our insatiable, unending, vociferous appetite
for drugs. The drugs have created the narcoterrorists. Once people
start selling drugs, they are willing to sell women and children like
commodities, and if they are willing to sell women and children like
commodities, then that is where the vial, repugnant practice of human
trafficking and human smuggling and even a new form of slavery--sexual
slavery--begins.
These children are on the march. And when we talk to these children,
we learn they are terrific children. They are brave and gutsy. When we
talk to the boys, we learn they don't want to be part of the gangs.
They want to get out. They want to get out, so they start this long
march from their home country to Mexico to make it on the Rio Grande on
rafts and by swimming and so on so they can make it to our border. When
we talk to the girls, we learn the girls want to go to school and get
an education. They don't want to be recruited into these vial
circumstances. These are earnest, hard-working children who want to
have safety, who want to have a future, and we want to be able to see,
by interviewing them, if they qualify for refugee status. If they
don't, they will have to go back home, but if they do, they get to stay
here. So they deserve the protection under law. We need to pass this
legislation.
This bill is a funding bill. It does not include immigration
legislation. We say those kinds of things can either be brought up in
another way or another method, but this is a clean funding bill. When I
say ``clean,'' it means it has no legislative language on it related to
immigration. So I hope we can pass this legislation.
Now, I have listened to my own constituents, and many of them are
saying to me: Hey, Barb, we are not against these kids. In fact, recent
polling says 69 percent of the American people say if they are
refugees, we should take care of them and they have a right to
determine their legal status. But many of my constituents say: Hey,
Barb, what about us? What does this mean? You are going to spend more
money? What about my schools? When do we get help? My kids need help.
They need schools; they need health care. You talk to families now.
They are getting ready to go back to school. Many parents cannot wait
for sales-tax-free day in Maryland, where you can get your backpack and
your school supplies and your little clothes and shoes. My God, the
cost of kids' shoes now is a small fortune, and they will outgrow them
by the time they get to Thanksgiving. Parents are looking for bargains,
for deals, to be able to do this. They are not hostile, but they wonder
about them.
I want to say to them, I hear you. I was touched by a very poignant
story over the weekend about how we have a food bank at Steelworkers
Hall in Baltimore. Bethlehem Steel closed. It will never, ever, ever
come back. The steelworkers of America, who contributed to the United
Way, were always the first in line if a blood bank was necessary. Now
many of those who lost their job are using the very food bank that they
once donated to.
That story was so moving because we have lost our manufacturing. We
have just lost a bill earlier today on bringing jobs back home--
something I know the Presiding Officer is for, I sure am for, and so
on. So I know American families are hurting. Yes, they are. But I want
to bring out that the cost of this bill is the same amount of money as
we are going to spend on training the Afghan National Security Forces.
Did you know that? So we are going to spend $4 billion--that is
``billion'' as in ``Barb,'' not ``million'' as in ``Mikulski''--$4
billion to train the Afghan National Security Forces. I am not going to
debate the merits of that. But we can spend money all over like that
and we cannot spend money at our border and also for threats to our
border because of narco terrorism that breeds other vile, repugnant,
heinous behavior? I think we have to get real here.
The reason I want a supplemental--that is urgent and meets that
criteria--is that we do not have to take the money from other important
programs that do help America's families in education, in health, in
job retraining in order to bring our jobs back home.
So I really do hope we pass this bill. Not spending money will not
save money. It means we will just take out of existing programs and the
American people will pay for it doubly. They will pay for it through
inaction, which will ultimately cost more. They will pay for it because
they will lose programs they thought they were going to have access to
or there will be limited availability.
We have a chance here now to help our neighbors in our Western
States. I know Wisconsin has been hit by it terribly, and we are so
sorry for the loss of property and the danger to that community. It
will help a treasured ally, Israel, which we must. Also, we will help
our own country. The way to protect our border is two ways: fight it in
Central America and also show what we stand for. If children are
applying for refugee status, they should have their day in court and
under the law proceed.
So, Madam President, we are now on this motion to proceed. Let's get
on with it. Let's yield back our time. Let's get to the bill. Let's get
the job done. I hope at the end of the day the vote will be ``yes.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I want to talk principally in the next
few minutes about a bill that Senator Boxer and I have introduced this
week on Israel and talk about what is going on in Israel, but on the
work that is the bill before us right now, I am always hesitant to
disagree with the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, my
chairwoman, my good friend, Senator Mikulski. I just think we are
headed in the wrong direction here.
Providing money, and not trying to solve this problem, not sending
the right message, I think is a mistake. People are leaving these
dangerous countries--if they are dangerous to be in, they are also
dangerous to travel through, they are dangerous to leave.
One of the concerns I have had during this whole debate is how many
kids leave their home country and never get to the American border?
What happens
[[Page 13542]]
to those kids? We have heard stories in briefings that were not
classified about kids who never get here because they get sold into
some sort of terrible situation, even kids whose organs are harvested
and sold that way. This cannot be something we need to continue to
encourage.
In fact, if you do qualify for asylum in the United States, there is
a way to do that. That is why we have embassies. That is why we have
consulates. Surely, it is safer for someone in Guatemala City to go to
the American Embassy in Guatemala City than it is to leave Guatemala
City and try to come through their country, through other countries,
through Mexico to get here, under the control of people who have tried
to make the most of the President's announcement that if you get here,
you can stay here.
This is not the Red Cross bringing kids here. This is not some
altruistic group bringing kids here. These are people who are taking
advantage of misinformation in their country about what happens if you
get here. And some of these kids do not get here. Doing this in this
way--money without policy; acting like somehow it does not cost
anything if it is an emergency, and so we can continue to do everything
the chairwoman mentioned that needs to be done in the United States,
but we can also do this because it is a supplemental, it is an
emergency, and it is more money we borrow from somebody else--life is
full of choices, and for our government we have choices.
There are things that need to be done right now to send a message: Do
not leave your home country. The door is not wide open, no matter what
the President's announcement in 2011 led people to believe.
The law needs to be changed so that immigrants from all countries
coming to our borders are treated just like immigrants from Mexico and
Canada coming to our borders. They have an immediate hearing within 7
days or so. Almost all of them are told: You have to go back. Once that
happens, almost all of them stop coming.
It would be a mistake to do this in this way, and I believe this bill
never winds up on the President's desk. The House of Representatives
does not share this view, even if a majority of the Senate does.
We need to send a message to Guatemala, to El Salvador, to every
other country that the door is not open. Just getting here is not
enough. This is not a safe ``Disneyland-type'' ride to the United
States of America. This is a very, very dangerous thing for you to try
to do, and you should not try to do it. When you get here, it is not
going to be successful.
Again, let me say, if you have a case that you should have asylum in
this country, there is a way you do that which is much safer than
showing up at the border. We should not encourage the danger that these
kids go through. I think the case is very dramatic on the side that
cares for the lives of these kids. We should send the message strongly
and now: Do not come the way you are coming now. The kids who get to
the border--we are concerned about what happens to them as a country
because of who we are. We should be equally concerned about the kids
who never get to the border because of this false message we have sent.
U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act
But, Madam President, let me spend a few minutes talking about a bill
that Senator Boxer and I introduced this week, the U.S.-Israel
Strategic Partnership Act of 2014. This is an updated version of
legislation we first introduced in March 2013.
This bill that was introduced this week is already backed by more
than three-quarters of the Senate. I am hoping we figure out how to get
this done and get this done this week. There has never been a more
important time to send a message to the world and to Israel about this
relationship, about what it means to us, about how committed we are to
it.
This legislation reaffirms our unwavering commitment to Israel's
security and the strong relationship that goes back to the founding of
Israel. It supports deepened U.S.-Israel cooperation on defense,
including continued U.S. assistance for the Iron Dome. By the way, the
Iron Dome assistance in the Defense appropriations bill that the
Appropriations Committee approved, that is the way to fund the Iron
Dome. Do the work for the fiscal year that begins October 1. We are 2
months and a couple days from the time this fiscal year is over. We
should be having bills on the floor that talk about the Iron Dome, but
it should be the Defense bill. It should not be some bill that we are
talking about because we are unwilling to go through the regular
process.
But we do in this bill talk about the Iron Dome. We reiterate our
support to negotiating a settlement, a political settlement that the
Government of Israel is for where you would have two states, but both
of those states have to recognize each other. You cannot have two
states where Hamas and others that are significant parts apparently now
of the coalition on the other side deny that Israel has a right to
exist. But we do support the Israeli concept that we want to have two
states peacefully coexisting. That is reiterated here. But it is also
clearly understood that you cannot have one of those states say the
other one does not have a right to exist.
We have a longstanding relationship here. Really it dates back to the
very moment that Israel was founded. My fellow Missourian, President
Truman, in great leadership, decided we would immediately recognize
Israel, and that moment, that decision, that commitment from the United
States continues today through security, through energy, through trade.
We would like to make that clear and make that clear this week.
What does the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act do?
First of all, it authorizes an increase of $200 million in the value
of U.S. weapons held in Israel, to a total of $1.8 billion. What does
that mean? Does that mean we are spending $200 million more? No. It
means we are putting more of our equipment in Israel, with the clear
understanding that it is there for us to use in the time of a crisis.
It is also there for Israel to have access to when they need it. And
when they use it, they pay us back and replenish that stockpile that we
have strategically placed in Israel for our future use and for an
immediate challenge to Israel where they may need to look at that
stockpile of our weapons there.
It requires the administration to take steps to include Israel in the
top-tier category for license-free exports. The top-tier category of
looking at the technologies we share with any other country we would
suggest you should also be able to share with Israel. If they are
uniquely held in our country, technologies that we do not want to share
with anybody, they are not considered in that category.
It authorizes the President to carry out cooperation between the
United States and Israel on a range of policy issues. They include
defense; water, things like the water salinization efforts that Israel
is, frankly, ahead of us in and we need to understand, as we look
forward to water needs; homeland security, alternative fuel
technologies, more cooperation in cyber security. All those things are
authorized in this bill.
There is new language that encourages the administration to work with
Israel to help the country gain entry status in the Visa Waiver
Program, which would make it easier for Israeli citizens to travel to
the United States without first having to get a waiver, but it would
also make it easier for people in our country to go there.
It requires the administration to provide more frequent and more
detailed assessments of the status of a qualitative military advantage
that we have committed that Israel would always have. This bill that
Senator Boxer and I have introduced just says we are going to check
that even more often and in more detail to be absolutely sure in that
troubled part of the world that Israel's adversaries look at Israel and
can clearly understand that Israel has an advantage that makes up for
the difference in its size.
It strengthens the collaboration between the United States and Israel
on energy development. It encourages increased cooperation in academic,
business, and governmental sectors.
[[Page 13543]]
This legislation amends previous legislation related to how people
can travel between our two countries. We do have a unique situation. In
the recent fighting in Israel, two American citizens, members of the
Israeli Defense Forces with dual citizenship in this country and in
Israel, were killed in that fighting. This is one of the unique
relationships we have in the world where people actually leave our
communities, go to another country they also care about, fight in the
uniform of that country, because this country is our ally. We need to
look for ways to continue to emphasize that.
It authorizes but does not require the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to waive the
nonimmigration refusal rate requirement for Israel, but only if Israel
meets all of the other program requirements, and then it is still
authorized but not required.
This is a particularly important time to send this message. This is
an important time to send this message of continued support between our
two countries. Israel--we see, looking at the Gaza situation today,
during recent months uncertainty in Egypt, support from terrorist
groups all over the world, weaponry, missiles taken into Gaza, money
that could have been spent on concrete that could have been used to
build houses, schools, hospitals, and places for jobs, was used to
build tunnels so that people could come into Israel and attack Israel.
Certainly the Government of Israel and the citizens of Israel look at
this moment and think: No time to quit now with this job partially
done. Some of the messages that have been sent from our country have
not been helpful and encouraging in regard to what has to happen in the
middle of this conflict.
But this kind of legislation sends a message, the message we should
send. I hope we can get to it this week. I am pleased that three-
quarters of our colleagues--I think that number is right at 80--have
cosponsored this legislation. The legislation was just introduced this
week. So if there is any question to our friends in Israel, and maybe
more importantly others around the world, where the Senate, and
hopefully by the end of the week the Congress, stands, this action
sends that message. I cannot think of a more critical time to send that
message. I hope we see this bill on the floor and send that message
this week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today to speak in
favor of a critical issue for Coloradans; that is, fighting,
mitigating, and recovering from wildfire. Recent history has shown my
State that there is no greater threat to our communities, water
supplies, and our special way of life than wildfire. Successive
megafires over the past few years have broken records faster than they
can be written down.
Even today's flash floods in recently burned areas are a reminder
that after the embers of wildfires have cooled, their destruction
lingers for months and years. I used to joke that Coloradans were
strong and prepared for anything, come hell or high water. But I had no
idea that the past several years would bring both, with modern
megafires and floods devastating thousands of households and
businesses. We have endured these tests, and we have communities all
over the State, such as Black Forest, that are rebuilding. But these
recent disasters and the fires burning today in Colorado, California,
Washington, and across the West show that the status quo is
unacceptable. The cost of inaction for homeowners and first responders
alike is too high to not act. That is why I have come to the floor
today to speak in favor of a few smart, bipartisan, and fiscally
responsible bills that are in front of our Congress right now.
These bills, taken together, address wildfires in a comprehensive way
by attacking the problem before, during, and after a fire. So if I
might, I want to share some of the elements in these important pieces
of legislation.
First, I want to focus on what we can do before a wildfire at the
individual and community level to reduce risk. There are many studies,
numerous studies, that single out the most important factor in
protecting homes. That is, if you do mitigation work. You involve
yourself with ignition-resistant construction techniques. You reduce
hazardous fuels around your home.
That is one of the reasons I introduced the commonsense legislation
that is entitled the Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013. It will help
homeowners in communities better reduce the risk of wildfire damages
upfront. I am very pleased that the bill is moving forward in a
bipartisan fashion. I am working with Senator Inhofe as my Republican
partner. In the House, two Members of our delegation from Colorado,
Congressmen Polis and Tipton, have joined with their California
colleagues to lead this bill through the House. That is what Coloradans
expect from their elected representatives, collaboration for the good
of our State and country.
This bill is a game changer, not just in my State but across fire-
prone communities in the West and increasingly in other parts of our
country, the upper Midwest, the Northeast, Florida. You name it,
wildfire has continued to be a threat more broadly across our country.
What this act will do, the Wildfire Prevention Act, is it will allow
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to provide hazard
mitigation grants to States and localities to implement these
mitigation projects. These mitigation projects will help put Colorado
communities and public lands managers on the offensive. We put our
communities and our public lands managers in front of the threat of
megafires. We can head them off before they even start. It is an idea
that came from Colorado. It is more than just a commonsense idea; it is
a fiscally responsible approach to dealing with the threat of wildfire.
Why do I say that? Well, studies show that for every dollar you put
on hazard mitigation upfront, it saves an average of $4 down the line
if you have to fight a fire. For that reason, and the other ones I
mentioned, I am going to keep doing everything I possibly can to move
this bipartisan bill to the President's desk this year.
The second point I want to make and discuss with colleagues is that
we must fundamentally change and modernize how the Federal Government
funds wildfire-suppression operations. That is another way of saying
fighting fires, wildfire-suppression operations. The rising severity of
modern fires has caused land management agencies to divert resources
away from the critical fire prevention efforts I just described to
fight fires that are already burning. This is a vicious self-
perpetuating cycle that is called ``fire borrowing,'' which then only
increases the risk of catastrophic fires later.
It is a backwards way of budgeting. It is classic robbing Peter to
pay Paul and leaves us all to bear much larger costs, most notably our
communities in Colorado. That is why I joined Senators Wyden and Crapo
on their bipartisan bill that would finally separate wildfires like
other natural disasters and help make sure that we are not fighting
fires that could have been prevented. This is a sensible approach for
many reasons. It has been cosponsored by 120 Members of Congress in the
House and the Senate. It has been endorsed by over 150 groups, ranging
from the timber industry, to the environmental community. That speaks
volumes about the utility of this and the broad support, obviously.
My hometown State newspaper, the Denver Post, put it this way earlier
this month, ``Using disaster fund money for wildfires could solve a lot
of problems long-term, and we hope Congress sees it that way.'' I also
hope my colleagues see it that way. If we are serious here about
helping prevent future wildfires and reducing the threats to lives and
property, we all join together and pass this legislation.
Proper wildfire budgeting and the use of disaster relief funds would
help break this vicious cycle of fire borrowing and allow our natural
resource agencies to manage healthy forests, instead of fighting
megafires. I have the
[[Page 13544]]
great privilege of chairing on the energy committee, which the
Presiding Officer serves on, the National Parks Subcommittee. I know
all too well the problems this bill could solve. If we adopted this
measure, this new way of wildfire budgeting, we could ensure that the
resources are available for our national forest supervisors to reduce
hazardous fuels, provide quality recreation experiences, and provide
the timber supply to sustain a diverse forest products industry. It
would be there for the uses we need them to be there for.
We could do this also while upgrading our safe, modern air tanker
fleet in such a way that would keep our communities and firefighters
safe. So this legislation I just described is in the emergency
supplemental appropriations measure before the Senate here today. We
really need to pass it. It is crucial. It is an opportunity we have to
grab. In the supplemental appropriations act before this body, there is
$615 million to prevent fire borrowing this year, get resources on the
ground fighting these blazes, and help our resource agencies plan unto
the future.
I know House Appropriations Chairman Rogers. The Presiding Officer
and I both know Chairman Rogers. He did say that he did not include
wildfire funding in their supplemental because, in his words, ``there
is no urgency for such money.'' I have to respectfully disagree with my
friend Chairman Rogers. I know Coloradans, as well as people in
Washington State, California, and many States across the West would not
only disagree, they would strenuously disagree. I would invite Chairman
Rogers to come out to the West and see firsthand how urgent the
situation is for our communities.
Let me finish with a couple of remarks about other elements in this
supplemental.
My colleague Senator Blunt from Missouri, just spoke of the Iron Dome
system. The supplemental includes emergency funding for Israel's Iron
Dome system. It has intercepted hundreds of Hamas rockets targeting
civilian areas over the last several weeks. It has literally been a
lifesaver for our Israeli allies many times over.
I chair the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which has responsibility
for the Iron Dome and working with Israel and the Israeli Defense
Forces. I heard today from an Israeli who said the system is
miraculous. As Hamas continues to rain rockets down, we need to ensure
that this system continues to protect our friends and allies in Israel.
Finally, this supplemental includes critical resources to help
address the root causes that have led to the humanitarian crisis at our
southern border. So, in summary, I am glad we have moved forward on
debating this crucial supplemental appropriations bill. Let's move to
an up-or-down vote as soon as we possibly can. This is a timely debate.
Passage of this bill is too important to allow partisan gridlock to
interfere. So let's come together, let's show the American people we
can meet our obligations and rise above partisanship.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Policies Focus
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the disturbing
leadership failure we are seeing out of the White House. Over the past
year the President and his administration have seemed increasingly out
of touch with the many challenges facing our country at home and
abroad. Two weeks ago the President's spokesman told reporters, ``I
think that there have been a number of situations in which you have
seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way that
substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved
the tranquility of the global community.'' Let me repeat that.
``Substantially improved the tranquility of the global community.''
Well, fighting is going on right now in Israel and the Gaza Strip.
Russia is actively involved in a war in Ukraine and recently played a
role in bringing down a Malaysian airliner with 298 people onboard.
Iraq is virtually in chaos. Much of the country is under the control
of a terrorist organization considered by al Qaeda to be too extreme.
Those are just some of the most serious trouble spots that we face
right now. Yet the President's spokesman claims that ``there have been
a number of situations in which you have seen this administration
intervene in a meaningful way that have substantially improved the
tranquility of the global community.''
Not only can I not think of a number of situations in which the
President's action has substantially improved tranquility, I find it
hard to think of one. We are actually looking at more points of serious
instability than we have seen in decades.
Writing in the Washington Post over the weekend, the paper's
editorial page noted that during the President's administration: ``we
have witnessed as close to a laboratory experiment on the effects of
U.S. disengagement as the real world is ever likely to provide.''
Disengagement is a good description of the President's attitude
because right now the President doesn't even seem to be paying
attention. Obviously America can't fix all of the world problems, but
strong American leadership can help, as we have seen many times over
the past century.
Strong American leadership, however, requires a President who is
fully engaged and this President is anything but.
Tens of thousands of children are arriving at our southern border.
The President is playing pool. When a plane is shot down in Ukraine,
the President keeps right on with his campaign schedule.
Earlier this month, as thousands of unaccompanied children were
making their dangerous trip across the southern border--because of the
President's statement if they got here they could stay--the President
traveled to Texas, but he didn't go to assess the situation himself. He
was, as the Associated Press reported, ``primarily in Texas to raise
money for Democrats.''
Weeks later, despite taking multiple trips to fundraise for
Democrats, the President still hasn't visited the border, despite calls
to visit from members of his own party. Indeed, the President has
largely stopped even discussing the crisis. This is the same President
whose spokesman described him as having substantially improved the
tranquility of the global community.
Our world is facing a number of very serious crises now, and the
President seems completely unaware of it. Unfortunately, when it comes
to domestic issues, the President seems equally out of touch.
The President has recently taken to telling his audience that ``by
almost every economic measure, we're doing a whole lot better now than
we were when I came into office.''
Try telling that to the American families who are doing worse.
Average household income has dropped by nearly $3,000 on the
President's watch. Meanwhile, prices have risen. Food prices are
higher. The price of gasoline has almost doubled. College costs
continue to soar.
Health care premiums which the President promised would fall by
$2,500 have increased by almost $3,000, and they are still climbing.
Combine high prices with declining income and we get a whole lot of
families who were once comfortably in the middle class are now
struggling to make ends meet. The Obama administration's economy
provides few opportunities for these families to improve their
situation.
In 2009 the President's advisers predicted that the unemployment rate
would fall below 6 percent in 2012. Two years later unemployment still
hasn't fallen below 6 percent. The only reason the unemployment rate is
as low as it is is because so many Americans have given up looking for
work and dropped out of the labor force altogether. If the labor force
participation rate were as high today as it was when the President took
office, our unemployment rate would be about 10 percent.
Even when jobs do become available, too often they are low-paying
jobs, not
[[Page 13545]]
the kinds of jobs that help middle-class families achieve financial
security or move low-income families into the middle class.
Take the most recent jobs report. Under the President's policies, the
economy lost 523,000 full-time jobs and gained 799,000 part-time jobs
last month, which is the largest 1-month jump in part-time employment
in 20 years.
I will give the President this, he does talk. He talks about helping
middle-class families, but he has steadily opposed measures to help
them.
Republicans have proposed numerous measures to create good-paying
jobs and increase opportunity. We have urged the President to approve
the Keystone Pipeline and the tens of thousands of jobs it would
support. In fact, Democrats have urged the President to approve it too.
The President said no.
Republicans have proposed fixing the 30-hour workweek provision in
ObamaCare, which is cutting workers' hours and wages. The President has
said no.
Republicans have proposed repealing the medical device tax, which has
already eliminated thousands of jobs in the medical device industry and
will eliminate many more if it isn't repealed. A lot of Democrats agree
with that position. The President said no.
The President hasn't just said no to measures that would help the
middle class, he has implemented policies that have hit the middle
class with tremendous financial burdens. Chief among the President's
burdensome policies of course is ObamaCare. The President told an
audience in Wilmington, DE, the other day that thanks to his
administration, millions more now have the peace of mind of having
quality, affordable health care if they need it.
Try telling that to the Americans who lost their health care plans as
a result of the President's law and were forced to replace them with
plans that cost more and offered less. Try telling that to the
Americans who obtained health care plans under the Affordable Care Act
only to discover their plan didn't cover the doctor they wanted it to
cover. Tell it to the families paying thousands of dollars more each
year in premiums, deductibles, and copays thanks to the President's
health care law. That does not even mention the drag the health care
law is having on the economy.
Part of the reason there are so few opportunities for American
families to get ahead is because the President's health care law is
making it more difficult for businesses to afford to hire new workers.
Now the President is piling up his budget-busting health care law
with a national energy tax that will drive up energy bills for American
families and put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.
Nero may have fiddled while Rome burned, the President fundraises.
The Washington Post reports:
In his two presidential terms combined, Bush hosted 318
fundraisers. Obama has already smashed that number with 393
events to date.
And he still has 2\1/2\ years to go in his administration.
Instead of urging the President to focus on crises at home and
abroad, Democrats have taken a leaf from the President's book and spent
the past several months focused on elections. Rather than taking up
legislation to provide real help for struggling middle-class families,
Senate Democrats have spent months--months--on political show votes and
designed-to-fail legislation they hope will win them a few votes in
November.
Our country is facing challenges at home and abroad. Campaigning has
its place, but in Washington Members of Congress and the President
should be focused on solving the problems facing our country,
supporting middle-class families, and restoring America's economic
vitality.
It is time for Democrats and the President to stop focusing on
politics and start focusing on the policies we need to create jobs, to
grow the economy, and support freedom and opportunity at home and
around the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
African Growth and Opportunity Act
Mr. CARDIN. Next week, between August 4 and August 6, the United
States will welcome leaders from across the African Continent to
Washington, DC.
I first wish to acknowledge the work of our colleague Senator Coons,
the chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, Foreign Relations
Committee, for the work he has done on behalf of the Senate to make
this opportunity a real chance to strengthen the economic ties, to
strengthen the strategic ties between the countries of Africa and the
United States.
We expect there will be robust discussions that will be encouraging
economic growth, unlocking opportunities, and fostering greater ties
between our country and Africa.
One of the areas that I hope will get some debate and discussion
during next week's meetings will be a key government trade initiative
that makes these ties possible; that is, the African Growth and
Opportunity Act, AGOA.
AGOA provides qualifying sub-Saharan countries duty-free access to
the U.S. market for a wide variety of products. It was first signed
into law in 2000 by President Clinton and has been strengthened and
extended by Congress and both President Bush and President Obama.
AGOA enjoyed broad bipartisan support throughout the years because
its advocates recognize the crucial role Africa plays in the global
economy.
The African Continent is one of the world's fastest growing regions.
For instance, by 2035, it is estimated that Africa will have a larger
working-age population than China. I mention that because it is
certainly in our interest to have stable partners who develop their
economy and can work in strategic partnership with the United States,
but it also means we are going to have stronger markets for U.S.-
produced goods and products. As we have a growing middle class in
Africa, it represents a market for U.S. manufacturers, producers, and
farmers, which creates more jobs in the United States.
AGOA allows the United States and Africa to both take advantage of
this dynamism. Since the act was fully implemented in 2001, U.S.
imports under AGOA have tripled. Nonoil AGOA trade has increased
fourfold.
Some of the sectors that AGOA has helped open are apparel, textiles,
jewelry, handicrafts, and electronics. AGOA has created hundreds of
thousands of jobs in those sectors, most of those in the apparel
sector, where women comprise 75 to 90 percent of the industry.
In sub-Saharan Africa women are at the highest risk of being poor.
AGOA has tackled barriers to poverty reduction by eliminating tariffs
on goods that come from many sectors in which women are employed.
Modern trade agreements and initiatives are much more than just
lowering tariffs. It also involves dealing with good governance
practices.
In an increasing global economy, we can no longer consider issues
such as labor rights, human rights, and good governance as issues that
are separate from trade.
Trade with our country is a benefit with deserving nations that share
our values. Strong commitments to the rule of law and human rights are
an essential part of those values and level the playing field between
the United States and our partners in the global marketplace.
AGOA is no exception. The Act has been encouraging these commitments
since it was first enacted. In other words, this is not only an
opportunity by lowering barriers to our markets, it is also about
expectations and enforcement that the African countries will improve
their good governance and their labor rights so we have a more level
playing field.
To qualify for AGOA benefits, countries must establish or make
continual progress on measures that promote good governance and a fair
economic system. These include fundamental rights, the rule of law, a
system that combats corruption, and policies that increase access to
health care, education, and expand physical infrastructure. In other
words, the African countries involved that take advantage of
[[Page 13546]]
AGOA must have continuing progress on the good governance key issues.
For example, as part of the annual AGOA review process, the U.S.
Department of Labor examines AGOA countries' efforts to implement and
enforce workers' rights, including the right of association, the right
to organize and bargain collectively, prohibitions on forced or
compulsory labor, a minimum age for the employment of children, and
acceptable conditions of work.
These are the International Labour Organization standards. The ILO
standards are very much a part of the progress we made under AGOA in
the African countries. Improvements in these areas have been shown to
foster the kind of inclusive economic growth and opportunities that
raise families and nations out of poverty.
We understand that by developing stronger economies in African
countries, we are building more stable African countries, countries
that are more reliable to be partners with the United States in dealing
with global issues.
We understand that by doing that we are going to have a stronger
partner sharing U.S. values. This is just one of the tools we use. We
also use our transparency initiatives. We included in the Dodd-Frank
legislation transparency on extractive industries that operate globally
but also in Africa so we could find and make sure the wealth of a
country is actually going to its people. That requires good governance.
AGOA is one of our tools to accomplish that good governance.
So these countries that have mineral wealth, the wealth is not a
curse but truly benefits the people of that country.
AGOA helps, the transparency initiatives that we passed help, but
this is the issue: The current authorization of AGOA expires on
September 30, 2015. Once again, Madam President, as you know, as you
worked so hard, we need predictability in our law. Short-term
extensions don't do much good. What we need is a long-term economic
commitment with the continent of Africa.
A bipartisan effort in Congress to extend and improve this important
legislation is already underway. The U.S. Trade Representative has been
reviewing AGOA's successes as well as the areas that can be improved.
Later today in the Senate Finance Committee we will be holding a
hearing on AGOA, and Ambassador Froman will be one of the witnesses at
that hearing. So we will have a chance to work together, bipartisan
members of Congress with the administration.
One of the areas we are looking at is strengthening the eligibility
criteria to further incentivize improvements in human rights, and I
will be talking about that in the Finance Committee. Another area is
providing coordinated technical assistance and capacity building. This
is very important. Too often trade and development policies operate on
separate tracks. Granting trade preference means little without
providing countries with the ability to take advantage of those
benefits. We have development assistance that we provide to countries.
We have trade that we do. Let's combine it and recognize that these
trade opportunities can only be taken advantage of if the country has
the capacity to deal with the issues we are talking about.
Capacity building is already underway in Africa. For instance, the
Department of Labor provides capacity-building assistance to AGOA
countries to improve workers' rights through partnerships with a broad
range of organizations, from NGOs, to health organizations, to social
and economic researchers. By providing this aid in a more efficient and
clearly measurable fashion and seeking more input from local
cooperatives and groups, we can help foster more sustainable growth in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
The time to develop consensus on AGOA improvements is now. I hope my
colleagues will join me in supporting and strengthening the AGOA Act so
we can maintain this important tool to increase the trade relations
between the United States and Africa and fight global poverty. I look
forward to seeing the results of next week's meetings with the African
leaders. It is my sincere expectation that these meetings will produce
concrete ways we can improve the ties between Africa and the United
States, and I certainly expect it will help us lead to the improvement
and reauthorization of AGOA.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
USA FREEDOM ACT
Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the
transparency provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act. I am a proud cosponsor
of Chairman Leahy's bill, and I am particularly proud to have written
its key transparency provisions with my friend Senator Dean Heller of
Nevada. As I said yesterday, both of us are indebted to Senator Leahy
for his leadership on this issue.
For over a year now there has been a steady stream of news stories
about the National Security Agency's surveillance programs. Yet right
now, by law, Americans still cannot get very basic information about
these programs.
Americans understand that we need to give due weight to privacy on
the one hand and national security on the other. But when they lack an
even rough sense of the scope of the government's surveillance
programs, they have no way to know if the government is getting that
balance right. There needs to be more transparency.
The controversy unleashed by Edward Snowden's disclosures has been
going on for over a year. Yet Americans still don't know the actual
number of people whose information has been collected under these
programs. They don't even know how many of these people are Americans,
and they have no way of knowing how many of these Americans had their
information actually looked at by government officials as opposed to
just being held in a database. This lack of transparency is pretty
breathtaking.
I believe the provisions Senator Heller and I wrote will go a long
way toward addressing and fixing this. It will give Americans the
information they need to judge the government's surveillance programs
for themselves.
Three programs are at the center of this debate: the telephone call
records program, the collection, through 2011, on Americans' Internet
communications records, and the so-called PRISM Program that targets
the communications of foreigners abroad.
Our provisions would require detailed annual reports for each
program. The government will have to tell the public how many people
have had their information collected and how many of those people are
likely American. For the call records program and the PRISM Program,
the government will also have to say how many times it has run a
specific search for an American's data.
By creating these reporting requirements, the government will have an
incentive to also disclose the number of Americans who have actually
had their information reviewed by government officials, and we give the
government authority to do that too.
We don't just require the government to issue more detailed
transparency reports. We are also helping American Internet and phone
companies tell their customers about the government requests for
customer information they are receiving. For years those companies have
been under gag orders. As a result, people around the world think the
American Internet companies are giving up far more information to the
government than they likely are. Those companies are losing billions of
dollars because people think they are handing over all of their
customers' data to the NSA.
Our provisions expand the options that companies have to issue their
own transparency reports, and they let companies issue those reports
more quickly. Our provisions give the public
[[Page 13547]]
two ways to check on the government--government transparency reports
and company reports as well.
Like all major bills, this bill is a compromise, and we didn't get
everything we wanted, but our provisions will go a long way toward
giving the American people the information they need to evaluate the
government's surveillance program.
After 9/11, our Nation faced a security crisis. Most Americans had
never lived through anything like that. We are now experiencing a
crisis of trust where a big part of the American public now thinks our
intelligence agencies are out to spy on them, not on foreign countries.
The administration has committed to end the bulk collection of
Americans' data, and Congress has written a bill to ban the bulk
collection of Americans' data. But unless we pass these transparency
provisions, Americans have no way to know if the government is making
good on those promises. Our transparency provisions will force the
government to prove annually and publicly that bulk collection is over.
This is an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability which
will allow the American people to decide for themselves whether the
government is striking the right balance between privacy and security.
We should take up this bill as soon as possible so that Americans are
not in the dark a single day longer. We should take it up so that
American companies stop losing business because of misperceptions about
their role in domestic surveillance. We should take this bill up so
that Americans can get the information they need to hold their
government to account.
Tribute to Alvaro Bedoya
Before I yield the floor, I wish to take a moment to recognize and
thank Alvaro Bedoya, my chief counsel, who is to my left. This is
Alvaro's last week on my staff. Alvaro has been a member of my team
since my very first day in office, and I have relied on and trusted his
counsel on so many things in the 5 years since.
He has been instrumental in helping me launch and set the agenda for
the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law that I chair, and
we would not have reached this point in working to make the NSA more
transparent and accountable to the American people if it were not for
Alvaro.
Alvaro's counsel has also been crucial as we have sought to improve
our Nation's broken immigration system, as we fought for marriage
equality and LGBT rights, including the right of all children to be
free from bullying in schools, and as we work to ban apps that allow
domestic abusers to stalk their victims.
Alvaro was even at my side during my very first week in office when
the Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor
to serve on the Supreme Court. That was my fifth day in the Senate, and
I remember pulling some late nights preparing for that.
Alvaro's departure is bittersweet for me. I am, of course, sad to see
Alvaro leave, but I am very excited for him as well. He will soon
become the founding executive director of Georgetown Law School's new
Center for Privacy and Technology. I have no doubt the folks at
Georgetown soon will learn what I already know--that Alvaro is one of
the most talented, intelligent, hardest working, decent, good-guy
lawyers I know.
Thanks, Alvaro.
And I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Corporate Inversions
Ms. WARREN. Madam President, our Tax Code is tilted toward the rich
and the powerful. Huge corporations hire armies of lobbyists and
lawyers to create, expand, and protect every last corporate loophole.
That is how we end up with a tax code that makes small businesses and
restaurants and construction companies pay, that makes teachers and
truckdrivers and nurses pay, but that allows huge American corporations
to make billions of dollars in profits and not pay a single dime in
taxes.
The Tax Code is rigged. Apparently, even this rigged game does not go
far enough for some corporations. Those companies are taking advantage
of a new move--a loophole that allows them to maintain all their
operations in America but claim foreign citizenship so they can cut
their U.S. taxes even further.
Here is how the loophole works. An American company merges with a
much smaller company located in a foreign country, usually a tax haven
such as Ireland or Bermuda. As long as the shareholders of the foreign
company own 20 percent of the newly merged company, our tax laws allow
that new company to claim foreign citizenship. That means American
companies can hire a bunch of Wall Street bankers and a bunch of
lawyers, fill out some paperwork, keep everything the same in their
operations, and dodge their U.S. taxes.
Tax lawyers call this process a corporate inversion, but do not let
that bland name fool you. These companies are renouncing their American
citizenship, turning their backs on this country simply to boost their
profits. They are taking advantage of all the good things our
government helps provide--educated workers, roads and bridges, a
dependable court system, patent and copyright protections--and then
running out on the bill.
If a person did that, we would call them a freeloader. We would
insist that they pay their fair share. That is exactly what our tax
laws do for people who renounce their American citizenship. Even if
they do not sell their property in the United States, when they
renounce their citizenship, we treat them as if they had sold it. If
they try to send money back to a U.S. citizen, we tax that amount too.
And if someone attempts to evade their tax obligations by renouncing
their American citizenship, we bar them from coming back to this
country.
For a person who does not want to pay a fair share, our message is
clear: You can renounce your citizenship but do not come back and
expect the rest of us to pick up the tab. But we do not do that for
corporations. Corporations can renounce their American citizenship--and
make absolutely clear in legal documents that they are doing it to
avoid their U.S. tax obligations--and not suffer any consequences.
In this corner of the Tax Code we have gone way past treating
corporations as people. In this corner of the Tax Code we are treating
corporations better than people. That is not right. That is why I have
teamed up with Senator Levin and more than a dozen of our Democratic
colleagues to introduce the Stop Corporate Inversions Act. The bill is
simple. It allows American corporations to renounce their citizenship
only if they truly give up control of their company to a foreign
corporation and truly move their operations overseas. The bill would
help protect $17 billion in tax revenue--money we could spend on Head
Start Programs, on fixing our roads and bridges, on investing in
medical research.
President Obama and Secretary Lew have spoken in favor of the
proposal. I commend their leadership, and I join them in urging the
Senate to pass this bill right away.
Some say wait. They say we should address this loophole in the
context only of broader tax reform. I am all for a major overhaul of
our tangled tax system, but make no mistake, more and more companies
are rushing to renounce their citizenship to take advantage of this
inversion loophole before we can get to full tax reform. We cannot
allow the larger fights over tax reform to stop us from holding these
freeloaders accountable.
I believe the Senate should act on this, but I am also realistic.
Even if the Senate passes this bill today, we know that, like so many
good Senate bills before it, it will face a tough road in the House. If
we have learned anything
[[Page 13548]]
from the past few years, it is that House Republicans will claw,
scratch, whimper, beg or do whatever else it takes to defend every last
corporate tax loophole.
But the administration does not need to wait for Congress. It can use
its existing authority to slow down and reduce the attractiveness of
these sham inversions right now. According to a paper published this
week by Steve Shay, a Harvard Law School professor and former senior
tax policy official at the Treasury Department, the administration
could take action today to reduce the tax benefits of corporate
inversions.
It could use its authority under section 385 of the Tax Code to
prevent companies that renounce their citizenship from using any other
loopholes to shield themselves from additional taxes that they would
otherwise be required to pay. This will not totally solve the problem,
but it would significantly reduce the benefits of corporate inversion.
It would be an important first step toward treating companies that
renounce America the same way we treat people who renounce America--as
freeloaders who get cut off from other benefits.
America is a great place to do business because of the investments we
have made together. In Massachusetts and across this country, we invest
in public education, and our colleges and universities produce millions
of skilled workers. We invest in infrastructure, in our roads and
bridges and ports, making it easier for our companies to move their
products across the country and beyond. We invest in scientific and
medical research, giving our companies access to the most innovative
and cutting-edge technology. We invest together to make America a place
where any kid will have a chance to come up with an idea and turn it
into the next great American corporation.
The companies that are pursuing these corporate inversions know all
of this. That is why they are not actually leaving America behind. They
just do not want to pay for it. Our achievements are not magic. They
did not simply happen on their own or through dumb luck. America works,
our government works, our democracy works because we all pitch in and
do our part to build that which none of us can build alone, giving
everyone a chance to succeed.
If these companies want to leave all of that behind, well, that is
their right. But if they exercise that right, if they leave America
behind, then they should not get to turn around and claim all of the
privileges of being an American company. We have had enough of rich
corporations taking whatever they want and expecting everyone else to
pick up the pieces. The time for freeloading is over.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Israel
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it has been 22 days now since Hamas
began its most recent campaign of terrorist attacks against the
innocent citizens of Israel. Since the operation began, 32 tunnels have
been uncovered that would have been used to attack Israel. On Saturday
and Sunday--this past Saturday and Sunday alone--almost 100 rockets
were fired at Israel. In the Gaza strip, since the beginning of
Operation Protective Edge--that would have been July 8--there have been
over 2,000 Hamas rockets fired into Israel, with Tel Aviv and Jerusalem
both targets.
Israel has responded, as any nation protecting its people would, with
air strikes and ground troops to silence these Hamas terrorists.
Israelis are tough. I have to remind people all the time that since
their independence back in the 1940s, they have been attacked--Israel
has been attacked--six different times.
Remember how they were outnumbered in the Six-Day War in 1967. They
won. They prevailed. Then again, the same thing in Yom Kippur--that was
in 1973. Again, they prevailed. I have often kidded with them--I have
told Prime Minister Netanyahu this, that the Israelis consider a fair
fight being outnumbered two to one. So they are a great bunch of
people. We have got to continue to support them.
The Hamas terrorists are not only killing Israelis; they are killing
their own people too because they place their rocket launchers--we see
this is happening, just yesterday we saw a picture of this--in the
middle of their own population centers. We are talking in homes, in
hospitals, in mosques. Like the cowards they are, they use civilians as
human shields. Despite Israel's extensive precautionary behavior and
measures to avoid collateral damage, casualties, unfortunately, have
occurred. Hamas bears complete responsibility for the civilian deaths.
As Prime Minister Netanyahu said: Israel is using missile defense to
protect our citizens, and Hamas is using their civilians to protect
their missiles. To date, the Israeli missile defense system, called the
Iron Dome, has successfully intercepted over 400 Hamas rockets headed
toward the populated areas in Israel. I was just in Israel last month.
I visited the Iron Dome battery. You see, there has to be a place where
they initiate these protective devices. Here they are over there. I was
so impressed with the young Israeli troops who operate it in the
southern city of Ashkelon. The same battery you see on TV every night
intercepting Hamas rockets comes from the Gaza Strip, 13 kilometers
away.
I have a picture here I want the Presiding Officer to look at. This
beautiful young first lieutenant in the Israeli Army I met. She is the
one in charge of the Ashkelon battery down there. She is doing her duty
right now as we speak, bravely protecting her fellow citizens. Her name
is Lee Shmulevitch. I salute her.
It gives people an idea of the commitment that is being made by the
Israeli people and the successes they are having. As ranking member,
which I am, of the Armed Services Committee, I am proud to say I have
been a constant supporter of the Iron Dome, which we have done on a
nonpartisan basis. We have put in the authorization for $175 million in
this last authorization bill. Then we added another $176 million that
would take care of not just the Iron Dome but also other systems that
we have such as David's Sling and Arrow 3.
These are jointly developed by the United States and Israel. I think
it is important that people understand. I have heard people say: Well,
you are just sending all this stuff over from us to Israel. If that
were true, it would be worth doing it anyway, because they are looking
out after our interests. Those things which they are not able to do in
the Middle East we would have to be doing with our equipment, with your
young people.
This is not the case. They have a lot of brave people over there. In
the case of the Iron Dome, of David's Sling, of Arrow 3, and of a lot
of the UAVs, their technology is technology that we use. So it is not
something that we are doing for them. We are doing it mutually for each
other.
I think it is important also to note at this point that--and nobody
seems to put this together--Hamas would not have the rockets and
capability of trying to kill all of these Israelis if it were not for
Israel's greatest threat, and that is the country of Iran. Quite
frankly, I think Iran is the greatest threat to the United States also.
A lot of people do not realize this, but back in 2007 our--at that time
it was classified--Our intelligence said that by 2015, Iran would have
the weapon and a delivery system. Well, that is only 6 months from now.
That has been reconfirmed in our unclassified intelligence starting
in about 2010. So right now it is really Iran that is responsible for
what Hamas has been able to do. I might ask the question: What is
President Obama doing? His rush to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran
has undermined years of bipartisan sanctions that were working. We have
sanctions, not just by us but by European countries and other countries
that have really brought Iran
[[Page 13549]]
down--not to their knees, because they are still developing their
weapons. But nonetheless, they were working.
As part of the President's agreement--this is what he is doing right
now. His agreement is to reduce Iran's sanctions, as he announced in
January. He has endorsed Iran's right to enrich uranium. So let's stop
and think about it. This is a deal he has cut. He said: All right. We
will pull off our sanctions so you will be able to receive the benefit
of that. At the same time we are going to let you go ahead and continue
to enrich uranium.
He has allowed Iran to keep 19,000 centrifuges while unlocking $7
billion in assets. These are assets that were held which they can now
use to their benefit. He has just extended the deal by agreeing to
provide Iran with an additional $2.8 billion in frozen assets. That
brings the $7 billion up to almost $10 billion. While Iran is building
a bomb, Obama is releasing sanctions.
I believe the Iranians are using negotiations to buy time as they are
developing their nuclear weapon. Again, Netanyahu called the
President's agreement a ``historic mistake'' that is making the world a
much more dangerous place. History is going to prove that he is right.
Obama should demand Iran dismantle its nuclear program, but he will not
do it. We should reinstate full sanctions now and consider additional
sanctions. But President Obama will not do it.
Does anyone really believe Iran is not involved with Hamas and its
attacks?
Today, Obama is rewarding Iran by releasing more financial assets to
Iran, funding that will be used to support more terrorism against
Israel. There is little to show for the administration's reckless
gamble for Israel. President Obama is negotiating with an Iranian
regime that has repeatedly deceived us and concealed its nuclear
program for over 2 decades.
I see nothing different in this deal. Israel lives in a dangerous
neighborhood, surrounded by terrorists who refuse to even acknowledge
the Jewish state's right to exist. They need all the friends they can
get. I keep hearing people talk about the two-state solution. The two-
state solution between Hamas and Israel is kind of interesting because
Hamas does not consider Israel to be a state. So how can you have a
two-state solution if you only have one state? That is the situation.
That is why I want to salute the country of Egypt. There are some
other friends that we have over there. I have been upset with some of
the Members here in this body because they do not have an appreciation
for what Egypt does and the part they play in the Middle East and their
support for Israel. Let me tell you, this started a long time ago. The
Camp David Accords was in 1979. In the Camp David Accords they made a
deal with Israel. Now, you have to keep in mind that this was the
military of Egypt. It is hard for people in this country to see that
sometimes there is a difference between the administration in a country
and the military.
So it is the military here that has said: We will be protecting
Israel. We had, not too long ago, an effort from this body to try to
stop the shipment of some F-16s that Egypt had already bought. Now,
granted, that was back during President Morsi and his radical Muslim
Brotherhood. But nonetheless, these were going not to him but to the
military. The newly elected President Sisi has destroyed--he is working
right along with the Israelis. He has been involved, and his people and
his military, in destroying over 90 percent of the tunnels that are
going from the Sinai to Gaza.
So I only mention this because those individuals who do not
understand this might consider punishing Egypt. If you punish Egypt,
you are punishing, to the same degree, Israel.
The turbulent times we face serve as a reminder why the United States
and Israel have to continue to work together. The same enemies that
threaten the existence of Israel also want to destroy America. Over the
years the United States has greatly benefited from the cooperation with
Israel on missile defense technologies. We have to continue that
critical partnership. Israel is our most faithful ally, our most
critical partner in the region, and acts as a roadblock against
terrorism, terrorism that would be hitting the United States of
America.
The United States stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel and
supports its right to defend itself.
Since his first budget, President Obama has been degrading our
military while also making the world more dangerous through an
apologetic and reactive foreign policy of appeasement. I often quote
Hiram Mann, who said:
No man escapes
When freedom fails,
The best men rot in filthy jails;
And they who cried: ``Appease, Appease!''
Are hanged by men they tried to please.
We have to get out of that system. We have to stand by Israel and
hang tough with our best friend. We can't survive without them.
I often look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War. That was
back when they had two superpowers in the world, the USSR and the
United States. We knew what they had, and they knew what we had. We
knew what their capacities were, they knew ours.
They had a system called MAD, mutually assured destruction. It meant:
You shoot at you, we will shoot at you. You die, we all die, and
everyone is happy.
That doesn't work anymore. Now we have these rogue elements out there
that are developing weapons that can wipe out an entire U.S. city. I am
about not just the Middle East but about North Korea also.
So we are looking at the Middle East. We are looking at our only way
of defending our allies there and working to stop the capabilities of
countries such as Iran to have a weapon that would reach the United
States of America. So we have to hang tough with our best friend
Israel, and I pray that we do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
49th Anniversary of Medicare
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise in honor of a birthday.
Forty-nine years ago, Medicare was signed into law. Every year, the
trustees prepare a report about the fiscal health of Medicare and
Social Security, and that report was issued earlier this week. On this
49th birthday of Medicare, I wish to talk about Medicare's health
because there is some good news.
The 2014 trustees' report released earlier this week looks at the
trust fund financing for Medicare hospital coverage and indicates that
trust fund, under current projections, will remain solvent until 2030.
Last year the 2013 report indicated that solvency period would go to
2026. So in 1 year the fiscal projections for Medicare and Medicaid
improved by 4 years--solvency until 2030.
In addition, the projected Part B premiums, the Part B portion of
Medicare, which is the prescription drug premium program for seniors,
for the second year in a row the premiums will not increase one penny.
This improved health of Medicare is significant. The health of it has
improved dramatically, even in the last year. But where the improvement
truly looks significant is if we compare the 2014 report with the 2009
report, the report that was done on Medicare's 44th birthday 5 years
ago. The 2009 report said the hospital insurance trust fund was not
adequately financed for the next 10 years, and it would be exhausted in
2017.
Again, just to compare, 2009 Medicare trustees' report, the trust
fund will be exhausted by 2017; 2014 Medicare trustees' report, the
trust fund will be solvent all the way through 2030. There is a
difference of 13 years of additional solvency in Medicare, according to
the projections and the change just from 2009 to 2014.
I think we know where I am going with this subject. What explains the
improving solvency of the Medicare trust fund? Why would it have
changed so dramatically from the 2009 to the 2014 projection and added
13 years of solvency to the trust fund?
The Congressional Budget Office and others have indicated it was not
the 2009 recession that was the primary driver for Medicare spending
reduction.
[[Page 13550]]
Instead, the CBO and others are indicating that a large part of the
improved solvency of Medicare is because of the reforms that were
included by Congress when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in
2010. When it comes to reducing costs, bending the cost curve, the
Affordable Care Act is working.
That is not the only reason Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
Coverage is expanding. Certain health care indicators are improving.
More people have access because they are not denied insurance because
of preexisting conditions. Kids can stay on family policies. Businesses
can get tax credits if they are small.
But one of the areas--and that was why the first day the ACA was
affordable. It was to try to do things that would control health care
costs.
This Medicare trustees' report on Medicare's 49th birthday shows on
cost reforms the ACA is working. The innovative systems of changing the
payment model from pay-for-procedure to pay for quality, paying for
value over volume, for reducing costs and improving health care
delivery systems are extending the solvency of Medicare.
Not only is this cost containment good for the Federal Government,
for the Federal Treasury, it is also good for Medicare recipients: 8.2
million Medicare recipients saved more than $11.5 billion on
prescription drugs thanks to closing the Medicare Part D doughnut hole.
In Virginia, people with Medicare saved $254 million on prescription
drugs because the Medicare Part D doughnut hole was closed just since
the ACA was enacted--$254 million since the 2010 enactment. In 2013
alone, 37.2 million Medicare recipients received free preventive
benefits, including more than 900,000 in Virginia, because of the
Affordable Care Act.
The work obviously needs to continue to bend the cost curve the right
way, but the trustees' report from Monday is not the only evidence of
the improving health of our fiscal expenditures.
Just this month CBO again revised downward its 10-year estimate for
spending on Medicare and our Nation's major health care programs. Since
2010 CBO has lowered its estimates for Medicare and Medicaid and other
health care programs by $1.23 trillion--lowered projections of health
care spending since the Affordable Care Act was passed.
The CBO said in a recently issued long-term budget outlook that the
government will spend 1.6 percent of GDP less on health care programs
than estimated in 2010 before the ACA was passed. A report released
this week by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation at HHS reported essentially no growth in Medicare
expenditures on a per capita basis last year.
That report also said Medicare spending between 2009 and 2012--for
beneficiaries in the traditional program--was approximately $116
billion lower than it would have been if the average growth rates from
years 2004 to 2008 had been projected forward.
So there are many reasons we should be thankful the Affordable Care
Act passed, that we should be absolutely committed to maintaining it,
and that we should also be committed to maintaining it wherever we can.
But as we celebrate the 49th anniversary of Medicare today, one of the
reasons we should be thankful is it is clear that the ACA is helping us
make health care more affordable.
To conclude, the report that was issued this week was not all good
news because it also had challenges with respect to Social Security.
The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2033, and that
represents no change from last year. The solvency of the trust fund was
not changed at all in the interim year.
But in the area of Social Security disability income, that insurance
program--at current projections--will be completed by 2016.
Secretary Lew indicated this week that measures need to be taken to
make sure that program--which is of critical importance to millions of
Americans who are on disabilities--requires that we take action to fix
that program so they can count on it.
So what we see is when Congress in the Affordable Care Act acted in a
smart way to deal with Medicare, we have improved the area of Medicare
costs and we are saving money. Congress has not acted with respect to
Social Security and the Social Security disability insurance program,
which is critical to folks with disabilities. It is going to need some
quick fix.
I conclude and just say it is good for Congress to act. We can
filibuster. We can debate. We can consider nominations. We can do a
bill in one House and send it over and wait--as with immigration reform
for 1-year-plus--for the other House to do something about it. None of
that is action. None of that will fix any of the challenges that face
us.
But when we do act and we are willing to tackle tough problems such
as Medicare cost growth, we do it in both Houses and take the risk, we
will find we will be better off than if we don't act. Social Security
needs to have the same kind of focused and careful attention to it,
especially the disability insurance program, as we paid to Medicare in
2010.
Medicare is one of the best programs this Nation has ever embraced. I
wish it a happy 49th birthday today and congratulate those who were in
the Senate in 2010 for being willing to risk action and thereby found a
way to save costs and make Medicare work better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise to speak on the urgent supplemental bill, and I
rise as the chair of the full Committee on Appropriations that is
actually trying to move the urgent supplemental.
``Supplemental'' is an important word. It means it is in addition to
fiscal year 2014 funding. There are elements where we make requests for
an urgent supplemental because of unexpected emergencies, either within
our own country or affecting a treasured ally--such as the State of
Israel--or the crisis at our border because of what is going on in
Central America. Remember, it is the crisis in Central America that is
creating the humanitarian surge at our border.
Although I rise now to speak about one element. I have spoken about
the fires in our Western States and later today I will speak about the
children and actually try to paint a picture for people about what is
going on in Honduras, El Salvador, and other countries that are also
affected, but now I am going to speak about Israel.
Israel is under attack, and it is under attack by a terrorist group
that denies its very right to exist. It is under attack by an
organization called Hamas that is sending thousands of rockets to
Israeli cities and towns targeting innocent civilians. Its very
survivability is being defended by missile defense technology. The most
crucial for short-range missiles is a technology called Iron Dome. This
missile defense technology has saved hundreds of lives.
I can speak to this--when I say personally, not because I am in
Israel and see the horrific attacks, but because I have a classmate
from college, a very dear friend, and we have stayed in contact over a
number of years. She is a psychiatric nurse. When she married, they
made aliyah and moved to Israel, where she has taught at Hebrew
University and her husband is a distinguished psychiatrist. They live
in a town called Ashkelon.
She sent me the most poignant of emails. I will not read it to my
colleagues, but she did tell me what is going on. Every day there are
these rockets going on. They spend their lives going to shelters. They
can only move around in a small patch because they have to be, under
safety rules, within 2 or 3 minutes from a shelter. She said in her
email to me that it is literally Iron Dome that is saving their lives.
Iron Dome is a technology that needs to be replenished. It needs to
be replenished, and the State of Israel has discussed this with our
government. Secretary Chuck Hagel wrote to our committee asking that
this be in the supplemental essentially because of this war or
terrorist attack against Israel.
The committee has responded by placing $225 million in there, but in
[[Page 13551]]
order to replenish it. There are many who say: I don't know if I am
going to vote for this. What is Iron Dome, and is this an attack
technology?
Let me say what Iron Dome is.
Iron Dome is a high-tech defensive system. It is not an offensive
system. It is used as a missile defense system. How does it work?
Approximately 10-feet-long missiles intercept rockets. Their rockets
aren't designed to shoot out; they are designed to shoot rockets at
rockets that are being fired on Israel from a range of between 2.5 and
43 miles. Each interceptor missile--remember, they intercept another
rocket--costs about $50,000. Stunning, isn't it? Israel has invested
over $1 billion of its own money in Iron Dome. Our government has
worked with them on Iron Dome so they can maintain their qualitative
edge. But just think. In order to protect themselves, every rocket
going off costs $50,000.
As of July 30, over 2,730 rocket launches have been directed at
Israel itself. Iron Dome has sent over 515 interceptions; 9 batteries
have been deployed; more than 4,100 targets were attacked since the
beginning of the operation.
But remember, over 2,700 rockets have been directed at Israel. Iron
Dome has deployed 515 at the cost of $50,000 apiece. Now what they are
saying is, help us replenish our interceptor rockets because we are
using them up. Essentially, it is bullets--not directed at people--it
is rockets in the air.
Israel has a 90-percent success rate in intercepting these rockets
coming from the Gaza. What they are asking for is help from us, the
ability to replenish these rockets. I hope we do this in order for them
to continue to be able to defend themselves. It is absolutely crucial
that Israel has the opportunity to defend itself while others are
working on cease-fires or political solutions. Those are excellent
diplomatic and humanitarian goals, but right now we have to make sure
that Israel can defend itself.
This is important because Israel is a treasured ally. It is important
that we enable them to guard themselves against a terrorist
organization.
We all know that the long-range solution is that the Hamas
infrastructure must be eliminated. That is absolutely so. These so-
called--well, they are not so-called. As a member of the Intelligence
Committee, I have had many briefings on this. I can't go into detail,
but there are tunnels that go right through Gaza and into the edge or,
actually, in some instances into Israel itself. During this conflict
Israel has discovered 31 tunnels. This is extremely disturbing. And
they are big. When we think of a tunnel--this isn't like a little pipe
for water. This is a tunnel where as many as two people could cross
side-by-side going through and, in some instances, actually weapons
being able to be put through. These tunnels are a very threat to
Israel's existence.
In addition to the tunnels, the rockets that are pummeling Israel
continue to be fired every single day.
We believe, for our allies, in the right to self-defense. We have
signed memorandums of agreement to enable them, with their missile
defense system, to maintain their qualitative edge.
Now, when they are in the very struggle for their safety and perhaps
their future, we need to be able to pass this important legislation.
We also know that when we pass this legislation, Iron Dome should
stand alone. Many people who support the Iron Dome legislation, such as
myself, want to also support those people who are also under threat.
That takes me to the children, because right now the children in
Central America are under threat. And what are they under threat of?
Well, I will talk more about that around 5:00. But what are they under
threat of? They are under threat because of the narco drug dealers who
have created the most vicious and violent gangs that have now almost
taken over some of these Central American countries. They want to
recruit the young men to be part of the gang, part of the drug trade,
part of the couriers, part of what is involved in doing a drug trade.
Then, when they refuse, they either threaten them with death or the
most grisly and ghoulish of torture.
There are reported incidents, not in our classified briefings but in
public media, of children being tortured to death because they refused
to join a gang. They are literally fighting for their lives. These
children coming to our border are fighting for their lives, and the way
they fight for their life is to flee. They are fleeing the violence.
I know people are dismissive of some of this and they say: Oh, there
you go. You are a soft-hearted social worker, you are a liberal, you
love children. The answer is: Yes. Yes to all that. Yes, you betcha, I
claim it; I own it; that is who I am.
But I don't do this because of some ``gushy-poo'' feeling here. I am
doing this because of the actual documented violence in these
countries, and I believe we need to respond to the needs of the
children. Let them tell their case not only to a social worker--which
is a good step, in my mind--but also to an immigration judge, and using
the laws of our country, the legal criteria for asylum and refugee
status, let's listen to the stories of the children. And if those
children qualify for asylum and refugee status, then they should remain
in this country. If they don't, there are other avenues for them to
return home. But for gosh sakes, could we stop punishing the children
for the crimes of the drug dealers and the human traffickers? Don't
punish the children.
There are those who want to further militarize our border by calling
out the National Guard. Well, what are they going to do when the
children present themselves with little strips of paper saying what
their name and their hometown is, and where their aunt is living in
Langley Park, MD? That is not the job of the National Guard.
And if we want to use guns at the border, yes--don't use them about
the children, use them about the drug dealers. And by the way, it is
our insatiable, vociferous desire and appetite for drugs that has
fueled this whole economy in these countries.
I am going to say more about this, but I do want to say that what is
in this supplemental is the tools for people to defend themselves. For
our friends in the Western States, this is money to protect themselves;
and for firefighters--and gosh knows our local communities need that
help; it is for a great nation such as Israel, our treasured ally, to
continue to have the interceptor rockets to be able to defend itself;
and it is also here that we take a look at the border, we honor our law
in terms of determining refugee status for those fleeing from violence
in their home country; and then we go after what is creating the
violence which is right there in Central America against the
narcotraffickers, because remember--and the Presiding Officer is very
knowledgeable in this--if someone is willing to trade in drugs, they
are also willing to view everything like a commodity. So they view
drugs as a commodity and they view women and children, girls and boys,
as a commodity, and they are then moved into human trafficking in the
most vile, repugnant sexual trafficking.
We need to get some of our darker appetites under control, and we
need to be able to fight. If we want to fight with guns, join with
Central America and fight against the narcotraffickers.
I hope that clarifies the intellectual underpinnings of this bill,
the compelling financial necessity, and humanitarian issues that are
facing people in our own country, at our own border, and with a
treasured ally.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
International Convention on Disability Rights
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to call again for
the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities.
[[Page 13552]]
I would like to give a little history. We passed the Americans with
Disabilities Act here in 1990. It was signed into law by President
George Herbert Walker Bush on July 26, 1990--24 years ago last
Saturday. That changed the face of America. Anywhere you go, you can
see ramps and curb cuts and automatic door openers and accessible
bathrooms and in education kids being integrated fully into schools
under the IDEA and ADA. It really did change accessibility and also
opportunity in the workplace, for example, for people with
disabilities.
Some years after the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, the
United Nations set up a committee to study whether there should be a
treaty, an international convention on the rights of people with
disabilities. That committee drafted it after consultation with us here
in the Senate. In looking at the ADA, in fact--I was told by one of the
persons instrumental in this that the Americans with Disabilities Act,
which we refer to as ADA, informed them on what they needed to put into
the convention. That convention was sent out to member states for
ratification in 2008. Since that time, 148 nations have ratified it,
with one exception--well, there has been more than one exception, but
one glaring exception is the United States.
Under our constitutional system, this treaty was sent to the
President. The President sent it to all of his Departments to find out
what laws we had that needed to be changed. So it goes to the
Department of Commerce, the Department of State, the Department of
Agriculture perhaps, and everywhere else to see what laws we would have
to change to comply with this treaty. Well, it came back after about a
year, and because the Americans with Disabilities Act was so good, we
didn't have to change any of our laws--none--because we are the best in
the world on it. It was sent to OMB to see if there would be any budget
implications, and OMB said there were no budget implications either.
After that, the President sent it to the Senate for ratification
under our Constitution. It was sent to the Committee On Foreign
Relations. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was then the chairman of
the committee. They had hearings. In fact, the first two witnesses at
the hearings were Senator John McCain and I. There were a lot of other
people who testified, both Republicans and Democrats, disabilities
leaders, disability rights advocates, and others. This was in 2011.
Then it was brought to the floor in December of 2012, and that was a
lameduck session. It turned out that 38 Senators--all on the Republican
side--had signed a letter that we should not vote on a treaty in a
lameduck session. There were some other issues raised, but that was the
big one. So we brought it up for a vote. In the Constitution, a treaty
requires a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, and so we fell
five votes short.
That Congress ended, so the treaty had to be resubmitted from the
administration to the Senate. It went through another hearing process.
I spoke with the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee
about what we could do to advance it, and they wanted more hearings. So
we did that. Senator Menendez from New Jersey is now the chair of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and he had more hearings on it.
Thanks to the leadership of Senator Menendez, the bill was reported
out of the committee last week and it was put on the Executive Calendar
yesterday. There has to be 3 days before they can send it to the floor.
They sent it to the floor on Monday, 24-hour layover, and it is now on
the Executive Calendar ready to be brought up.
I understand we have a busy week this week and there are a lot of
things happening. I suppose people could look around and say: What?
There is not much happening around here today.
But we are in postcloture, and under the rules there is 30 hours of
postcloture time unless time is yielded back, and evidently--I don't
know if that is going to happen. I am hopeful that sometime today or
late today maybe or tomorrow, we will have a unanimous consent request
in terms of bringing up this treaty, this convention on the rights of
people with disabilities.
So that is what I wanted to talk about today, but I wanted to give a
brief history of where we are and why we are at this point.
During the past week we have seen extraordinary efforts to move
forward with this treaty. As I said, Senator Menendez, the chair of the
Foreign Relations Committee, has marked up the treaty and brought it
out with a 12-to-6 bipartisan vote. The committee added new
reservations, understandings, and declarations that thoughtfully
addressed the concerns that have been raised, including the matter of a
parent's right to decide how their children are schooled as well as
issues related to federalism and sovereignty.
This week we are hearing from disability advocates from across the
country. Yesterday afternoon there was a big rally on the Mall calling
for passage of the treaty. Many of our offices have been flooded with
calls and visits from people with disabilities, veterans groups, and
business leaders asking us to vote on and pass this treaty. Businesses
such as Walmart, AT&T, Sprint, and Coca-Cola have urged passage of this
treaty. In the days ahead we will hear from many more calling for its
passage.
Now let me talk about a few of the issues that have been raised.
First, I will talk about the issue of sovereignty. Some of our
colleagues continue to express concern about some aspects, particularly
with regard to sovereignty and reproductive health. Let me talk about
sovereignty first, but I want to say this first of all: It is important
to address these issues thoughtfully and respectfully. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee in a bipartisan fashion did so last week
when it approved a series of new reservations, understandings, and
declarations.
For those who don't know what that means, every treaty we adopt has
what are called RUDs--reservations, understandings, and declarations.
What are those? Those inform other free nations on how we will adopt
this treaty, how under our laws and the Constitution we will comport
with that treaty. Just about every treaty we have has some reservation
or understanding or declaration.
So the Foreign Relations Committee adopted new reservations,
declarations, and understandings, but concerns remain.
Last week my good friend the senior Senator from Utah spoke
eloquently about his genuine concerns about the loss of or possible
loss of U.S. sovereignty. In answering my question as to why this
convention is different from the Convention on the Worst Forms of Child
Labor treaty, he expressed his fear that the disabilities convention
would ``threaten American sovereignty and self-government.'' The
Senator from Utah stated that the child labor convention we passed in
1999 is the Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. The Senate
adopted it in 1999. So the Senator from Utah says that convention gives
authority to ratifying countries to determine whether they are in
compliance with the convention while under the disabilities
convention--the CRPD, as it is known--the U.N. determines whether
ratifying countries are in compliance with their treaty obligations. On
the Senate floor, my good friend from Utah stated that ``the Disability
Treaty gives the last word on whether a nation is in compliance to the
UN, the child labor treaty leaves that entirely up to each nation.''
Well, the fact is that the review process of compliance is
essentially identical in both the Worst Forms of Child Labor treaty
that we adopted in 1999 and the CRPD that we are discussing right now.
Let me further explain that. When an ILO member--that is the
International Labor Organization, under which that treaty was signed--
when an ILO member state ratifies this convention, it is required to
submit regular reports. Those reports are reviewed by the ILO's
independent committee of experts. Keep that phrase in mind--``committee
of experts.'' It is reviewed by
[[Page 13553]]
them on the application of conventions and recommendations, and they
are known as the committee of experts. The task of the committee of
experts is to assess the extent to which the ratifying member's
legislation and practices are in conformity with the ratified treaty.
This is an external review committee, and the United States has always
supported this type of review. The process guarantees fairness and
openness in the implementation of treaty obligations.
While it has been suggested that the United States should conduct its
own compliance with treaty obligations, I ask my colleagues, would we
be comfortable with all countries assessing their own compliance with
important international standards? I don't think so.
For example, take any treaty--take the START treaty, the arms control
reduction treaty. Would we be content to say to Russia ``Tell us how
you are in compliance with that'' and just accept their word for it? We
wouldn't do that. We wouldn't do that with any country with which we
have a treaty. That is why there is always an external review process
to see whether country A, B, C or D that has signed on to any treaty is
in fact in compliance with it. You wouldn't make a treaty and say: OK,
Country X, tell us whether you are in compliance and we will just
accept that. No one would do that. It goes back to Ronald Reagan's
phrase: Trust but verify. We will trust, but we want verification.
The Worst Forms of Child Labour treaty, the one we adopted here in
1999, has the same conclusions and recommendations as this committee of
experts as far as external reviews. It is the same in the CRPD, the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and sets up a
``committee of experts,'' just as it is under the Worst Forms of Child
Labour treaty, to review whether a country is basically in compliance.
Are they really implementing the treaty as they said in the treaty?
Again, we have the two committees of experts--the one in the CRPD and
in the Worst Forms of Child Labour treaty, which was adopted here
unanimously in 1999. The Senator from Utah supported that. The
recommendations and conclusions of that committee of experts under the
Worst Forms of Child Labour treaty that was set up in 1999 are not
legally binding on the United States or any other country. Although
these recommendations often have great moral weight and persuasive
value, the findings cannot be imposed on any government. It is up to
each ratifying member to determine whether and to what extent it will
act upon those recommendations. That is the same as the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
This committee of experts will certainly go in and do external
reviews of whether a country is in compliance or working to be in
compliance. They may issue findings and conclusions and
recommendations, but they are not binding on any country. They are not
binding on the United States. Let me repeat: It is up to each ratifying
member to determine whether and to what extent it will act upon those
recommendations.
A review of practices is common whenever a nation undertakes an
international obligation, whether it is by treaty or any other
international agreement. This does not equate to forfeiture by the
American people of our right to govern or of our sovereignty. It does
not relate to any abandonment of our cultural and social values in
America.
In terms of this external review of compliance, there is no
substantive difference between the child labor convention we passed in
1999 and the U.N. disabilities convention that we hope to bring up.
Both treaties have much the same reporting requirements, oversight
mechanisms, recommendation process, and ``committee of experts.'' And
just as in 1999 with that earlier treaty, the United States is in no
danger of losing any of its sovereignty with the disability treaty--
none whatsoever. If we weren't before, we aren't now. These are
recommendations.
Why should we be afraid of an external review by a committee of
experts to see whether we are in compliance with this treaty on the
rights of people with disabilities? It was modeled after the Americans
with Disabilities Act, for crying out loud, and we were already in
compliance. We are far ahead, quite frankly, of any other country. Why
should we be afraid of any review of our laws and practices in terms of
people with disabilities? We should not be. We ought to be proud of it.
In fact, we ought to be proud of exporting the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Given these facts, I ask my colleagues: Why is it acceptable to have
sufficient reservations to protect our sovereignty for a treaty about
the worst forms of child labor and a treaty on torture and a treaty on
degrading punishment and not be able to have sufficient reservations
that protect our sovereignty when it comes to a treaty regarding people
with disabilities? What is the difference? From my review of this
issue, and the review of legal experts, there is no substantive
difference to the threat to our sovereignty. As I have stated
previously here, scores of Republican policymakers agree with me.
I have heard that some of my fellow Republicans are concerned about
losing our sovereignty under this treaty. I will point out that former
President George Herbert Walker Bush, who signed the Americans with
Disabilities Act, is in strong support of this treaty. Are you telling
me he doesn't care about our sovereignty? I don't think so. Former
President Bush was a strong supporter. I kind of think he cares about
our sovereignty. Since the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed,
every former Republican leader of this Senate--I am talking about
Senator Dole, Senator Lott, and Senator Frist--supported this treaty. I
kind of think they care about our sovereignty a lot too. I know every
one of them.
Dick Thornburgh, former Attorney General of the United States under
George Herbert Walker Bush, is in strong support of this treaty. Don't
tell me he doesn't know what is in the treaty. He knows every legal
part of it. He cares deeply about our sovereignty, and he says this is
no threat to our sovereignty whatsoever.
The American Legion is a big supporter. Are you telling me the
American Legion commander and all of those veterans are not concerned
about our sovereignty? You bet they are. They know this treaty and have
read the treaty, and they said it doesn't affect our sovereignty. Every
veterans group supports this bill, and they do care about our
sovereignty.
I hope we can lay that issue aside. This does not impinge or threaten
our sovereignty any more than other treaties. Every treaty we have
signed has a reservation that basically says a treaty shall be applied
in the United States in accordance with the Constitution as interpreted
by the United States. That is in every treaty we sign, and it says,
basically, we are sovereign and our Constitution is sovereign.
There was a court case called the Bond case which was recently
decided, I think in May, by the Supreme Court. A lot of people wondered
whether that would affect this treaty. It was a case that was brought
up by the United States against a woman for violating the chemical
weapons ban treaty because she had been trying to poison one of her
husband's lovers or something like that. The Supreme Court said: That
is nonsense. Get out of here. Those laws are covered by the State of
Pennsylvania, not by a treaty. So that kind of put to rest any idea
that somehow this treaty overrode our Constitution--our federalism--and
the fact that these criminal laws are State laws. That just happened in
May.
The other issue that has come up is reproductive health. Some of our
colleagues have also voiced concern regarding the provision on sexual
and reproductive health of women with disabilities as it was mentioned
in article 25 of the treaty. For those not familiar with this
provision, the treaty simply says ``persons with disabilities have the
right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health
without discrimination on the basis of disability.''
[[Page 13554]]
The article goes further and says that those countries ratifying the
treaty shall ``provide persons with disabilities with the same range,
quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes
as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and
reproductive health . . . ''
Critics of the treaty say this phrase ``creates and expands rights to
abortion.'' That is not correct. This phrase has nothing to do with
abortion. What it is about is equality and access.
Historically, people with disabilities have been disproportionately
discriminated against when it comes to health care--especially women
with disabilities around the world--because they are blind or have
cerebral palsy or autism or any number of physical or mental
impairments. They were often viewed as not being able to be mothers or
wives or partners in a family.
In fact, because of this prejudiced attitude--which still exists in
so many places around the world, and probably some places here in
America too--women with disabilities were, and in many cases still are,
denied such vital services as Pap smears, gynecological exams, breast
cancer screenings, and cervical cancer screenings simply because they
are disabled. Denying women with disabilities the same health
prevention, screening, and intervention services that are provided to
women without disabilities is blatant discrimination, prejudicial, and
unethical.
The entire purpose of article 25 of the U.N. convention is to address
this prejudiced view of the world that has led to thousands of
unnecessary deaths of women because they have not been afforded the
same access to reproductive health care as women without disabilities.
That is why that was put in there. It has nothing to do with abortion.
Article 25 simply reflects the underlying principles of the treaty:
equality and access for all. These same principles are the bedrock of
our own Americans with Disabilities Act. It has nothing to do with
abortion, but some people have whipped it up and said it does.
In some countries women with disabilities have been the most preyed
upon. It is women with disabilities--physical and intellectual
disabilities--who are the subject of maltreatment, mistreatment, and
sexual abuse. All we are saying is they have to be treated the same as
any other woman without a disability under the laws of that country. So
if a country banned all abortions, that is their right to do so. They
cannot then say: Oh, you may have an abortion if your unborn child is
disabled. They can't do that. They can't make exceptions.
If they provide any kind of services, they can't say to one woman:
Because you are not disabled, you get this service, but if you are
disabled, you don't get it. No, no. Equality of access.
There are 71 countries that have absolute prohibitions, or
significant restrictions on abortion, that have signed the treaty
without reservations about reproductive health. Imagine that--71. They
felt no harm would come from a reservation because they correctly
determined that the treaty is no threat whatsoever to their sovereignty
and their national laws limiting access to abortion.
Poland, a country with strict abortion limitations, was not going to
sign this treaty because they were concerned about article 25. I will
read the exact language of the reservation put in by the Nation of
Poland:
The Republic of Poland understands that Article 23.1(b) and
Article 25(a) shall not be interpreted in a way conferring an
individual right to abortion or mandating state party to
provide access thereto, unless that right is guaranteed by
the national law.
Well, when they adopted that reservation, Poland signed it on the
treaty. Poland's reservation states exactly what this treaty is about,
a guarantee that women with disabilities will have access to the same
health care services guaranteed to all other citizens by their national
law. To say the treaty is about creating and expanding abortion rights
is just plain wrong, and to make such a claim is utterly unfounded and
unfair. It is unfair to women with disabilities around the globe. It is
creating a false claim out of thin air with no other purpose but to
prevent ratification of this important treaty.
Most of the concerns raised by my colleagues are serious concerns.
They are also concerns that can be addressed by thoughtful
reservations, understandings, and declarations to the treaty. Indeed,
they have been addressed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
They have acted, and now it is time for the full Senate to act.
Let us bring the treaty to the floor of the Senate. Listen to
Senators' concerns, address those concerns, and then vote on the
treaty. We owe this to millions of Americans with disabilities--our
veterans and others who want the same rights and access afforded by our
own Americans with Disabilities Act. They want it to apply to the
globe. We owe this to our veterans who want to be able to travel and
pursue opportunities in other countries, knowing they can enjoy the
same rights and access they have here in America.
Senator Mark Kirk from Illinois said it very eloquently in a press
conference we had with the veterans groups last week. He said: ``Our
veterans fought for freedom around the globe. They ought to be able to
move freely around the globe.''
We owe this to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable,
and countless companies that know that not only is this the right thing
to do for veterans, it is the right thing to do for business. There are
all kinds of markets opening all around the world for people with
disabilities--new software, new kinds of equipment, new devices that
are helping people with disabilities live more full and meaningful
lives. A lot of that was developed here in America. I know our
businesses would like to be involved with this treaty, to be able to be
involved in raising the level of accessibility and opportunity for
people with disabilities around the globe. Scores of religious groups
want to see this treaty ratified.
In closing, it is time to bring this to the floor. As I say, I know
Members have serious concerns and those concerns should be addressed. I
believe the Foreign Relations Committee has addressed them. If not,
then let's have a discussion about how we meet those reservations. We
shouldn't just say I don't like the U.N., so therefore we shouldn't
adopt it.
I think there are some people who maybe don't like the U.N. OK, fine.
I remember when we passed the convention on the worst forms of child
labor. I was in Geneva with President Clinton when he signed it. We
came back, resubmitted it to the Senate, and I went to see Senator
Jesse Helms to ask him to move this. There was probably no one in my 30
years of history in the Senate who disliked the United Nations more
than Jesse Helms of North Carolina. So he went on to tell me just how
bad the United Nations was but he would bring the treaty to the
committee and have hearings and a markup. He called me as the first
witness. I always appreciated that.
So Senator Helms, the chairman of the committee--the Republicans were
in charge of the Senate at the time--brought the convention to the
committee and reported it out. I remember him saying one time he didn't
like the United Nations, but if this makes them do something good for a
change, he would be all right with it, and it passed the floor
unanimously.
I say to those who maybe don't like the United Nations: Fine, that is
their right; perhaps they have good and sufficient reasons not to like
the United Nations. I have some problems with the United Nations myself
at certain times with some of the things they do or don't do. But I see
this in the same light as the convention on the worst forms of child
labor. This makes countries change for the better through persuasion,
not through mandate. No country has to change their laws because of
what the committee on experts says, but through moral weight, through
persuasion, through working with other countries under this umbrella on
the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. If this
causes countries to change their policies and make life better for
people with disabilities around the globe, shouldn't we do it, even
though we may not like the United Nations? As Jesse
[[Page 13555]]
Helms said, if this makes them do something good for a change, we ought
to be for it.
So I hope colleagues will listen to the veterans groups who are for
it. All business groups I have met with support it strongly. Religious
groups and disability groups are united behind this. Listen to our
former Republican leaders, including former President George Herbert
Walker Bush, President Bush; former Senator Bob Dole, the majority
leader of the Senate, worked his heart out on this. He cares about
sovereignty. He knows this is not going to take away our sovereignty.
Every former Republican leader of the Senate--Senator John McCain--
colleagues tell me Senator John McCain doesn't care about our
sovereignty? I happen to think he cares a lot about our sovereignty. He
gave a lot of his life protecting our sovereignty. Mark Kirk, Senator
Kelly Ayotte, Senator John Barrasso, Senator Murkowski, and Senator
Collins are all strong supporters of this.
I have been involved in disability policy since I first got here in
1975, starting in the House. Everything I have ever worked on,
including Education of All Handicapped Children Act, the Television
Decoder Circuitry Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the ADA Act Amendments later on in 2008--these were
all nonpartisan. They didn't devolve into any kind of partisan issue.
Now, that didn't mean that everybody voted for it, but it passed
overwhelmingly with both Republican and Democrat support. That ought to
be the case with this too. Yes, we should address the legitimate and
honest concerns people have about home schooling, abortion, and
sovereignty. I believe we can do that with reservations, but I want
every Senator to know that nothing this committee on experts will ever
do under the CRPD takes precedence over our Constitution or over our
laws. It does nothing to take away our sovereignty, and we can spell
that out just as we have in every other treaty we have signed in the
past.
So I hope we can bring this to the floor, and I hope we can have a
discussion. I hope we can work these areas out and have strong support
from both sides to pass this treaty and help change the face of the
globe as we have changed the face of America for people with
disabilities.
I see the Senator from Wyoming is on the floor. I was listing all the
people who support the treaty, and one of the strongest supporters of
this treaty from the very beginning has been Senator John Barrasso from
Wyoming. I inadvertently, going through the names, left it off, but I
see him here, and I apologize because he has been such a strong
advocate for people with disabilities in this country and a strong
advocate for people with disabilities in the world. I personally want
to publicly thank Senator Barrasso for his great leadership on this
issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. I thank my colleague from Iowa for his kind comments.
We have worked on this issue, and I do this as a physician who has
taken care of patients in Wyoming for a quarter of a century. I have so
many friends and there are so many folks who have had extra challenges
in life, and I was happy to stand with Senator Dole and Senator McCain
and others in this effort. So I thank my colleague for his comments.
HEALTH CARE
As a physician, I come to the floor today as I have week after week
since the President's health care law was passed because I have many
concerns about the way this health care law is impacting families in my
home State of Wyoming, as well as across the country--people who find
out their rates are going up, they are paying higher deductibles,
higher copays, higher premiums. They feel the government is in control,
Washington is in control rather than them, when Washington decides if
the insurance policy they have had and that worked for them is
something they will be able to keep, and many times they weren't
because the President's law said no, it wasn't good enough for them,
even though the families in Wyoming are better able to make the
decision about what is better and more important for them. They don't
like it when the President tells them they need to buy insurance they
don't want or need or can afford, in many ways, with a long list of
provisions that Washington mandates be included.
I hear every week, as I did last weekend in Wyoming, from folks who
have had work hours cut, resulting in lower take-home pay because of
the impact of part of the law that resulted in bipartisan opposition
that says the work week is 30 hours. So people who are working part-
time have had their hours cut to below 30 hours and have lower take-
home pay.
I talked to ER doctors at home and around the country where I have
trained and where I have gone to medical school. The Wall Street
Journal even wrote about it last month: ``ER visits rise despite the
law. Health act isn't cutting volume.'' On the front page the lead
paragraph said: ``Early evidence suggests that emergency rooms have
become busier since the Affordable Care Act expanded insurance coverage
this year, despite the law's goal of reducing unnecessary care in
ERs.'' It says: Democrats who designed that law hoped it would do the
opposite, but that hasn't been the case.
I heard last weekend in Wyoming the story about all of these fake
applications that--actually I guess the Government Accountability
Office said let's see how well this works; is the Obama health care law
working? So they made up 10 fake applications, sent them in, and they
found out that actually a dozen fictitious applicants, online or by
phone, using invalid or missing Social Security numbers--this is the
Washington Post writing about this, but it was in stories across the
country--invalid or missing Social Security numbers, inaccurate
citizenship information--all but one of the fake applicants ended up
getting subsidized coverage.
So here we are, a health care law that is supposed to provide a
number of things, including integrity, and we find out that when the
Government Accountability Office says, let's just put in a number of
applications and see what happens, it is not working.
The administration set up the Health Insurance Marketplace in ways--
we are hearing from the Government Accountability Act--that leave it
vulnerable to fraud and a waste of taxpayer money. That is what we are
dealing with in this health care law.
I know many Senators are preparing to head home, and they will be
traveling around their home States in the month of August. I expect
every Senator who goes home will hear from people in their State about
very damaging side effects that so many people across America are
feeling from the President's health care law. I hear it every weekend,
but I hear it when I travel as well. As chairman of the Republican
policy committee, one of my responsibilities is to study how policies
that come out of Washington, such as the President's health care law,
affect people all across America, and that is what I try to look at. So
in looking around the country, here is what I found in Louisiana.
Last month, the Shreveport Times in Louisiana had an op-ed written by
a Dr. Regina Fakner. The headline was: ``Washington ties doctors'
hands''--not the doctor, not the hospital, not the patients--
``Washington ties doctors' hands.'' The doctor who wrote this op-ed
says she has practiced pediatric medicine in Shreveport since the early
1990s.
We need pediatricians. We need people to take care of children. We
need primary care physicians. There is a gross shortage of nurses, of
physicians, of additional health care personnel.
She says health care was and is impossible to navigate because it is
wrapped in layers of red tape and government regulations. This doctor
knows America's health care system needed reform. We needed to do
something.
That is what Republicans here in the Senate have been saying too: We
need to do something. The American people wanted reform that gave them
access to high-quality, affordable care. That is not what people got.
[[Page 13556]]
As this doctor writes in the Shreveport Times: ObamaCare only adds to
the mess, she said. This is a pediatrician who takes care of lots of
children. She says ``patients and health care providers suffer for
it.'' The government does not suffer. The Senate Democrats who voted
for it do not suffer. Patients and health care providers are suffering.
She puts patients first, which is what doctors do.
The President's health care law has added tens of thousands of pages
of redtape and Washington mandates--thousands of pages of redtape and
mandates. The doctor says in her op-ed that ``this one-size-fits all
approach limits patient freedom, while picking their pockets.'' This is
a doctor who talks to her patients every day. She says she has seen for
herself in Louisiana how Washington is standing between her and her
patients. Nothing should be between a patient and that person's
doctor--nothing--not a government bureaucrat, not an insurance company
bureaucrat, no one. The doctor-patient relationship is one that is
sacred.
This doctor's experience is typical of what I am hearing and what we
are hearing from all across the country from doctors.
Every Democrat in the Senate voted to pass this terrible health care
law. President Obama says Democrats who voted for the health care law
should, as he said, ``forcefully defend and be proud of'' the law.
Is the President proud that patients and health care providers such
as this pediatrician are suffering because of his health care law and
all of its dangerous side effects? Where are the Democrats ready to
forcefully defend standing between Louisiana doctors and their
patients? Where are they? I do not see them coming to the floor.
Democrats in Washington were so eager to pass the President's health
care law that they made a lot of promises, and they were not true. They
said people could keep their insurance. That was not true. It seems as
though 5 million people received letters saying their insurance had
been canceled, in spite of what the President had promised them.
People in Wyoming, people in Louisiana, people all across the country
lost the insurance they had because it did not include all the
unnecessary coverage the President's health care law mandated.
Democrats said people could keep their doctor. That was not true.
People in Wyoming, Louisiana, all across America lost their doctor
because the new, narrow provider networks made people lose the doctor
they had worked with, who treated them, who treated members of their
family, whom they knew and trusted.
The President said the American people would save $2,500 per year,
per family on insurance premiums. Democrats in the Senate who voted for
the law promised the same. I remember them standing here. I can see one
after another saying that. It was not true.
People all across America are paying more than ever because of the
health care law. Well, people in Louisiana specifically, where this
pediatrician lives and works and takes care of patients, are paying a
lot more.
There is an article from the Associated Press newspaper in Lake
Charles, LA, last Thursday: ``Health insurance price increases could
top 10 percent for thousands in Louisiana.'' That was the headline on
the front page above the fold.
According to the article, Blue Cross--that is the largest health
insurer in Louisiana--is planning to raise rates by more than 18
percent next year.
Is President Obama ready to forcefully defend these premium increases
because of the law? He is the one who said premiums were going to go
down. The American people see what has happened. The President did not
say, well, they are just not going to kind of go up as fast. He said
they were going to go down $2,500 per year, per family. So we are
seeing large increases all across the country.
Are the Democrats in the Senate proud that families in Louisiana are
getting hit with another 18-percent premium increase in some locations?
Higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles--all to pay for
coverage that people do not want, do not need, cannot afford, but were
mandated to have.
People in Louisiana were already paying more because of the
President's health care law. There is a recent study which found that
health insurance premiums for an average 27-year-old man in Louisiana
are over 100 percent higher this year than last year--double, double
this year from last year. That is before they were forced into the
ObamaCare exchange. Premiums for an average 64-year-old woman are
$2,000 more this year than they were last year. These are very
expensive side effects for families in Louisiana as a result of the
President's health care law.
What does the President have to say about these outrageous rate hikes
that he caused because of his health care law? What does he have to say
to the people suffering from the costly side effects of the health care
law?
Well, the President went to Kansas City, MO, in the last couple days.
I think when he travels outside of Washington, the President should
actually meet with doctors who live in those communities, doctors such
as this woman, this pediatrician, who practices in Louisiana. He should
sit down with the women whose children are patients of doctors such as
this one, talk to the parents of these children about what the impact
of his health care law has been on them.
The President should hear directly--directly--from these people about
the devastating side effects of his health care law and how it is
hurting them and hurting their families.
Every Democrat in the Senate voted for this health care law--every
one of them.
Where are the Democrats willing to forcefully defend these costly and
damaging side effects of their health care law? Democrats do not want
to defend this terrible law and all of its devastating side effects.
Republicans are going to keep talking about this law. We are going to
keep standing for American families who are being hurt by this law. We
are going to continue to come to the floor to talk about stories that
we hear from back home, what we hear from families in our home States,
people who have lost their insurance and end up having to get insurance
they do not need or do not want or are never going to use that is much
more expensive than what they had before because the insurance that
worked for their families the President said was not good enough.
We are going to continue to come and talk about the families who have
seen their take-home pay go down because instead of being able to take
that money home and working the hours they want, they have had their
hours cut, not because they were not needed at work, not because there
was not a demand for their services, but because of the health care law
that says anybody working over 30 hours a week is then considered full
time, and by the President's mandate, they have to be supplied with
health insurance at work.
So what happens? Businesses--and it is not just businesses--what we
are seeing are school districts, counties, county governments, the
whole State of Virginia--the different governing bodies--as to any
part-time workers, they are saying: Well, we have to keep them below 30
hours because we cannot afford the insurance for these folks. So these
folks are saying: Well, I lose my take-home pay. And the reason is the
President's health care law. School districts are having to say: Well,
we can keep them above 30 hours and then have to pay for their
insurance, but then we are going to have to fire a number of reading
teachers, fire the coach, fire the bus driver, fire someone else who
works in the school.
That is not a way to help people in a community. That is not good for
anybody's health. But those are the side effects of the President's
health care law--a bill that so few people actually read before they
voted for it because, as Nancy Pelosi famously said: First you have to
pass it before you get to find out what is in it.
[[Page 13557]]
So we are going to continue to talk about patient-centered reforms,
reforms that get people the care they need from a doctor they choose at
lower cost. We are going to talk about restoring people's freedom,
freedom to buy health insurance that works for them and their families
because they know what is best for them. It is not Washington
controlled; it is local decisions, families making decisions for
themselves. And we are going to talk about giving people choices, not
Washington mandates. Republicans are going to keep offering real
solutions for better health care without all of these tragic side
effects.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, there is a long list of items on the
Senate agenda that are important to our country, including reforming
the VA health system, addressing the crisis at our border, and ensuring
funding is available for improvements to our roads and bridges.
While it may seem as though other issues are on the back burner, they
are not. I want Arkansans to know I hear you loudly and clearly about
your dislike for ObamaCare. Recent court rulings confirm ObamaCare is
unworkable. Americans understand how the law infringes on our rights.
The Supreme Court reserved the right for business owners to object to
overbearing government mandates that would violate our religious
beliefs.
The promises that were made were not true--like the law will lower
our premiums. The reality is ObamaCare drives up health insurance
premiums and copays, and that is what hurts our wallets.
Sean from Hackett, AR, wrote to me about a blood test his fiancee
needed to help diagnose her illness. In the past, she had a copayment
and the rest of the bill was paid by her insurance. But Sean wrote:
Normally it would only cost $25 for a co-payment. Now she
received a $200 bill.
You remember the other promises, such as you can keep your doctors
and Medicare will not be cut.
Cyndi, who lives in rural Arkansas, detailed the problem she is
having with Medicare because of ObamaCare. The changes made through
ObamaCare have cost her both time and money. ``Not everyone lives in
the big city where clinics, doctors and hospitals are easily
available,'' she wrote. ``Many of these facilities have closed their
doors or the doctors are not accepting Medicare patients.''
Connie, a registered nurse in Arkansas, told me that she is sick of
ObamaCare and sees the problems her patients and family have to deal
with under the law, which includes losing their doctors and the use of
the local hospital. She wrote that the cost of the insurance payments
increased and customers have to pay such high deductibles that they
cannot afford to go to the doctor.
These failed promises are negatively impacting Arkansans. The ugly
reality is people are struggling under this law. Amanda's story is what
so many middle-class families are experiencing. Her family is already
trying to make ends meet, but she says ObamaCare is not affordable.
``There is no way humanly possible that my family can afford a monthly
fee of $654,'' she wrote.
ObamaCare costs American taxpayers more than $2 trillion, but like in
the case with Amanda's family, health care is more unaffordable.
I believe we need to start over by creating real reforms that lower
costs, increase choice, and eliminate Washington's control of our
health care. We need health care reform, but ObamaCare is not the
answer. We need to transition the employer-based private insurance
market toward one that allows for flexibility, choice, portability, and
fairness.
Let's allow small business owners to pool together to purchase group
insurance. Let's allow individuals to purchase insurance across State
lines to increase competition. Let's expand health savings accounts and
flexible savings accounts. Let's address medical malpractice reform and
prevent lawsuit abuse.
I want you to know that unraveling ObamaCare and starting over is at
the top of my agenda because health care needs to be much more
affordable than it currently is under ObamaCare.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I join my colleagues here to talk about
some of the stories we are hearing from the people we work for. I have
been to the floor many times talking about the stories we are getting
from families, from moms, from people trying to get that first job,
from people who suddenly are no longer working the 40 hours they used
to work because of the impact this has had on the 40-hour workweek.
Let me mention, as I am here between Senator Boozman and Senator
Johanns, just two recent contacts we have had. We have had one from
Joanne in Fulton, MO. She said her premiums went up from $110 a month
to $311 a month--an increase of $201 a month. She said:
Our monthly premium has gone up to $311 a month. It is a
large increase for us--it is nearly triple of what we paid
before my husband's retirement. It really takes a bite out of
our budget.
She believes this would not have happened without what is happening
in our health care system. I had a list of employees from one of our
counties in Missouri the other day. Because it is a small county, they
rate their employees. Each one of them pays a different premium, even
though the county helps some with that premium. Everybody who is over
50 had their premium--that is going to be the premium next year--at
least doubled. If you were 19, 20, 21, your premium was about what it
had been the year before. If you were 51 or 61, your premium was twice
what it had been before.
Then we got a letter from Jerrold of Kansas City, who said he has
seen significant increases in his out-of-pocket costs, both for what he
pays in premiums and what he pays for prescriptions. Jerrold said that
instead of retiring at 65, he has had to keep working to help pay for
his medical and prescription costs. Jerrold says:
I started paying $131.00 a month for health and $31 for
prescriptions. As soon as ObamaCare was phased in my premiums
went up to $149.00 for health coverage and my prescription
plan went to $49.
Like many other people, he expects his plan to go up even more next
year.
So these are real impacts on the lives of families, people who are
paying more for the care they get and finding the choices they have as
to where they get their care are less than they have ever been before.
These stories keep coming. This is affecting the health care needs and
the health care of individuals and families. We need to do something
about it.
I thank Senator Johanns for letting me tell those two stories before
he took time to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I was here during the days when the
Affordable Care Act was being debated, if you could call it that. I was
here during the time when the effort of Senate Democrats was simply to
keep 60 together so they could pass this bill under any circumstances.
There were all kinds of promises made as to what this bill was going to
do.
President Obama himself, when he talked about his plan for health
care, said: My plan is going to reduce your premiums by $2,500 a year.
But I could go on and on. I could spend the whole afternoon talking
about the promises that were made. Now it is time though to take stock
and determine whether those promises were in fact kept. The people of
our States tell that story. A Nebraskan from the central part of the
State wrote to me recently and said this: He and his wife are losing
the health insurance they have had for over 21 years. Their premiums
had doubled, threatening their retirement savings.
He went on to say, ``ObamaCare has ruined the lives we planned and we
worked so hard for.'' So let me compare what this gentleman from
Central Nebraska has seen with the promises that were made. Remember
that promise the President made over and over
[[Page 13558]]
again. Members on the Democratic side of this body made the same
promise. The promise was, if you like your plan, you are going to get
to keep it--and the promise that your health insurance premiums would
go down.
This gentleman from Central Nebraska is living proof that those
promises were not kept.
Another Central Nebraskan wrote to me about the effect of the health
care law on his wife's job and on his family: ``Because of the ACA she
was cut back to less than 25 hours a week and lost our health
insurance.''
He went on to say that their new premium is twice as much as the plan
they liked and the one they lost because of ObamaCare.
So you see again we have a situation where we can compare reality
with the promises that were made. The promises that your premium would
go down, that you could keep the plan you had if you liked it went out
the window for those two families.
A small construction company from the western part of Nebraska shared
this with me: They will be paying an additional $5,000 in ObamaCare
fees this year. They expect to dedicate over 52 hours to report and
comply. To them this is incredibly frustrating because these fees and
hours of compliance have no direct benefit on their employees, their
employees' benefits or their business mission. It is just the Federal
Government has now taken this small company and forced upon them
additional costs and additional compliance requirements.
One of the most compelling stories comes from the mother of a family
in Omaha, NE. She explained in her letter that they qualify for a
subsidy on the exchange, but the options on healthcare.gov were still
unaffordable for this family. The lowest cost plan had a $9,600
deductible. Does the Presiding Officer know what a $9,600 deductible
means to most Americans and to most Nebraskans? It means that if they
have the kind of illness or accident or whatever it is that requires
significant medical care and if they have to eat through a $9,600
deductible, that means bankruptcy.
When considering this massive deductible, she wrote to me and said,
``It makes more sense to put more money away in savings and just pay
for the whole doctor's visit.'' Due to the high cost of plans and their
other expenses, she said, ``We are forced to make the choice to go with
no insurance.''
I was on the floor during this debate. Democrat after Democrat
promised: You are going to have insurance now, promised that premiums
would go down, promised that if you liked your plan, you got to keep
it. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.
With the new enrollment period on the horizon, the stories will of
course continue to roll in. The supporters of ObamaCare, just as when
this bill was being debated, would like us to believe their train wreck
has been cleaned up, the train cars are no longer lying next to the
tracks, and this law is finally on track. But that is not consistent
with recent headlines, reality, court decisions, inspectors general
reports or just the average American who takes the time to write to us.
Politico reported earlier this month: ``Most state health insurance
rates for 2015 are scheduled to be approved by early fall, and most are
likely to rise.''
This law should have never been passed, but now it is time to scrap
this law and its Washington-knows-best mandates; instead, work toward
solutions that truly do address the cost of care and give Americans the
flexibility to choose a plan that makes sense for their families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are now several months into the
implementation of ObamaCare. The dust has settled. People from my
State, Hoosiers, continue to see the reality of this law. Unfortunately
what they see is not what they had hoped for. Earlier this month a news
report revealed that health insurance rates will increase fairly
dramatically in ``most States''--not just a few, not some but most.
They said they are likely to rise in the coming year.
Unfortunately, my State is one of those States. Unfortunately,
``likely to rise'' is an understatement. ``Dramatic increase'' would be
a better phrase. The recent headline from the Indianapolis Business
Journal reads, ``Indiana's ObamaCare rates for 2015 are all over the
map.'' The first sentence of the article states, ``Initial 2015
premiums filed for the ObamaCare exchanges in Indiana range from as
high as a 46-percent hike to as low as a 9-percent cut.''
The article continues: ``Those are the average changes in premiums
proposed by the four health insurers that sold plans on the ObamaCare
exchanges for 2014.'' One of those insurance companies providing health
care to the State exchange we now learn is requesting rates that range
from a 31-percent to a 59-percent increase in premiums. So the picture
ahead for those who have been incorporated into ObamaCare in my State
is the shock of double-digit and significant double-digit increases in
their health care costs, not to mention that under their current plans
they are paying higher deductibles, which result in higher costs they
first have to put out before they are reimbursed. But now there is an
increase of significance for their premiums going into next year.
I know the majority leader said all the stories we have been telling
about real people and their reactions to the Affordable Care Act,
ObamaCare, are fiction. I was on the floor when he said that. We all
did a double take because we have been receiving thousands--literally
thousands--of emails, physical mail, and phone calls. The phones are
ringing off the hook about people alarmed over what they were
experiencing signing up for ObamaCare, and, secondly, what the terms
were going to be.
So we collected all of these. We have hundreds if not thousands of
real live examples, not made up, not fiction, basically describing the
impact on them and their families as Obamacare was put in place. Let me
state one of those incidents. I will use just the first name. I do not
want to put this person at risk for some kind of pushback. But Charles
from Auburn, IN, emailed me and shared that his wife had just received
a cancellation notice from her insurance provider. Charles said the
notice indicated that the wife--he said:
They said my wife's policy did not comply with the
requirements of ObamaCare and the replacement policy--
Which she would have to take if she wanted the coverage.
--would be $695.38 a month as compared to her current policy
premium of $316 a month.
By my math, that is over a 100-percent increase. That is more than a
doubling of what he had paid before. Also, the notice said, ``Your
deductible will be $6,000.'' That is every medical expense that she has
will have to be paid for before Charles and his wife can get any
reimbursement. Now I wish these stories were fiction, but unfortunately
I receive emails such as this on a regular basis.
Thousands of Hoosiers have lost their coverage that they liked, that
they chose and relied on because of the implementation of Obamacare.
We have been talking about replacing this act with something far more
sensible and something far more reasonable. Yet we have been denied the
opportunity to go forward with offering any kind of amendments,
modifications, repeal or any other process. That is unfortunate but not
just for us. It is unfortunate for the country and unfortunate for all
of those people whom we represent who would like to see modifications
and a much more affordable and much better range of choices for the
provisions of health care.
The 2,000-page ObamaCare law was sold to the American people on what
now has turned out to be false pretenses. I believe we owe it to them
to replace this law with some commonsense solutions that increase
access to quality care without increasing costs. It is doable if we had
the opportunity to do it. Unfortunately, we have been denied that, but
the American people are speaking. I think they will continue to speak
about the need for those reforms that will have to take place if we are
going to provide affordable care for Americans.
[[Page 13559]]
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Wildfire Disaster Funding
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today there are wildfires burning across
the West. I wish to speak for a few moments about some very important
work that Chair Mikulski and her colleagues have done on the
Appropriations Committee that is really built on a bipartisan proposal
that Senator Crapo, our colleague from Idaho, and I, with a large group
of bipartisan Senators, are proposing to change the way in which
forests are managed and reduce the likelihood of some of--what I call--
these infernos. These are fires that are bigger, hotter, more damaging,
and they act like a wrecking ball pounding at the rural West.
What has happened over the years is that the preventive efforts in
the West in terms of our forests are underfunded. There isn't enough
effort that goes to hazardous fuels management and thinning and
programs that reduce the huge load of fuels on the forest floor.
Just this past weekend I was in Medford in rural southern Oregon and
in Portland, meeting with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management. They told me about the problems that Senator Crapo and I
are trying to address in bipartisan legislation that Chairman Mikulski
has included in her appropriations bill.
The heart of the problem is that these prevention efforts are
underfunded. When it gets very dry and very hot, and particularly when
there is a lightning strike or a series of lightning strikes, what we
have is an enormous fire in a hurry. All through the West there is an
effort to try to share resources, and communities work together and try
to share efforts--aerial resources and others--but the reality is there
is not enough money in the agency's budgets to put out those huge
fires.
What happens then is the bureaucracy borrows from the prevention fund
in order to have funds to put the fire out. Then we are on our way to
two bigger problems. We are on our way again to a lack of preventive
dollars because of this fire borrowing. Some of our colleagues call it
fire robbery, but I am trying to be diplomatic. It is fire borrowing, I
guess, if we want to be diplomatic. But we underfund prevention. Then,
of course, we don't have enough money needed for suppression as well.
This trend that I have described is getting more and more pronounced
and more and more serious. So what Senator Crapo and I are proposing to
do in order to put the focus on wildfire prevention is in effect to say
that the most serious fires, especially in the West--the kind of fires
that are dominating our TV screens night after night--1 percent of
those infernos ought to be treated like the major natural disasters
they are and would be funded in the same way as other natural
disasters, such as floods and hurricanes.
Specifically, the legislation that Senator Crapo and I and others are
advancing would move any spending above 70 percent of the 10-year
rolling average for fire suppression outside of the Agency's baseline
budget by making these additional costs eligible to be funded under a
separate disaster account.
So far this year, more than 33,000 fires have burned a total of 1.6
million acres nationwide, and the numbers are growing by the minute.
Just this past weekend, visiting with our wonderfully talented folks
at the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in Medford, they
were telling me that their concern is that in southern Oregon it is
very hot and very dry and there can be lightning strikes. They were
concerned about the prospect of another Biscuit Fire, which we had at
the beginning of the century and which burned 500,000 acres--really,
our most destructive fire ever. That was what was on the mind of the
firefighting professionals when I visited with them in Medford last
Friday.
This year the administration already expects to exceed its
firefighting budget by more than $600 million, and that isn't going to
surprise anybody in the West. In 8 of the past 10 years, the Forest
Service has spent more than its wildfire suppression budget, requiring
the Agency to engage in what I have just called ``fire borrowing'' to
cover these wildfire suppression costs. The reality is that, in many
cases, the borrowed monies are not repaid. In the cases where the funds
are repaid, it is only through costly supplemental spending bills that
Congress has to enact or by taking money out of future years' budgets.
So what we have is this kind of borrowing that is extraordinarily
disruptive to the ongoing work the Forest Service and their contractors
are in the middle of performing. And, I might add, what all this does
is it makes it more expensive in the future and makes it less likely
that we are going to get the important prevention work that is so
necessary.
In our part of the world, I think it is fair to say that westerners
are coming to consider that the Forest Service charged with managing
the Nation's forests for multiple uses and users has really become
something that more appropriately should be called the U.S. Fire
Service, because in effect that is what this agency is month after
month using more of its resources on.
What I was told in Portland last Saturday, having visited rural
Oregon on Friday and Portland on Saturday--the specialists in Portland
on Saturday told me that the fire season is 70 days longer than it was
until recently.
So we have this challenge of more fuel load built up on the forest
floor, drier conditions, lightning strikes, and fire seasons lasting
longer. That is a prescription for trouble in the rural West, and in
fact that is what we are seeing.
My hope is that, as a result of the work that Senator Crapo and I and
others are seeking to do, we can have more hazardous fuel treatment,
more preventive work that will be effective at reducing fire risks and
lowering costs.
A fire in central Oregon this year slowed to a halt when it reached
treated areas outside the city of Bend. I saw that when I was in Bend
looking at the difference between treated areas--this preventative kind
of approach--and areas that were untreated.
A study published by Northern Arizona University's Ecological
Restoration Institute concluded that treatments ``can reduce fire
severity'' and ``successfully reduce fire risk to communities.''
Based on Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture
analysis, 1 percent of wildland fires represents 30 percent of
firefighting costs. That is what Senator Crapo and I want to address in
our bill.
What we are saying is, for that 1 percent, the 1 percent that is
really driving up costs, let's handle those fires as what they are,
which are natural disasters. And then, instead of raiding the
prevention money to put the fires out, we will be able to cause less
problems in the future because we will have the kind of preventive work
that is so effective that I saw in Bend and elsewhere.
It seems to me, as we see in a lot of parts of government, there is a
choice. We can spend modest sums up front on prevention in order to
generate significant savings down the road. If we have $1 to spend, we
ought always to try to put it in prevention and then target scarce
resources to fight fires. To the greatest extent possible, we must
target disaster money on those infernos that are bigger and hotter and
more damaging and cost about 30 percent of the overall budget.
In summary, the legislation that Senator Crapo and I and others are
pursuing would fund the true catastrophic fire events under separate
natural disaster programs. Routine wildland firefighting costs would be
funded through the normal budget and appropriations process.
Oversight hearings, letters, and numerous discussions with the
administration and colleagues helped to
[[Page 13560]]
produce the approach that Chairman Mikulski has included. I remember
not long ago being in Idaho, being hosted by our colleagues Senator
Crapo and Senator Risch. We had Members from across the political
spectrum. Congressman Labrador from the other body was there. We had
progressive Members. This is something that is common sense. It just
makes sense to make sure that the small number of fires, these infernos
which are dominating our news accounts, that we handle them from the
natural disaster fund. Then let's put most of the money and allow the
Forest Service, BLM, and professionals to put their focus and their
resources where we can prevent as much of the problem as possible--and
prevent it early on.
That is the point of our legislation. We are very grateful to
Chairman Mikulski for her effort. I thank Senator Crapo for his
support. He and I have been at this with Senator Risch, Senator
Merkley, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, Senator Bennet--Western
Senators and others such as Senator Baldwin and Manchin that understand
the importance of national forests. Senator Udall has been doing
important work on this in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
All of the Western Senators are of like mind here. Chair Mikulski
recognizes what we are looking at and the prospect that we would be
leaving this week without this change to make better use of our
resources. I call it legislative malpractice because we have an
opportunity in a bipartisan way to make a real difference here. If our
colleagues are outside the West, I would say it is a chance to spend
scarce dollars more effectively. For us in the West, it is nothing
short of survival.
Mr. President, I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Oregon, his
leadership, along with Senator Crapo, on this firefighting budgeting
and fire borrowing issue--that is really what it is--is critical to all
of us in Western States. Every single one of us has seen communities
touched by these catastrophic wildfires as our climate is changing and
we see fires get bigger and bigger. But we have solutions, and the
solutions are bipartisan and common sense.
I can only hope that we are able to move quickly to make these budget
changes. They will make a real difference for all of us up and down in
the Intermountain West.
Border Crisis
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who have
been vocal about their commitment to address the Central American
refugee crisis along our southern border.
We have heard the stories of unimaginable violence, of corruption, of
instability in places such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala--
factors that are driving many children to the United States and to
other neighboring countries in Central America. In some cases these
children are literally fleeing for their lives.
Our Nation has responded with a spectrum of attitudes toward
immigrants ranging from hostile to downright hospitable. It is my hope
that our attitude as a nation continues to be defined by the image of
the Statue of Liberty and not by shouting protesters holding signs
labeled ``Return to Sender'' as they stand in front of buses full of
Central American children.
I recently received a letter from a constituent in my home State of
New Mexico whose grandmother, as a result of extreme poverty, left her
family and emigrated by herself to the United States from Ireland at
the age of 14 at the end of World War I. Brendan said that when he was
growing up, his grandmother frequently shared this Irish proverb with
him. She said, ``Courage is the trust that your feet will bring you to
where your heart is.'' Brendan asked that I continue to remind my
colleagues that the immigrants who arrive at our borders come by foot
following their hearts and do so in the hope of building a better life.
Last week I sat down with Ambassadors from Honduras, El Salvador, and
Guatemala, and we discussed how our Nation's approach to stemming the
influx of unaccompanied children to the United States must be
collaborative and get at the root cause of the dire situation in these
countries. With out-of-control drug cartels and nearly 90 murders for
every 100,000 persons annually, Honduras now has the highest murder
rate in the world. Similarly, El Salvador and Guatemala have the
world's fourth and fifth highest murder rates. There is no easy
solution to these problems, but Congress has an opportunity and a
responsibility to act on pragmatic measures before time and resources
run out.
Secretary Johnson has warned that Immigration and Customs Enforcement
will run out of money in August and Customs and Border Protection will
run out of money in mid-September if nothing is done. With resources
already running scarcer by the day, Customs and Border Protection won't
have any other choice but to direct border agents away from other
sectors of our southern border and into the Rio Grande Valley.
So let's be clear. Those who would choose not to support this
emergency supplemental are putting our border security at risk. New
Mexico, California, Arizona, and West Texas will all see fewer agents
and fewer resources on our border if the House and Senate do not act.
This is no way to address a crisis. We must pass the Senate's
emergency supplemental funding bill introduced by Senate Appropriations
Committee chairwoman Barbara Mikulski. This emergency funding bill
includes important resources to help stem the current refugee crisis
while continuing to treat these refugee children humanely as required
by the law. This situation is an emergency, and we need emergency
funding.
Passing the emergency supplemental would also allow the Departments
of Homeland Security and Justice to deploy additional enforcement
resources, including immigration judges, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement attorneys, and asylum officers, as well as expanding the
use of the alternatives to detention program.
Instead of ensuring that we provide these necessary resources to
address this crisis on our border, some of our colleagues are actually
proposing that the solution is to actually weaken Federal child
trafficking law and to roll back protections for unaccompanied child
refugees seeking asylum. The proposal introduced by our colleague from
Texas Senator Cornyn would weaken the 2008 William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Act and short-circuit justice in order
to deport refugee children faster and without the due process afforded
under our law.
According to a poll released Tuesday by the Public Relations Research
Institute, 69 percent of those surveyed believe that U.S. authorities
should treat the children as refugees and allow them to stay in the
country if it is determined it is not safe for them to return to their
home country.
Some would use this crisis to eliminate crucial child trafficking
protection, punish some of our Nation's brightest DREAM Act students,
and promote a narrow border-enforcement-only agenda. I believe we are a
better nation than that, frankly.
Let's step back and remember that just 1 year ago the Senate passed a
comprehensive immigration reform bill that included provisions to
further strengthen the border but that would also protect refugee
children and crack down on smugglers and transnational criminal
organizations. Notably, the bill was widely supported by both Democrats
and Republicans in the Senate. Public support and good economics have
not been enough to convince House Republican leaders to hold a vote on
immigration reform, but they cannot turn a blind eye to the current
humanitarian crisis along our southern border.
The bipartisan Senate bill that passed more than a year ago includes
provisions for family reunification and for the protection of children
who have been the victims of human trafficking. The bill also includes
measures that would address refugee and asylum laws.
[[Page 13561]]
The public, including faith-based organizations, educators, local
elected officials, small businesses, and many others, overwhelmingly
supports this balanced approach to immigration reform. However, here we
are more than 1 year later, and House Republicans are still unwilling
to even hold an up-or-down vote on the Senate's proposal. Each day the
House fails to act on serious solutions to our broken immigration
system is another day our Nation and our economy suffer.
The Congressional Budget Office reported that last year's bipartisan
immigration reform bill that passed this body would reduce the budget
deficit by $197 billion--billion with a ``b''--over the next decade and
about $700 billion in the second decade. In a companion analysis, CBO
also estimated that fixing our broken immigration system would increase
our country's GDP--our economic output--by 3.3 percent in 10 years and
5.4 percent after 20 years.
The evidence is clear. Immigration reform is good for our economy,
good for our workforce, and it is good for the future of the American
middle class.
I am familiar with the promise America represents to its families. My
father fled from Nazi Germany in the 1930s as a young boy. As the son
of an immigrant, I know how hard immigrants work and how much they
believe in this country and how much they are willing to give back to
our Nation. Those of us who represent border communities understand the
difficult challenges we face, but there are solutions before us that
are pragmatic, bipartisan, and that uphold rather than compromise our
American values.
In the short term we must approve the Senate's emergency supplemental
bill, and in the long-term we should partner with Honduras, Guatemala,
and El Salvador to stabilize their nations and end the cycle of gang
violence we see there. A key part of our long-term solution is for
House Republicans to finally put the Senate's immigration reform bill
on the floor for an up-or-down vote.
We in Congress have a historic opportunity to pass comprehensive
immigration reform and to address root causes rather than just symptoms
for a change. I believe we will have failed if the only immigration
legislation we pass as a body in this Congress is to weaken legal
protections for refugee children. With this in mind, I will continue to
work with my colleagues to ensure that we address this humanitarian
crisis and fix our immigration system once and for all. Let's seize
this opportunity.
Mr. President, I see that I have been joined on the floor by the
Senator from Florida, and I would ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with Senator Nelson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his leadership,
and I wish to ask my colleague if he is aware of the testimony the
commanding general of U.S. Southern Command, General Kelly--a marine
four-star general--gave to the Armed Services Committee and to the
Foreign Relations Committee recently, in the last couple of weeks?
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I am aware of the testimony of General
Kelly, but given his role at SOUTHCOM and in particular its location in
Florida and the fact that the Senator from Florida was there for the
testimony, I would ask him to remind us exactly what General Kelly had
to say about how we are or in some cases are not interdicting and
dealing with the flow of narcotics and particularly cocaine that has
been at the root of so much of the instability and violence we see in
these three Central American countries today.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has put his
finger on exactly the root cause of the problem. It is the substantial
loads of cocaine that are coming into these three Central American
countries; that because of the violence, because of the killing, the
parents have three choices when their child gets on up toward their
teenage years. Their first choice is to let their kid join the gang.
These gangs are criminal gangs, and they are tied in with the drug
lords. The drug lords have taken over the country because of all the
money that is being made from these big shipments that come in.
The parents have three choices: No. 1, let their kid join the gang;
No. 2, go to their child's funeral; or No. 3, they become subject to
the subtle and direct plea by the coyotes: Oh, for $1,500, $5,000, we
can get your kid to the border and your child will be safe in America.
Why those three countries? Why are the children who have been showing
up in the last several months at the border not coming from Belize,
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama? They are coming from three countries--El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--because that is where the big
shipments of drugs are coming from--from South America into those areas
in a boat with 1 to 3 tons of cocaine. Once they get on land, they
break them down into small packages, and they go through a very
efficient distribution system that is drugs and criminal elements--they
can distribute just about anything they want, including trafficking in
humans. And they are going north.
So if Honduras is the murder capital of the world and if El Salvador
and Guatemala are not far behind, how do you get at that immediately to
stop the flow of children going north? You more effectively interdict
the drug shipments. That is why the United States has been so
successful.
General Kelly, the commanding general of Southern Command, tells us
that sadly he has to sit there with his Joint Interagency Task Force--
all the agencies of the U.S. Government arrayed together and
headquartered in Key West--and they have to watch 74 percent of
primarily these boats--not so much the flights; primarily boats because
they can carry big loads of cocaine--get through.
If it gets to the point of voting for the supplemental, I would
certainly vote for it, but it doesn't get to the root cause of the
problem. What we have done--and I have shared this with as many people
as I can, consulting with General Kelly. They boiled this down to $122
million out of the President's request of $3.7 billion, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee has pared that down to $2.7 billion.
This Senator is asking for $122 million, and it will cover such
things as $31 million for U.S. Government interagency task force
maritime patrol craft; $40 million for maritime patrol requirements to
deploy U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement detachments; $15 million for
intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance by putting up contractor-
owned Predators 24 hours a day, 5 days a week. That contract is being
drawn up. If we did this, General Kelly could execute that contract
immediately, and then you would start to see some results.
Mr. HEINRICH. If I understand the Senator from Florida correctly,
General Kelly simply does not have the resources to do the job we have
done historically in terms of interdicting cocaine moving north for the
market that, frankly, is in North America--
Mr. NELSON. That is correct.
Mr. HEINRICH. --in the United States and Canada. They have to
literally sit there and watch these narcotics go by without having the
resources to stop them in their tracks.
Mr. NELSON. The Senator is correct. Whereas General Kelly--and I am
just using him as the symbol since he is a four-star general. It is the
Joint Interagency Task Force in Key West that is actually headed by a
Coast Guard admiral. They can interdict, and do interdict, about 25
percent of those big shipments coming from South America. They go
through the Caribbean on the east and also through the Pacific on the
west. And because they have been effective at 25 percent of the
shipments, what we are seeing is a shifting of those shipments. They
are now actually sending more of them to the east--not only to the
Dominican Republic and Haiti, but now to Puerto Rico, which is a U.S.
territory. When they get those drugs into Puerto Rico--and that is
American territory--they can ship them by mail from there to the
[[Page 13562]]
rest of the United States and avoid detection.
Mr. HEINRICH. My understanding is that the resource situation in
Southern Command has changed so dramatically in recent years that not
only is this interagency task force limited, but they have literally
canceled more than 200 engagement activities and multilateral exercises
with our partners in the region who can multiply that effect and
interdict even more narcotics as they are moving forward.
Mr. NELSON. The Senator is correct. As a matter of fact, the staff of
the Senate Appropriations Committee, with whom I have consulted, is
very familiar with the great operation of the Joint Interagency Task
Force to go after these drugs. As the Senator from New Mexico said, you
can imagine their frustration when they know about the boat shipment,
and sometimes they can watch it from their overhead assets, and they
can't do anything about it.
As a result, look at what has happened over the last several months.
We are trying to solve the problem on the border. We have all of these
children showing up at the border. We ought to solve that problem. We
need to go back to the very beginning and stop what is causing this
problem.
Mr. HEINRICH. The Senator from Florida also brought up another issue
that I think is worth exploring. It is my understanding that he was
recently briefed on the relationship that exists between these drug
cartels and the entities that are actually engaging in human
trafficking and moving people, for a fee, through Central America and
Mexico and to the U.S. border. Can the Senator tell us a little bit
about the nature of that relationship?
Mr. NELSON. The Senator is correct on how all of these things are
interlocked. You can imagine how a sufficient quantity of drugs, which
is worth so much, is a corrupting influence on any kind of law and
order. As a result, the systems of governments--and Senator Kaine and I
both met with the President of Honduras. He is trying as hard as he
can. He has a bounty on his head by these drug lords because he is
opposing them. The judicial system is corrupted. The local police are
corrupted. When that happens, then you can imagine when other criminal
activities occur, in addition to other drug activities, such as human
trafficking, and terrorists potentially being utilized in these
efficient delivery networks, then it is all the more a threat to the
national security interests of the United States.
I think the U.S. Congress and the U.S. administration better wake up
to the fact of what is happening right under our nose and get at this,
in addition to solving the problems that we see that are a symptom,
ultimately, of the root cause--the creation of a whole criminal network
that is, in large part, fueled by the drug trade.
Mr. HEINRICH. If the Senator from Florida will yield for a minute,
the sad thing is it didn't used to be that way in this part of Central
America, and I know that for a fact because my wife and I traveled
there 15, 16 years ago. We traveled extensively in Honduras, and at
that time these gangs simply did not have the influence. They did not
have this level of destabilization and they did not have this murder
rate.
I always joke about trying to drive into Tegucigalpa, and I would not
recommend it to anybody who has not had time to acclimate to the speed
and crush of cars in that capital city, but it was a completely
different country at the time. We traveled extensively in urban areas
in San Pedro Sula and rural areas such as Santa Rosa de Copan, and it
was an economically challenged country.
For those folks who have claimed that all of these immigrants are
simply heading north out of economic desperation, the economic
situation has not changed all that much. It is worth looking at the
rest of Central America. The surrounding countries, such as Belize and
Costa Rica and other countries in Central America, are also seeing
refugees from these countries.
Nicaragua, which has substantial economic challenges right now, is
losing economic immigrants, and those immigrants are not making it to
our southern border in any substantial numbers. In fact, less than a
year ago, I was in Costa Rica and many Nicaraguans are working in Costa
Rica because the economy is better there. Yet we don't see them showing
up--especially the unaccompanied minors, 7, 8, 12-year-olds--at our
border by themselves. They are not being driven out by the extreme
violence we have seen in these three nations where the drug cartels
have such a disproportionate influence on their country's stability.
Mr. NELSON. If the Senator will yield, to underscore his point, we
can look at the extraordinary success of Plan Colombia. Outside of
Central America--if you go a little further south, you are on the
continent of South America. And lo and behold, 15, 20 years ago, a
large part of Colombia was controlled by elements that were controlled
by the drug lords. With the assistance of the United States and
extraordinary heroism on the part of the Government of Colombia, we
have seen the Government of Colombia take back control of most of its
country. Even though cocaine is still grown there and the FARC is still
operating, their criminal element is a diminished insurrection of what
it used to be. If you visited a place like Bogota, the capital city, it
was not safe to go out alone and walk on the streets. Now you can
easily walk on the streets. The situation there has changed.
We are seeing the same replicated now in Central America where the
drug lords have basically taken over by buying off people with
considerable money, and therefore it makes it very difficult to have
the rule of law in those struggling governments, as it is for the
President of Honduras, who is trying so hard to bring back his country.
Mr. HEINRICH. If the Senator from Florida will yield for a moment,
having formerly served on the House Armed Services Committee, I know
the Department of Defense budget is somewhere in the order of $550
billion. Surely SOUTHCOM must have a substantial amount of resources to
be able to meet this, right?
Of that $550 billion, does the Senator from Florida know how much
actually goes to Southern Command?
Mr. NELSON. What this Senator knows is that before the sequester
started hitting the defense budget--even though we were conducting a
war in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq--with all of the
multiplicity of threats that are around in the region, including what
we see now with ISIS between Syria and northern and western Iraq, the
Department of Defense had to make some hard choices. They had to cut
back because of this mindless budgetary meat ax called the sequester,
and as a result they had to set their priorities.
When they came down to it, they had to support the troops out in the
field and had to cut back on other commands. The U.S. Southern Command
is one of those commands that was cut back. But now we are seeing the
lack of wisdom to these budgetary policies--sequester--and the scarcity
when you cannot allocate the defense resources to other agencies.
Remember, this is a Joint Interagency Task Force. We are now seeing the
effects of that in what has been on the front pages of the newspapers
which is reporting all of the children coming to the border.
By the way, the children are just a diminutive percentage of the
total people still coming to the border. I can't remember if it is 20
percent or 40 percent, but it is something well less than half of all
of the people who are still coming to the border. But, of course, the
children, because of the humanitarian crisis for them, are the ones who
have received the attention.
If we know there is a problem, how do we fix the problem? Well, we
need to go back to the root cause, and that is the case I have been
making on that side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle. Yet we
are at this point of impasse, and needless to say, it is very
frustrating to this Senator.
Mr. HEINRICH. I thank the Senator from Florida for continuing to be
an advocate for this cause. I know that Southern Command's annual
budget now is about $1 billion--literally $1 billion out of $550
billion in the Department of Defense. Given the necessity of
[[Page 13563]]
engaging with Central and South America on these issues, I think it is
time to reevaluate, in terms of resources but also in terms of
priorities, how we look at Central and South America, to reengage with
our neighbors and try to address some of these issues at the root level
instead of always at the symptom level.
I see we have been joined by our esteemed chair of the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Mikulski of Maryland. So I thank the Chair for
allowing the Senator from Florida and I to indulge in this colloquy.
And, once again, I wish to say how much I hope we take this opportunity
to do something, not just about the symptoms of the current crisis
which has to be dealt with, but also the underlying causes of this
crisis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think we have just heard something
really interesting and I think--excuse me. The way the Senator from New
Mexico concluded--was the Senator from California scheduled to speak
next?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe so.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thought I was at 4:52. I didn't mean to jump the
line. I really do want to hear from the Senator from California, the
chair of the intelligence committee, as well as the chair of the
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security of the
Judiciary Committee. She is a Senator with a lot of experience, and I
look forward to her remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I wish to begin by saying the
Appropriations Committee is in very good hands. Chairman Mikulski has
done an excellent job, and I strongly support this supplemental that
she has put together.
I wish to give my colleagues just some brief background of my
involvement in the unaccompanied alien children issue. It began around
1999. On Thanksgiving Day, a 5-year-old in an inner tube off the coast
of Florida, 3 miles out, was picked up by a fisherman. His name was
Elian Gonzalez. The fisherman rescued him and he was taken to a
hospital, but his mother and 11 others on the raft had drowned in their
attempt to come to the United States from Cuba. That launched in this
country a major debate about an unaccompanied alien child, whether he
goes back to his father or whether he remains with his uncle in Miami.
Then, secondly, I am home one day and I turn on the television set,
and I see a 15-year-old Chinese girl who had been placed on a container
ship from China by her parents to flee China's rigid family planning
laws. She came to this country. She was alone. She was desperate. She
was picked up.
I saw her asylum hearing. She was unrepresented. She was shackled,
her wrists were bound, and big tears were rolling down her face. She
couldn't understand a single word that was spoken. She was held in a
jail cell for eight months and in another detention facility for
another four months after that. She eventually received asylum in our
country, but she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should undergo.
At the time, she was only one of 5,000 other foreign-born children
who were apprehended in the United States in need of protection. I
remember thinking that that such treatment was terrible, and I had to
do something.
In 2000, I introduced the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act. I
also pushed for the change in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which
successfully transferred the responsibility for the care of
unaccompanied alien children from the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service to the Department of Health and Human Services.
However, that change by itself was not enough to ensure that
unaccompanied children were properly treated. Therefore, over the next
6 years, I continued to consult with relevant Federal agencies,
children's advocates, immigration attorneys, House Members such as Zoe
Lofgren on the House Judiciary Committee, and fellow Senators.
Finally, in 2008 the legislation was included, amazingly enough, by
voice vote in both Houses, as part of a larger trafficking bill, the
William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
It was signed into law by President Bush on December 23, 2008. It took
effect 6 months later. That year, the number of children was in the
vicinity of 8,000. It provided the framework for how unaccompanied
children would be treated while in the United States and for their safe
and orderly return to their home countries without undue delay if they
did not qualify to stay.
We now have a dramatically escalated situation that was not
foreseeable at that time. Last fiscal year 2013, 24,000 unaccompanied
children arrived in our country. This year more than 62,000
unaccompanied children have arrived in our country, and the Department
of Homeland Security is preparing for as many as 90,000 such children
to arrive in the country by the end of this year.
The numbers are so great and so unprecedented that our Federal
agencies understandably are having difficulty carrying out the
procedures and timelines in place. I have sent members of my staff in
California to every Office and Refugee Services shelter in the State,
and they have sent me photos and their impressions. I wish to take a
moment to thank all our people, whether it is Border Patrol or ICE of
Homeland Security or anybody else--such as Health and Human Services--
for the excellent job they are doing. I saw 8 to 10 facilities through
pictures and reports, where children were in bright rooms, had beds
with covers, and a day program. So, every effort has been made.
But the numbers are so great and unprecedented that the difficulties
continue. When we run out of money, there is going to be a different
story.
But we must remember that the children at issue, who are
unaccompanied, are primarily from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras,
three Central American countries which are deeply troubled. Many have
entered as victims, I am sorry to say, of rape, abuse, poverty, and
above all, violence.
They are alone, subject to abuse and exploitation. Many are young and
unable to articulate their fears, their views, or testify about their
needs as accurately as adults can. Considering this, there is no other
option but for us to help and continue to treat them humanely, with
compassion and due process. That is what this supplemental does.
I have met with Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, and the
head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Sylvia Burwell,
and both tell us their agencies run out of funds by September. We must
responsibly fund these agencies, for not only are they managing the
current humanitarian crisis at our border, but they are also charged
with protecting human life and our homeland security.
With this funding, not only can we preserve our commitment to treat
children as the children that they are, we can improve the way that the
current law is being administered and more efficiently put our
resources to work.
Earlier today, I met with immigration judges from the U.S. Department
of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review. They informed me
they are desperate for increased resources with which to handle not
only the influx of children's cases but also a current backlog of
375,000 cases. Due to there being only 243 immigration judges across
the country, immigrants today wait 587 average days for a hearing. That
is one year and 7 months before they have the opportunity to come
before an immigration judge.
With adequate funding from this supplemental, which provides for
immigration judge teams, legal representation and services, government
immigration litigation attorneys and courtroom equipment, among other
things, this crisis can be managed and make the processing of children
more efficient.
One of the judges who sits in Miami told me that through her court
where a child has representation, a voluntary return to the country of
origin was able to be achieved in a majority of her
[[Page 13564]]
cases. So the majority of children actually took voluntary departure
and returned to their countries. A judge can't make a phone call, but a
counsel can--the attorneys could make the calls to do the necessary
preparation and see that a safe home could be arranged. Because of this
representation, cases are processed more quickly and children could
safely return.
I understand there has been concern that unaccompanied children will
not appear for their immigration court proceedings. That is simply not
true. The fact is, whether represented or not, 60.9 percent do appear,
and the number increases to 92.5 percent when represented by counsel.
So these children do get before a judge--60.9 percent of them, and if
they have a lawyer, 92 percent.
With this supplemental funding, the immigration courts, with help
from legal representatives, would be able to hear more quickly
immigration cases and determine with justice who may stay and who must
go.
I was contacted recently by Winston Lord, a former U.S. Ambassador
and Assistant Secretary of State, who is all too familiar with managing
situations of international crises while preserving our national
interest. In reflecting on the current crisis, he acknowledged the need
for effective border control and immigration enforcement to ensure
national security and a comprehensive solution. However, he also
identified the heart of the matter here: ``These challenges . . . need
not be met by using ineffective and indiscriminate approaches that harm
innocent children.''
He is right.
We are a great Nation, capable of safeguarding our national security
while simultaneously proceeding with humanity in addressing this
crisis, and any future challenges that this country faces. This problem
demands action now to provide these agencies with the funds they need
to meet this crisis.
Now, if we don't pass this, and if these departments run out of
money, and if facilities have to be closed, and if there is nowhere for
these children to go, let us think for a moment what happens to them.
Should they experience the same thing in this country they have back
home? What will they do? And what does that do to our conscience?
I think this supplemental is well put together. The chairman of our
committee has gone through it with a fine tooth comb. She has reduced
it in size. I think it is well representative of the situation that
dramatically needs funding. So I really hope there is a heart in this
body and that this supplemental appropriation is approved.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to the Senator from California, I thank
her for her excellent statement. She brings such experience and
expertise. It is very much appreciated. Has the Senator looked at my
supplemental recommendations where we have actually added money for
judges and then support to pro bono lawyers willing to represent
children?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, that is exactly right. The chairwoman's
supplemental does that. That is really what makes the difference for
the child. If a child can't speak the language and if a child is held
in a jail cell and if a child is shackled and handcuffed before a
judge, and a child has nobody to help them and no one they know in this
country, what can they do except cry? That is what I saw directly
myself, and that is what sort of awakened me then to a problem, which
was just 5,000 a year in the start of this. Now we are at 54,000, and
probably 90,000 before the end of the year.
Ms. MIKULSKI. That is right.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So I thank the Senator for her support and her energy
and effort that she has put forward.
I hope this body does the right thing.
Remembering Admiral Chuck Larson
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to continue the discussion
on the urgent supplemental. But before I do, I want to say that the
senior Senator from Arizona is on the floor, and I want to say
something heartwarming to my colleague. I say to the Senator from
Arizona, you are a graduate of the Naval Academy, class of 1958. We
both have a very dear friend who has passed away, ADM Chuck Larson.
Admiral Larson served with distinction in the Navy. He did many tours
of duty in the defense of our country but also did two tours of duty at
the U.S. Naval Academy, where I came to know him, and then subsequent
to that there was the wonderful role that he played in education and
transformational leadership.
I know he was a good friend of the Senator from Arizona too. So I
would like to express my condolences to you and to the--of course, then
it was guys only at the Naval Academy--class of 1958. I was the class
of 1958 at Mount Saint Agnes College. We probably saw each other at a
tea dance or two. I was the chunky one over there, not in the corner,
though. But I just wanted to express my condolences. What a great class
that seems to be. I hope we can work together on something that would
truly recognize Chuck Larson and the great transformational leader he
was.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy
with the Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I would say first of all to the Senator from Maryland, on
behalf of all Naval Academy graduates and all of us who love the Naval
Academy, your support of the Naval Academy has been consistent,
unswerving. You have been probably the staunchest supporter of the U.S.
Naval Academy I have ever had the privilege of encountering. I want to
also tell the Senator that the devotion she has extended to the Naval
Academy is reciprocated by the Naval Academy and its graduates to her.
I thank her for that.
Yes, Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Maryland, a dear and
beloved friend, ADM Chuck Larson passed away. I would be honored to
join with her in any way that we could to honor his memory. I would
just like to point out that the Senator from Maryland was heavily
involved when there was a very serious cheating scandal at the Naval
Academy. Senator Mikulski led the investigation and demand for
correcting that situation, and Admiral Larson was called back from
retirement to be the Superintendent of the Naval Academy, on the
recommendation of the Senator from Maryland--the only naval officer in
history who served as Superintendent twice. And he put the Naval
Academy back on the right track.
I would like to say, again, that he mentioned to me often the
consistent support for reform, for the institution, and they are
incredibly proud of her representation not just of the people of
Maryland but specifically of that wonderful institution. I know I speak
for Chuck Larson when I say that.
I thank you.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator very much. I love our U.S. Naval
Academy. But when you have great leaders, we want to in some way be
able to memorialize them in a way that they inspired this ongoing, this
next generation, and the generations to come about really what a great
leader is and what value-driven leadership is all about.
So I look forward to working with the Senator from the Naval Academy
and the State of Arizona.
Mr. President, I would also like to continue the discussion on the
urgent supplemental and the crisis--many people call it the crisis--at
our border. Well, we have a surge of children at our border because of
the crisis in Central America. The crisis is in Central America,
creating a surge of children desperately coming across our borders to
seek political asylum.
I would hope that when we look at this urgent supplemental, we
understand what we are trying to do. Yes, provide humane care for the
children, real support for judges and other legal assistance to
determine their legal and asylum status and, at the same time, to do
the prevention in Central America, by going after what the surge is all
[[Page 13565]]
about. The surge is about the escalating narco criminal-driven violence
in these countries.
People will say: Well, what does that mean? It means that when you
look at where the children are coming from, they are not coming from
every country in Central America. They are coming from three countries
in Central America. They are coming from Honduras, Guatemala, and El
Salvador, but they are not coming from Nicaragua and they are not
coming from Panama and they are not coming from Costa Rica. Why is
that? The reason is because the violence rate is not as high. Yes, in
these countries, particularly in Nicaragua, the poverty rate is the
same as the other three. So why are they coming? They are coming
because of the violence, and this is what we need to be able to deal
with.
Last week, along with many Senators, I met with the Ambassadors from
the three countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. At the
invitation of Senator Menendez, the chair of the Foreign Relations
Committee, I met with the President of Honduras, the President of
Guatemala, and the President of El Salvador to talk about these issues,
to say: What is it that we need to do to deal with these issues?
This is what they talked about. They talked about the violence coming
from the drug cartels and organized crime--organized crime--drug
cartels fueled by America's insatiable demand for drugs. They have
worsened in these three countries.
Then there is the recruitment. The narco criminals have gone after
the children to recruit them, either for their profit or for their
pleasure. I have to talk about this in a way that civilized people
should not have to hear that this is going on against children in our
own hemisphere. This is our own hemisphere. When I talk about the
recruitment of children for profit or for pleasure, that is exactly
what they are talking about--to recruit the children to be part of
gangs, violent gangs, gangs to engage in narco trafficking, to engage
in extortion, to engage in murder, to engage in intimidation. This is
the particular targeting of boys--the particular targeting of boys to
recruit them for the gangs. And if the boys do not want to join the
gang and they resist, they hide, they try to run away, they are often
grabbed, many sometimes are kidnapped, threatened with torture or their
mother or their grandmother or their sister is threatened with either
death or violent sexual attack. All sexual attack is violent, but they
talk about it in ways that I will not discuss on the Senate floor.
Then there is the recruitment for profit--yes, to make sure that
maybe they are couriers for the drug trade, but also to recruit, nab or
force young children to be involved in human trafficking and sexual
slavery.
But we have to deal with this. We have to stop the violence with a
tough battle. We have to go after the cartels, and we have to also
really begin to deal seriously with our addiction to cocaine and to
heroin.
When you talk to the President of Honduras about the drugs in his own
country bound for the United States, he talks about how they smuggle
drugs, and they smuggle children along the same trade routes. It is
good trade to traffic in drugs and it is also good trade to traffic in
women and children. You see, to the drug dealers, to the narco
traffickers, to the seven organized crime units--and, yes, we know who
they are and where they are; we just need to marshal the resources of
our country and the hemisphere to go after them. We know who they are,
where they are, what they do, and how they do it. They look at women
and children, boys, as well as girls, as commodities to be sold across
countries and across borders. My God. And we want to blame the
children?
We hear: Let's send them back. Send them back to what? This is why
these children are on the go. This is why these children are on the
march. And the children do not care how they get here, as long as they
escape the violence.
This is why we have included money of over $112 million to the
Department of Homeland Security for enforcement--no, not National Guard
at our border, but really moving assets to Central America to deal with
law enforcement, to strengthen the courts, and to be able to deal with
the issues of narco trafficking and organized crime in their own
country.
We also know that while we are doing this type of intervention down
there to go after the smugglers, coyotes, and human traffickers, we
also need to deal with the fact that when these children are here, they
have the right to seek legal asylum. Now, as Senator Feinstein pointed
out, there are only 240 immigration judges in the country. The fact is
there is a backlog of over 100,000 cases. These kids move to the front
of the line, but even if they move to the front of the line, it could
be as much as 2 or 3 years before their cases are heard. This is not
right. It is not right for them and it is not right for our country.
So I have more money in this bill for more immigration judges to
resolve the asylum cases, additional legal representation for the
children, including bilingual representation, and the kind of backup
and support where pro bono lawyers are coming to the aid to be able to
do this.
I hope we pass this supplemental so we can do this.
Second, I made the trip to the border. I will talk about this on
another day. I know my time is exceeded, but what I wanted to emphasize
today is why these children are coming, the legal services we need to
present here, and I look forward to talking more about this. I know my
time is up, and I do want to be courteous to my colleague from the
other side of the aisle.
So let's pass this bill. Let's do the interdiction in Central
America. And let's enforce our laws here and provide the legal
representation the law requires.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business for as much time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Syria
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, quite often--on numerous occasions--I have
come to the floor of the Senate to talk about the ongoing tragedy of
Syria, not in the belief that any action may be taken of any real
impact, although it has always been my hope and prayer, but because my
conscience dictates that I come to the floor of the Senate and discuss
one of the great and unfortunate and shameful chapters in our history.
Last February I came to the floor to appeal to the conscience of my
colleagues and fellow citizens about the mass atrocities that the Assad
regime is perpetuating in Syria. I brought with me at that time a
series of gruesome images that documented the horrors the Assad regime
has committed against political prisoners in its jails across that
country. Those images were smuggled out of the country by Caesar--
Caesar--a Syrian military policeman who risked his life and the lives
of his family and friends to show the world the real face of human
suffering in Syria today.
At the time I had hoped that those images would cry out to our
national conscience and compel our great Nation to help end the
suffering and genocide of the Syrian people. How could anyone--how
could anyone--look at those pictures and not press for immediate
accountability and an end to those mass atrocities?
In the months since those images were first made public, United
States and European investigators have pored over the images and
concluded that not only are these images genuine but they are evidence
of an industrial-scale campaign by the Assad regime against its
political opponents. According to the State Department, these
photographs are evidence of systematic atrocities not seen since
Hitler's Nazi regime exterminated millions during World War II.
Stephen Rapp, the State Department's Ambassador-at-Large for War
Crimes, stated that:
This is solid evidence of the kind of machinery of cruel
death that we haven't seen frankly since the Nazis. It's
shocking to me.
[[Page 13566]]
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, after a
briefing to the U.N. Security Council members, stated, ``The gruesome
images of corpses bearing marks of starvation, strangulation and
beatings and today's chilling briefing indicate that the Assad regime
has carried out systematic, widespread and industrial killing.''
Despite the statements from these and other senior officials, the
administration has yet to finish its investigation. Perhaps when the
administration does complete its forensic analysis of the evidence
provided by Caesar, President Obama will decide it is finally time to
take action in Syria and prevent the continuation of mass atrocities
that according to his Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities
is ``a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility
of the United States.''
I have to tell my colleagues I am not hopeful. In the time that the
investigation to prove what we all know to be true has been underway,
approximately 40,000 more people have died, another 1 million people
have been forced from their homes, and over half of Syria's population
is now believed to be in dire need of food, water, and medicine.
The Assad regime continues to bomb northern Syria, using crude
cluster munitions known as barrel bombs with the sole purpose of
terrorizing and killing as many people as possible when
indiscriminately dropped from Syrian Government aircraft on schools,
factories, and mosques. It continues to raze entire neighborhoods for
no military purpose whatsoever, simply as a form of collective
punishment of Syrian civilians.
It continues its ``surrender or starve'' famine campaign, starving
people to death by denying entire neighborhoods any access to food or
water. Just last month the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, which has been tasked with destroying Syria's chemical
stockpiles, announced there is credible evidence that toxic chemicals
are still being used in a systematic manner in Syria.
Indeed, this kind of inhumane cruelty is a pattern of behavior for
the Syrian government. As early as August 2011, a damning 22-page
report was issued by the United Nations human rights office, which
concluded that Syrian Government forces had committed crimes against
humanity by carrying out summary executions, torturing prisoners and
harming children, the evidence of which we now see clearly in those
images.
The report prompted President Obama to issue a statement calling for
President Assad to step down. The President declared:
We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a
Democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led.
For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for
President Assad to step aside.
That was 2 years ago. The President ended this statement by saying,
``It is clear that President Assad believes that he can silence the
voices of his people by resorting to the repressive tactics of the
past, but he is wrong.''
Following the President's statement, there was no shortage of
administration officials publicly professing that President Assad's
days were numbered. In December 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton told a NATO gathering that Assad's fall was ``inevitable.'' She
later repeated, ``It is time for Assad to get out of the way.'' That
was from our then-Secretary of State.
That same month White House spokesman Jay Carney echoed Clinton's
proclamation stating:
Assad's fall is inevitable. As governments make decisions
about where they stand on this issue and what steps need to
be taken with regards to brutality of Assad's regime, it is
important to calculate into your consideration the fact that
he will go.
He went on to say, ``The regime has lost control of the country and
he will eventually fall.'' In May 2012, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told FOX News that ``escalating
atrocities would likely trigger a military intervention following a
massacre that left more than 100 dead.''
One hundred dead--that was back when we were talking about Syria's
dead in hundreds rather than thousands and tens of thousands. One month
later, in June 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta stated:
I think it's important when Assad leaves--and he will
leave--to try to preserve stability in that country . . . I'm
sure that deep down Assad knows he's in trouble, and it's
just a matter of time before he has to go. I would say, if
you [Assad] want to be able to protect yourself and your
family, you better get the hell out now.
That was in June of 2012 by our Secretary of Defense.
Where are we now? Three years after President Obama and his
administration rightly decided it was time for him to go, President
Assad remains in power, and I know of no one who believes Bashar Assad
is going to negotiate his departure. In fact, he just orchestrated
another ``reelection.'' I remember when an American President said that
a foreign leader must go, it conveyed a commitment to doing something
about it. But instead of taking decisive action in support of the
President's declared policy, the administration has simply moved away
from calls for Assad to step down over the past year.
In fact, instead of being forced to step down, Assad has continuously
gotten the administration to treat his regime as a central
interlocutor, first with the chemical weapons agreement through which
Assad forced the United States into acknowledging its legitimacy and
ensuring that he would remain in place until the agreement was carried
out, then by serving as the sole authority on distribution of aid
within the country, and now by presenting himself as critical to the
fight against terrorism and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria.
So as it turns out, President Obama was right that Assad's violence
and repressive tactics could not silence the voices of the Syrian
people who even in the worst imaginable conditions have continued to
fight for freedom and a Democratic Syria. Instead, it has been the
voice of President Obama and other administration officials that
President Assad has managed to silence. We cannot be silent, but we
cannot allow words to replace action either.
What has become exceedingly clear in the wake of recent events is
that even if we can ignore the moral imperative to act, the growing
threat to American national security interests means that doing nothing
is now out of the question. The conflict in Syria is largely to blame
for the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has grown into the even
more dangerous and lethal Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, commonly
referred to by the acronym ISIS or ISIL.
Top officials testified in last week's Foreign Relations Committee
hearing that ISIS represents a threat that is ``worse than Al-Qaeda.''
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran Brett McGurk
stated that ISIS is no longer simply a terrorist organization but ``a
full blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the
Tigris and Euphrates Valley in what is now Syria and Iraq.''
The Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General have all
warned repeatedly about the threat posed by ISIS's state-like sanctuary
in Syria and Iraq and the largest safe haven for global terrorism in
the world.
If the September 11 attack should have taught us anything, it is that
global terrorists who occupy ungoverned spaces and seek to plot and
plan attacks against us can pose a direct threat to our national
security. That was Afghanistan on September 10, 2001. That is what
these top officials are now warning us that Syria is becoming today.
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said, ``Syria is now a
matter of homeland security.'' FBI Director James Comey recently warned
Congress that the terrorist threat from Syria against the United States
is ``metastasizing.'' Their assessments were confirmed earlier this
month by Attorney General Eric Holder, who said that recent
intelligence reports of terrorists from Syria partnering with Yemeni
bombmakers are ``more frightening than anything I think I've seen
[[Page 13567]]
as attorney general. It's something that gives us really extreme,
extreme concern.''
He added:
If they--
Meaning ISIS--
are able to consolidate their gains in that area, Iraq and
Syria, I think it's just a matter of time before they start
looking outward and start looking at the West and at the
United States in particular. So this is something that we
have to get on top of and get on top of now.
It is clear President Assad's strategy is to convince the
administration that we only have two options, him or Al Qaeda-linked
terrorists. It is a sad testament to the administration's leadership on
Syria that Assad's strategy seems to be working. According to a report
by the Daily Beast, administration officials are debating whether to
abandon the President's goal of toppling Assad and enter into a de
facto alliance with the Assad regime to fight ISIS or other Sunni
extremists in the region.
Such a decision would represent the height of folly. Nobody--nobody--
should believe Assad is an ally in the fight against terrorism. Former
Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who resigned in May after asserting
that he could no longer defend American policy in Syria, made it clear
how foolish such thinking is. He said:
The people who think Bashar Assad's regime is the answer to
containing and eventually eliminating the Islamic-based
threat do not understand the historic relationship between
the regime and ISIS. They do not understand the current
relationship between Assad and ISIS and how they are working
on the ground together directly and indirectly inside Syria.
He added,
If this administration wants to contain the Islamic State
on the ground, they are going to have to help the Free Syrian
Army.
After more than 3 years of horror and suffering and devastation and
growing threats to our national security, the conflict in Syria
continues to get worse and worse, both for Syria and for the world, but
the United States has no effective policy to bring this conflict to a
responsible end. The outcome of the administration's disengagement has
been a consistent failure to support more responsible forces in Syria
when that support would have mattered.
The descent of Syria into chaos and growing regional instability, the
use of Syria as a training ground for Al Qaeda affiliates and other
terrorist organizations, the ceding of regional leadership to our
adversaries, and the shameful tolerance of war crimes and crimes
against humanity--in short, all of the horrible things the critics said
would happen if we got more involved in Syria--have happened because we
have not gotten more involved. Now President Obama finds himself in a
position where the United States will have to do far more today to
stave off disaster in Syria than we would have needed to do in 2012.
The administration seems to have finally come around to the idea that
we must arm, train, and equip the moderate opposition in Syria. But
arming moderate FSA units is only one element of what must be done for
a much broader strategy that includes both Syria and Iraq.
I will be the first to admit there are no good options left, if good
options ever existed to begin with. But as bad as our options are, we
still have options to do something meaningful in Syria.
The conflict in Syria is reaching a critical point. Government forces
are advancing on Aleppo, effectively cutting off routes into and out of
the city from the south and west, exercising a stranglehold on the
people of Aleppo. More than 6 months of punishing daily air strikes
have killed thousands of residents and forced tens of thousands more to
flee. But at least 500,000 residents remain in Aleppo, and they are
being slowly asphyxiated by Assad's forces as they brace for Aleppo's
upcoming siege.
Meanwhile, disillusioned fighters, starved of the resources and
equipment they need, have been drifting from the front lines and, in
some cases, joining the better funded and equipped extremist groups.
It is a moral outrage to watch the destruction of what remains of
Aleppo and refuse to do more to help those fight against our enemies in
the region. Worse still, the government's campaign has been aided and
abetted by ISIS, which is attacking the Free Syrian Army from the
northeast in an attempt to take control of two vital supply lines from
Turkey and forcing the moderate opposition to fight simultaneously on
two fronts.
Such activists are suggesting that the fall of Aleppo could be the
nail in the coffin for the modern opposition, and the situation for
civilians still living in Aleppo has become so disastrous that the
United States recently authorized the delivery of cross-border
humanitarian aid without prior approval from the Assad regime.
These efforts are a bandaid on a bullet wound. It will not be enough
to mitigate the dire crisis unfolding in the city, and we must offer
quick support to the moderate opposition as they battle the Assad
regime and extremists from the Islamic state before it is too late.
The rise of ISIS, combined with the events in Gaza and Ukraine, has
placed Assad's assault on Aleppo safely outside of the headlines. With
the international community distracted by these disturbing events in
other parts of the word, Assad will again manipulate time and terror in
his favor.
President Obama, who spent much of his time in recent weeks at
fundraising events, said nothing about Syria or Iraq during recent
appearances to discuss Gaza and Ukraine.
Worse still, details of the sole initiative proposed by the
administration on Syria since the collapse of the Geneva peace talks
reveals a plan that would train less than a battalion-sized unit of
2,300 individuals and wouldn't begin until the middle of next year. By
that time Aleppo may be lost and there may be no more units left in
Syria to support.
The conflict in Syria is a threat to our national interests, but it
is more than that. It is an affront to our conscience. Images such as
these should not just be a source of heartbreak and sympathy, they
should be a call to action. For the sake of our national security we
must move quickly to help the moderate opposition now before it is too
late. For the sake of our national conscience, we must do more to help
the 150,000 political prisoners who remain in Assad's prisons and put
an end to the suffering of the Syrian people.
It is with great sadness that I met with Caesar yesterday and had to
tell him the truth: that although our great Nation could have done more
to stop the suffering of others, that we could have used the power we
possess--limited and imperfect as it may be--to prevent massive
atrocities and the killing of innocents, it is with everlasting shame
that we have not.
Shame on all of us for our current failure. If there ever was a case
that should remind us that our interests are indivisible from our
values, it is Syria, and we cannot afford to go numb to this human
tragedy.
I have seen my fair share of suffering and death in the world, but
the images and stories coming out of Syria haunt me most. But it is not
too late. The United States is still the most powerful Nation in the
world today, and we have the power and capabilities to act when brutal
tyrants slaughter their people with impunity. No one should believe
that we are without options even now. I pray that we will finally
recognize the costs of inaction and take the necessary actions to end
Assad's mass atrocities and to help the Syrian people write a better
ending to this sad chapter in world affairs.
I note the presence of our distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee. I urge my colleagues--among many reasons--to
support him in his effort to bring the National Defense Authorization
Act before this body. Part of that act also authorizes for the training
and equipping of the Free Syrian forces.
I thank my friend and colleague the Senator from Michigan and the
chairman of our committee, whose unstinting effort has made this
National Defense Authorization Act something that deserves the
attention, debate, amending, and passage from the Senate.
[[Page 13568]]
I thank my colleague from Michigan.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my statement on
the National Defense Authorization Act following the remarks of Senator
Levin and Senator Inhofe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a unanimous
consent request?
Mr. CASEY. I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. May I inquire of the Senator from Pennsylvania how long he
intends to speak?
Mr. CASEY. About 10 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. After the Senator from Pennsylvania concludes, I would ask
that the Senator from Oklahoma and I be recognized for 20 minutes,
evenly divided, to talk about the need to get the Defense authorization
bill to the floor, and each one of us would control 10 minutes under
this unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Afghanistan
Mr. CASEY. I rise to speak about a topic that we don't talk about
enough, which is what is happening in Afghanistan with regard to women
and girls.
I know the senior Senator from Arizona was speaking about Syria
before I had recognition, and I am grateful to him for the work we have
done together. He is working with me and others on the best way forward
for us to have a constructive impact on what is happening, working to
get more dollars and more efforts in the direction of supporting the
well-vetted Syrian opposition. I am grateful to him for his compassion
and his commitment on this issue, and we look forward to working with
him going forward.
I rise today to talk about an issue that we don't focus on enough
here and that is the outlook for Afghan women and the children who have
grown up during the past 13 years of war in Afghanistan. Children all
too often are the innocent victims of the conflict.
According to a recent report by the U.N. Secretary General to the
Security Council in Afghanistan, child casualties increased by 30
percent between 2012 and 2013.
While reporting was limited by the security environment, there were
at least 790 documented incidents in which 545 children were killed and
1,149 were injured. That is just a snapshot of the horror that so many
children have suffered in Afghanistan. Armed opposition groups such as
the Taliban are responsible for a majority of the recorded child
casualties.
I have spoken on the floor a number of times about the substantial
improvements that have been made in Afghanistan, with significant
United States support. Our tax dollars, our people, and our government
have helped enormously to get greater numbers of Afghan children,
especially girls, into school. Where there were once only a few
educational opportunities, now more than 8.3 million children are in
school, boys and girls. By one assessment, up to 40 percent of those
8.3 million children are girls.
The security situation and persistent Taliban aggression in
Afghanistan continue to threaten this progress. According to the same
U.N. report, there were at least 73 reported attacks on schools. In
some especially horrifying incidents, improvised explosive devices--we
know them as IEDs--were planted inside school premises. The American
people should be proud of the sacrifices that have already been made by
our fighting men and women and our diplomats who have served in
Afghanistan and the progress--which I have just mentioned--that has
been made. As the political transition approaches and we prepare for a
full security transition, this issue merits continued focus.
In 2013 and 2014, I led a bipartisan effort with Senator Ayotte to
include language in the National Defense Authorization Act that
highlights the security issues Afghan women and girls face and promotes
the recruitment and retention of women in the Afghan National Security
Forces.
I focused on the issue because I believe the future of women and
girls is critical, essential, to the stability of Afghanistan going
forward and consequently our own national security interests in the
region. According to the Institute for Inclusive Security: ``There is
evidence that women in uniform are more likely than their male
colleagues to de-escalate tensions and less likely to use excessive
force.''
Some improvements have been made to recruit and retain women in the
Afghan National Security Forces. For example, earlier this month, 51
women graduated from the Afghan National Police Academy. These women
defy the Taliban's threats by serving as police officers.
During the elections earlier this year, female police officers and
searchers helped secure polling stations for women, and their effect
was tangible: significant turnout by female voters despite serious
security threats.
Although significant progress has been made in women's rights and
security, there are still far too many horrific incidents of violence
against women and children.
I was particularly disturbed, as I know many women were, by an
article that ran in the New York Times on July 19 entitled:
``Struggling to Keep Afghan Girl Safe After a Mullah is Accused of
Rape.'' That is the name of the article dated July 19.
The article describes how a 10-year-old Afghan girl was raped by a
mullah in a mosque. A local women's shelter took in the young girl
after the attack to protect her from her own family, who were planning
to carry out an honor killing. The activists at the shelter received
death threats in addition to the threats to the girl.
Once the young girl recovered, she was returned to her family.
However, as the article concludes: ``Those caring for the girl said she
had been terribly homesick and wanted to return to her family, but no
one had the heart to tell her they had been conspiring to kill her.''
To say that this story is heartbreaking doesn't begin to translate
the horror of what some young girls have to face in Afghanistan and
other parts of the world as well. Extremists will no doubt continue to
threaten women leaders and target innocent children in an effort to
terrorize the Afghan people during this transition. We should send an
unequivocal message that the United States continues to stand with
Afghan women and children and that we see them as an important part of
building a stable and secure Afghanistan.
In an effort to honor the sacrifices of the American people and our
service men and women, and to make sure those sacrifices are
remembered, we have to make sure that we take steps in the Senate. I
filed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, and I am
grateful again for the work Senator Ayotte has done with me. We were
joined most recently by several cosponsors, Senator Shaheen, Senator
Warner, and Senator Boxer.
This amendment will address three main issues:
No. 1, continue to prioritize recruitment and retention of women in
the Afghan National Security Forces.
No. 2. Support police units that are specially trained to work with
female or adolescent victims and increase the number of female security
officers specifically trained to address cases of gender-based
violence. This would include ensuring Afghan National Police's Family
Response Units have the necessary resources and are available to women
across Afghanistan.
No. 3. Finally, emphasize the need to maintain the female searcher
capabilities that were established in the April 2014 Presidential
elections and for the 2015 parliamentary elections.
We must ensure that the gains made by Afghan women in every sector of
society are preserved in a post-2014 Afghanistan. It is in our national
security interests to help prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming
a safe haven and training ground for international terrorism.
We have seen from the recent events in Iraq what happens after a
security transition if some groups are
[[Page 13569]]
marginalized. As we approach transition in Afghanistan, women and young
people should not just be the target of Taliban violence; they should
be full partners in building a stable Afghanistan.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Defense Authorization
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, along with
Senator Inhofe--Senator McCain was here before--to express the hope
that the Senate will be able to take up the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 during our September work
period.
In June Senator Inhofe and I came here to urge Senators to begin the
process to file amendments to our bill, and many amendments have been
filed. We have been working to clear as many amendments as possible in
preparation for Senate consideration of our bill. The amendment
described just a few moments ago by the Senator from Pennsylvania is
the type of amendment that we believe we can clear and would strengthen
our bill and strengthen the position of our Nation.
When the Defense authorization bill is brought to the floor, our goal
is first to be in a position to offer a package of cleared amendments.
Our second goal--probably as important, perhaps more important than our
first--is to see if we can identify specific relevant amendments that
could be included in a unanimous consent agreement ready to be debated
and voted on or, in the alternative, to craft the unanimous consent
agreement with a limited number of relevant amendments, leaving it to
the managers and the leaders to identify which relevant amendments
would be brought to a vote.
Given the small number of days that are left for legislative action
in this Congress, we must all--all of us individually and as a body--
pull together if we are going to get our Defense bill completed. In my
judgment, the course I have outlined will facilitate that conclusion.
I know there is a backlog of important nominations the Senate must
still address, and these nominations have been taking up much of the
Senate's time. But we have enacted a national defense authorization act
every year for 52 years.
The bill this year--S. 2410--was reported out of the Senate Armed
Services Committee on the 2nd day of June with a strong bipartisan vote
of 25 to 1. It provides critical authorities, funding, assistance, and
guidance for our military, for our men and women in uniform and their
families, at a time when they face a wide array of threats around the
world.
In our national defense authorization bill, we enact authorities and
programs that would create important initiatives that would be
unnecessarily delayed if we do not adopt this bill.
If we fail to enact this bill, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines will not receive many important special pays and bonuses. These
include the critical skills retention bonus; enlistment and
reenlistment bonuses; bonus and special pays for health professions,
including those in critically short wartime specialties; and many other
bonus and special pays that enable the military services to shape the
force as we draw down that force.
If we fail to enact this bill, we will not be able to slow the growth
of military personnel costs and the Department will not be able to use
the savings, as planned, to make up for readiness shortfalls that
undermine our military's ability to respond to emerging national
security crises. The committee-reported bill includes over $1.8 billion
in savings in 2015 and over $20 billion in savings over the Future
Years Defense Program. If this bill doesn't pass, those savings will
not be achieved and the readiness and modernization accounts will be
even further depleted.
If we fail to enact this bill, we will risk delaying the
implementation of programs to address the mental health of our Armed
Forces by developing a standard method for collecting, reporting, and
assessing suicide and attempted suicide data for members of the
National Guard and Reserves. Our Presiding Officer is very active in
that particular area, in trying to address the suicide problems we have
in our Armed Forces.
If we fail to enact this bill, we will delay a much needed
reorganization of the Department's prisoner of war/missing in action
community to enable the Department to more effectively accomplish its
mission of accounting for POWs and MIAs.
If we fail to enact this bill, school districts all over the United
States that rely on our supplemental impact aid to help them educate
military children will no longer receive that money.
If we fail to enact this bill, we are unlikely to authorize the
National Commission on the Future of the Army--a critical step to
enable the Army to ensure that its forces--including its Active-Duty,
Reserves, and Army National Guard components--are properly structured
and supported to meet current and future threats.
If we fail to enact this bill, no new military construction projects
will be authorized for fiscal year 2015 and our Armed Forces will too
often continue to live, train, and work in substandard facilities.
Previous years' national defense authorization acts have been
strengthened and enhanced through a debate on the Senate floor, and
that includes the opportunity for Members to offer amendments. Debating
and enacting those authorizations are critical not only to our national
security but to ensure that our Nation keeps its sacred vow to provide
for our armed servicemembers and their families.
Senator Inhofe and I will do our part, but we urge our colleagues to
continue to file amendments colleagues would like to see in the bill,
and we will do our best to clear them. We will also do our utmost to
draft a unanimous consent agreement for consideration by our leadership
that would provide for some contested relevant amendments so that we
can show our leaders we can deal with this bill in a day or two.
We will do all that we can, but we need 98 other Senators to help us.
So we urge our colleagues, please continue to bring amendments to us.
Please help us craft a unanimous consent agreement that would allow for
a reasonable number of contested relevant amendments to be debated and
voted on. This is the best way we are going to be able to persuade our
leaders and our colleagues that we can bring the bill to the floor,
have a reasonable period for debate, dispose of at least some relevant
amendments, and pass the critically needed National Defense
Authorization Act.
Our troops and their families deserve maximum effort on the part of
all of us. I hope that will be forthcoming so we will not miss in the
53rd year a passage of a bill that is so critical to our national
security.
Before I yield, I wish to thank my good friend from Oklahoma, our
ranking member, who has worked so closely with me. Our staffs worked so
hard on this bill. Together, as partners, we have been able to bring
this bill to the floor. I thank him for the very strong leadership he
has shown in the security area and on this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I thank my good friend, the
chairman of the committee, Senator Levin.
It is true that we have worked so closely together--not just the two
of us but our staffs directly, the minority and majority staff. It is
rare that we have a difference of opinion. When we do, we sit down and
work things out, debate, and get things done. So there is a reason, as
Senator Levin said, that we have passed this bill for 52 consecutive
years.
There are a lot of bills that hit the floor, and some are important,
some are not. Some are more important to different Members than others.
This is important to everybody. There is not one Senator here who
doesn't want to pass a defense authorization bill. When Senator Levin
mentioned that it passed by 25 to 1--we have been ready to go since
that time. That is why we are encouraging people and have been
[[Page 13570]]
encouraging people to bring amendments down.
Let me mention that I personally went--as did Senator Levin--to both
the majority and the minority leader.
They said: Well, go ahead. You have our go-ahead to get these people
to bring down their amendments.
This is very important. And I have to say that one of the problems we
had last year was there are a lot of Republicans--and I am on the
Republican side. A lot of Republicans had amendments that they didn't
think were going to be able to get heard. Well, this is their chance to
do that right now.
The count as of today is that 94 amendments have been filed. Of that,
73 are Democratic amendments and only 21 are Republican amendments. So
I appeal now to the Republicans because what I don't want to happen is
for us to come back and maybe go into some type of lameduck session and
find ourselves in the same position we were in last year. Now is the
time to preclude that from happening by getting their amendments down.
I think we can do it. We have 4 or 5 weeks during this August recess
for our staff to work on these. As the chairman said, a lot of these
are going to be put together and are going to be accepted and be in the
manager's amendment--but not unless Members get them down right now.
We know that right now we are probably in the most perilous situation
we have ever been in as a country. I sometimes say that I look
wistfully back to the days of the Cold War when we had two superpowers
and we knew what they had and they knew what we had and we assured
certain destruction if they did anything to us. Now there are places
led by people with certainly questionable character and abilities. We
have North Korea, Iran, and all these countries developing nuclear
weapons. Our intelligence is good but not good enough to be able to
know when it is going to come our way. So we have to be ready. That is
the primary function of this committee.
We rely on all the people making our Nation safe right now, and they
are looking at what we are doing. We need to take care of them in
training, readiness, pay, benefits. These are things that are going to
happen.
The other day the President came out with the OCO request for $59
billion. In there, he mentioned two programs that--frankly, I have
never heard of--either one of them. One was $4 billion to go to the
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, and the other was $1 billion for
the European Reassurance Fund. I don't know what these are.
This is the forum we will use when we start debating the NDAA. It is
going to be to get to all these programs that are new on the horizon,
to see whether we really want to devote any of our scarce resources to
some of these programs. We don't know. When we get the bill on the
floor, we will know.
It is too important to our troops to do what we did last year. Not
passing it will send a terrible signal to them. But I think it is more
important to realize how close we came last year to not having the bill
by December 31. If we didn't have it by December 31, just think of what
would have happened. If we could not have corrected the situation, we
would have had combat pay stopping. We would have had incentive pay for
some of the doctors and all that come to a conclusion.
We also would have reenlistment bonuses. Looking at some of our
airmen who are flying sophisticated equipment, people don't realize
that to train a new person to get to the level of an F-22 costs about
$15 million. However, a reenlistment bonus is about $250,000.
So we look at what we can do by doing the right thing and passing the
bill.
We have a lot of serious questions we need to debate on problems in
Syria, as Senator McCain was talking about a few minutes ago, and Iraq
and Ukraine and Afghanistan. That is why we need to have the NDAA
tended to, hopefully as soon as we get back from this recess. The later
we put it into the year to act, the more likely many of these
provisions could be rolled into one massive Omnibus appropriations
bill. We all know how that would play out. It would be rammed through
the Senate without amendments and open debate. We want transparency. We
want people to have an opportunity to bring their amendments out, and
the more we can get between now and when we go into this recess, the
more it can be worked out by the staff because they are going to be
working all during the recess to get this done. We have all these
people risking their lives on our behalf. They certainly deserve to
have this bill in a well-thought-out manner.
Right before we came on, Senator Casey was talking about the Afghan
women and girls, some of the real tragedies that are taking place right
now over there. These are things, the language of which we can correct
in this bill. So there is no reason to put it off. We don't want to go
through what we went through last time, and now is the time to prepare
for that, and all we have to do is get the amendments in. No one should
complain later on in November or December about not being able to have
their amendments heard if they are not out there right now, bringing
their amendments now.
With that, it is my understanding that Senator McCain was going to
participate in this plea we are making, but he has a statement he will
be submitting for the Record.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to urge the
majority leader to bring to the floor for debate one of the most
important pieces of legislation that comes before this body each year--
the National Defense Authorization Act.
The Senate Armed Services Committee version of the Fiscal Year 2015
National Defense Authorization Act provides $514 billion for national
defense in Fiscal Year 2015. This includes $496 billion for the
Department of Defense, DOD, base budget and $17.7 billion for national
security programs.
This bill contains several important provisions. It includes a
provision to keep the A-10, a vital close air support combat aircraft.
This provision would strictly prohibit the U.S. Air Force from retiring
A-10 airplanes for 1 year and fully fund the flight hours, pilot
training, fuel, maintenance, and operations for all A-10 pilots and
crew through 2015.
Additionally, this bill contains three different provisions that
would improve the prospects of competition for military space launch
and help move the Pentagon away from using taxpayer dollars to purchase
rocket engines from Russia.
Finally, this bill includes a provision that would eliminate wasteful
spending in Department of Defense, DOD, IT systems. Before DOD is
allowed to spend millions of dollars on new IT projects, the department
must identify and eliminate old IT systems first.
These are just a few of the important provisions that have been
included in this year's NDAA.
The Senate Armed Services Committee began consideration of the
defense authorization bill immediately after the President submitted
his fiscal year 2015 budget request. Over the course of 4 months, the
committee conducted several hearings, held countless briefings, and
then met for 3 solid days in markup to produce this legislation. The
bill was approved by the committee on May 22 and is ready to be
debated, amended, and passed so that we may conference with the House
on their version of the bill.
I strongly urge the majority leader to bring this important bill to
the Senate floor for debate. A failure to move to the defense
authorization bill as soon as possible is a failure to recognize the
critical national security importance signified through the strong
bipartisan support this bill has enjoyed in this Chamber over the past
five decades.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 13571]]
Highway Trust Fund
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment
that I filed with the Highway and Transportation Funding Act. While my
amendment did not get a vote, the issue it addresses is very important
to my home State so I want to take a minute today to talk about the
issue and the need to address a situation that was created when we
passed the MAP-21 conference report in 2012.
The conference report undid a carefully constructed compromise on the
Abandoned Mine Land Program that was put together in 2006. It took
apart the work that we had done by limiting the total annual payments
of AML funds to $15 million per year. That is a change that only
affected the State of Wyoming. We usually don't do legislation that
only affects one State when a number of them receive funds.
What was worse, the provision was not in the House or Senate highway
bill. It was added in the dead of night without consulting anyone from
the Wyoming congressional delegation. I was extremely disappointed that
the provision was included in the conference report because Senators
from other coal-producing States and I spent years working on this
issue.
When the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act was passed in
1977, a tax was levied on each ton of coal that was produced. The
purpose of that tax was to reclaim the coal mines that had been
abandoned before the enactment of the reclamation laws. Half of that
tax was promised to the States where the coal was mined. That was known
as the State share. The other half went to the Federal Government to
administer the reclamation program and to provide additional funding to
the States with the most abandoned coal mines.
It was a simple enough concept. Unfortunately, like many things in
Washington, while the concept was good, clear, and well-intentioned,
its implementation was a nightmare and the program did not work as
Congress intended. For years States were shortchanged and the
reclamation work was not done or the States did it themselves at their
own expense, expecting to get reimbursed. That is the case in Wyoming.
At one point the Federal Government owed the States more than $1.2
billion, while more than $3 billion in reclamation programs remained
incomplete and unfinished.
The issued pitted the East against the West and the debate was always
the same. When Members from the East would argue that we should send
more money to the States to support reclamation efforts, my colleagues
from the West were just as certain that we needed to keep the Federal
Government's promise to the States to provide the revenue they were
entitled to under the provisions of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act.
In 2006, a bipartisan coalition of Senators--including me--fixed the
broken AML structure. It started with Senator Santorum approaching me
with a proposal that had the support of a number of local coal
companies, also the United Mine Workers of America, several
environmental groups, and other businesses. After listening to the
proposal, I laid out a set of principles that had to be included in
their proposal if they were going to gain my support.
First I wanted to see the return of the money owed to the States,
which included $550 million owed to my State. Because Wyoming is a
certified State, I also wanted to see the money that came from the
Federal Government with no strings attached. The legislation
accomplished that goal by guaranteeing that Wyoming was to receive the
money owed from the Federal Government over a 7-year period.
This is money in a trust fund. Trust funds are kind of interesting to
the Federal Government. We put money in the drawer and then we take
money out and put bonds in the drawer. Think about that in Social
Security. It is another one of our trust funds, and I am one of the
protectors.
This was a trust fund but there were only bonds in there, so it was
difficult for us to get any money. I wanted to guarantee that future
moneys would be paid to States such as Wyoming where significant
amounts of coal were produced. We are where most of the Federal half of
the tax comes from.
Third, it was important that more money be directed toward
reclamation in the States where it was needed. More money was needed.
And fourth, there had to be a provision for orphan miners' health.
Sometimes that is kind of overlooked, but Senator Byrd and Senator
Rockefeller were very adamant on that.
What is an orphan miner? That was a miner who was promised health
care and then their mine went out of business. So there is no company
to pay in anymore so they can get their health care, and we made a
provision to take care of that.
The legislation that we put together accomplished all four of those
goals. We continued our efforts as a bipartisan group, and in December
2006 we passed the AML reauthorization as part of the Tax Relief and
Health Care Act of 2006. The coal industry and the United Mine Workers
of America supported the bill. Members from certified States less
Wyoming supported the compromise, as did members from uncertified
States such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
As a Senator, President Obama voted in favor of the legislation that
included this compromise. From all signs it appeared we had finally
fixed our problem and helped strengthen our State economies at the same
time. Unfortunately, appearances are often deceiving.
By limited AML payments in the MAP-21 conference report, Congress
once again made clear that taxpayers could not count on a Federal trust
fund to meet its obligations to administer the tax dollars it collected
each year in a proper and legislatively mandated manner. This has been
contested and successfully defended year after year to preserve this
money, and it was supported by a supermajority from this body until--
until--it was included in this highway bill and included in the highway
bill in the conference report, not when we had an amendment on the
floor that we could once again successfully defeat with a
supermajority. It came in the middle of the night, and the next day we
had an opportunity to vote for the highway bill.
The highway bill is probably one of the most crucial bills to any
State in the Nation, and if all you get to do is vote yes or no, you
are not going to take a look at a little portion of the bill where we
steal a trust fund from one State--Wyoming--and that is exactly what
happened, and it passed.
My amendment to the highway bill this time will address the problem
and put things back together the way they were meant to be. Simply put,
it will ensure that when a State has been promised it will receive AML
funds, it will receive them. Fortunately, I have the intent of Congress
and the support of many colleagues on this matter of such great concern
to Wyoming and to all the coal-producing States.
I want to particularly thank Senators Hatch and Wyden for their
commitment to address this issue created by the MAP-21 conference
report. This isn't just a problem for Wyoming, because the next time a
conference committee goes looking for some money, they can steal it
from another AML State.
My amendment also encouraged the production of energy right here at
home by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates such an effort will increase
gross Federal receipts by $5 billion over 10 years. That is more than
we need to make this payment. There are other possibilities for offsets
as well, but that is one that is rather meaty, and that is more than
enough to pay the funds that were stolen from Wyoming over 10 years and
to pay for 2 years' worth of transportation projects, not just a short-
term fix on transportation.
I know my colleagues will see the importance of this matter for
Wyoming and to all the coal-producing States. It is important we take a
look at this and protect the validity of trust funds that we set up and
not redo them without adequate debate or an actual vote on the trust
fund that we are violating. We have done that on a couple of other
trust funds as well.
One of the ones that we also did was to impose an additional tax on
those
[[Page 13572]]
companies that have private pension funds, because we have a Pension
Benefit Guaranty trust fund that is designed so that if a company goes
out of business a worker who works for one of those businesses will get
at least 60 percent of what they were supposed to get in their
retirement. That is why it is called the Pension Benefit Guaranty trust
fund. We increased the amount that had to be put in by $80 per employee
for each of the companies involved, and that was going to the trust
fund to make sure those funds would be available. But we diverted those
funds before they got to the trust fund because the actual money could
be replaced by bonds in the drawer of the trust fund. That money went
to highways, and that is just another example of how we are taking
money from 10 years' worth of trust funds and using it for 2-year
projects. We have to change that, and my amendment will be one of the
ways of making that change.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Does the distinguished Senator from Utah seek
recognition?
Mr. HATCH. I was told 6 p.m.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The Senator from Utah may proceed, if he wishes.
Mr. HATCH. How long will the Senator from Rhode Island take?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I will take approximately 20 minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after the Senator from
Utah, Mr. Hatch.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my gracious colleague. He is one of the better
people here, and I have a great friendship with him as well. I
appreciate it.
Patent Trolls
Mr. President, I rise to speak about the importance of our patent
system and how it continues to be abused by patent trolls.
Most Members in this body are fully aware of the crippling effect
patent trolls are having on innovation and growth upon all areas of our
economy--ranging from Main Street businesses to America's largest
technology companies. Through abusive and meritless litigation, patent
trolls--often shell companies that do not make or sell anything--extort
settlements from innovators throughout the country.
How do they do it? Take, for example, the small coffee shop down the
street that provides Wi-Fi service to its customers. The shop owners
are using a technology exactly as it is intended to be used, but
thousands of miles away a patent troll purchases broad patents
previously issued to someone else. Next, the patent troll sends vague
and hostile demand letters to the coffee shop, and thousands of similar
businesses, accusing them, often improperly, of infringing their
questionable patents.
Many trolls target small businesses that they hope will agree to
settle even though they have done nothing wrong simply because they do
not have the resources to defend themselves in court. These settlements
divert capital that could otherwise be used for research and
development or to create jobs. In many cases, it costs around $2
million to fight one of these cases. So they are forced into settling
with whatever they can pay rather than doing what they would hope to
do; that is, prove that there was an unmeritorious claim.
The sad reality is that many businesses often have little choice
other than to settle rather than to expend the far greater resources
required to fight them in court. Those who do fight back are forced to
spend millions in litigation costs, often with no chance of enforcing a
court-ordered award against a judgment-proof plaintiff.
How big of a problem is this? Mr. James Bessen, writing in the
Harvard Business Review, confirms that ``the economic burden of today's
patent lawsuits is, in fact, historically unprecedented. Research shows
that patent trolls cost defendant firms $29 billion per year in direct
out-of-pocket costs; in aggregate, patent litigation destroys over $60
billion in firm wealth each year.''
Mr. Bessen further cites three studies on patent lawsuits currently
in the works by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Rutgers, Harvard, and the University of Texas. Based upon
preliminary findings, Mr. Bessen states:
A consistent picture is emerging about the effects of
patent litigation: it costs innovators money; many innovators
and venture capitalists report that it significantly impacts
their businesses; innovators respond by investing less in
R&D; and venture capitalists respond by investing less in
startups.
I agree with Mr. Bessen. The evidence from these studies cannot be
ignored. Patent trolls do hurt innovation, and it is past time for
Congress to do something about it.
For the better part of a year, Congress worked toward a legislative
solution to combat patent trolls. In December we overcame the first
legislative hurdle when the House of Representatives passed the
Innovation Act by a vote of 325 to 91. The White House endorsed the
bipartisan legislation by stating: ``The bill would improve incentives
for future innovation while protecting the overall integrity of the
patent system.''
Here in the Senate, I worked closely with a bipartisan group of
Senators to craft a compromise bill that could pass the Senate.
Countless hours of negotiation yielded encouraging results on key
litigation reform provisions, including fee shifting, heightened
pleading and discovery standards, and a mechanism to ensure that
recovery of fees will be possible against shell companies.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, my Republican colleagues and I were
willing--albeit very reluctantly--to lower the bar on fee shifting if
we maintained strong litigation reforms elsewhere. I continue to
believe mandatory fee shifting is the best way to discourage patent
litigation in cases where a plaintiff's or defendant's case is so weak
it should never have been brought or defended in the first instance.
That is why I included mandatory fee shifting in the Hatch-Leahy Patent
Reform Act of 2006 and why I will insist on its inclusion in future
legislation.
Fee shifting alone gives a prevailing party little relief against
patent trolls who litigate in the name of shell companies while their
financial backers or interested parties purposefully remain beyond the
court's jurisdiction.
Thus, there must be a mechanism to ensure that recovery of fees will
be possible even against judgment-proof shell companies. The recovery
of award provision I drafted is intended to ensure that shell companies
primarily in the business of asserting and enforcing patents and
litigation cannot escape potential liability for attorneys fees if they
are found to have pursued an unreasonable case. Those deemed interested
parties may either voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction and
become liable for any unsatisfied fees awarded in the case or opt out
by renouncing sufficient interest related to the litigation or do
nothing.
In my view fee shifting without such a recovery provision is akin to
writing a check on an empty account. You are purporting to convey
something that is not there. Fee shifting, coupled with this recovery
provision, would stop patent trolls from litigating and dashing--
dashing away, I might say.
There is no question that America's ingenuity fuels our economy. We
must ensure that our patent system is as strong and vibrant as
possible, not only to protect our country's premier position as a world
leader in innovation but also to secure our own economic future.
Patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to
invent, invest in, and of course develop new technology.
It bears repeating that the governance of patents and copyrights is
one of the essential, specifically enumerated powers given to the
Federal Government and our Nation's founding. In my view it is one of
the most visionary, forward-looking provisions in the entire U.S.
Constitution. Unfortunately, at least in the 113th Congress, it is
unlikely that this body will act to end the abuses by patent trolls.
It is shameful that even intellectual property bills are now among
the latest
[[Page 13573]]
casualties of our current partisan gridlock.
As Senators prepare to return to their home States for the August
recess, I hope they will hear from people who represent the hotel,
restaurant, retail, real estate, financial services, and high-tech
industries--just to mention a few--about the urgent need to pass patent
troll legislation.
I hope Senators will be reminded about the opportunity the Senate
abandoned to pass important bipartisan, bicameral legislation that was
supported by the White House but pulled from the Senate's agenda by the
majority leader.
I hope Senators will recognize we must end the multibillion-dollar
assault on American businesses and workers--because that is what it is.
Through commonsense reforms to our patent laws, we can ensure that
American resources are used to innovate and create jobs and not wasted
to settle or litigate frivolous claims.
I am disappointed that during the 113th Congress the Senate has
failed to act to address this critical challenge. Legislation to combat
abusive patent litigation will be among my top priorities in the next
Congress. I intend to do everything in my power to get such legislation
passed for the good of the economy and the good of this country.
Israel
Mr. President, I rise to speak out in strong support of Israel's
right to self-defense. This is not a partisan issue. Whether Republican
or Democrat, we should all stand behind America's loyal ally as it
faces Hamas's cowardly terrorism. In this time of frequent domestic
political division, it is encouraging to witness the remarkable degree
of unanimity among my colleagues on this issue.
The wide support for Israel's self-defense here in Congress reflects
the unique bond between the United States and Israel. It is an interest
we share for many reasons, including our kinship with Israel as a free
society and a democracy, our close economic and cultural ties,
especially for those of us who consider support for Israel a deeply
spiritual matter, our respect for the many virtues of the Israeli
society--from its industriousness to its tolerance--our appreciation
for Israel's unique stability in an unstable region full of failed and
stressed states, and our recognition that Israel wants nothing more
than to live in peace with its neighbors.
When Hamas fires constant rocket barrages indiscriminately at
Israel's cities and seeks to infiltrate Israel with teams of murderers
and kidnappers, Israel has every right to defend itself against this
terrorist threat.
In the realities of urban warfare against a guerrilla opponent, some
civilian casualties are unavoidable. But in its military actions,
Israel has acted with admirable and unprecedented concern for
Palestinian civilians--making phone calls, sending text messages,
dropping leaflets to warn of impending attacks against military
targets, aborting critical airstrips to avoid civilian casualties, and
undertaking numerous other measures to protect Palestinian civilians,
even at the expense of Israeli military objectives.
While the Israeli Defense Forces act with great courage not only to
protect Israeli civilians but also to avoid harming Palestinian
civilians, what does Hamas do?
Similar to all terrorists, they hide behind civilians--building
bunkers and tunnels to protect its fighters but refusing to shelter
civilians; using civilian buildings, including schools, hospitals, and
places of worship, to launch rockets and hide other weapons; and even
ordering civilians to ignore Israeli warnings and instead turning them
into human shields.
In the face of this barbarism, Israel deserves our strongest support
as it seeks to root out the infrastructure of terror Hamas has built in
and around Gaza. The Israeli people have a right to live free from fear
of constant rocket attack. While we should applaud the success of the
Iron Dome system in protecting Israeli citizens from the Hamas rocket
threat, Israel is acting responsibly by seeking to eliminate the means
by which Hamas perpetuates that threat.
Above all else, we must recognize that supporting Israel is truly
about supporting peace in the Middle East. Israel wants peace--not
peace at any price but a just, secure, and enduring peace. As long as
Hamas terrorists hate Israel more than they love their own children--to
paraphrase Golda Meir--Israel must occasionally resort to force of arms
in self-defense. In this endeavor our ally deserves our strongest
support.
I thank my dear colleague from Rhode Island for allowing me to
proceed on these two short but very important sets of remarks. I
appreciate that and wish him well in every way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The distinguished Senator from Utah is one of the
most distinguished and ablest lawyers ever to serve in this Senate, and
his comments about the patent trolls and patent litigation are entitled
to great weight.
I thoroughly agree with him that the use of these shell corporations
is something we could and should act quickly to get rid of. I think the
protection of an end user, such as a coffee shop or a florist or
somebody who is not a competitor with a manufacturer or the patent
holder, is something we could and should address. I think policing
these often extortionate demand letters is something we could and
should address. I look forward to working with the distinguished
Senator in those areas.
I think when it comes to fee-shifting, that is a very significant
step. The principle in the American system of justice that a party pays
his or her own lawyer is so deeply engrained in our system of justice
that it is actually known as the American rule. To depart from that is
something that I think we should do only with a very--let's put it this
way. It is a very grave step and I am not sure it is justified in this
case. But certainly we could move on the bill that got rid of shell
corporations, that protected end users, and that went after these
demand letters, and get into conference and, with any luck, something
could be done there. But I very much appreciate Senator Hatch's long
and sincere interest in this issue.
Mr. HATCH. I wish to thank my colleague for those comments.
Global Warming
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today for the 76th time to urge
my colleagues that it is time for us to wake up to the growing threats
of climate change. Not a single State remains unaffected by the
unprecedented changes we are already seeing, driven by the excessive
carbon pollution we continue to dump into our oceans and atmosphere.
Yet in Washington, our Republican colleagues either parrot the
polluter line that climate change is just a hoax, or stay silent. No
one will step forward.
It was not always this way. Environmental protection was once a top
priority of the Republican Party. It seems remarkable now, but it is
true. In the early 1970s, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and
the Endangered Species Act were all passed with broad bipartisan
support and signed by a Republican President. In the 1980s and 1990s,
bipartisan majorities voted to strengthen those laws, led by Rhode
Island's Republican Senator, John Chafee, who served as chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee and whose seat I now have the
honor to hold.
Conservation and stewardship were once fundamental principles of
American conservatism. From seminal thinkers of the conservative
movement to great Republican leaders of the 20th century, the
conservative ideal included a commitment to the interests of future
generations. Today, under a relentless barrage of unlimited corporate
spending in our elections, much and perhaps most of it by polluters,
the interests of future generations have taken a backseat to the
interests of the oil companies and coal barons.
The disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision let polluters
cast their dark shadow over Republicans in Congress who might otherwise
work with Democrats on curbing their carbon pollution.
[[Page 13574]]
Edmund Burke, an Irish-born member of the British Parliament, is
considered by many the father of modern conservatism. Sir Winston
Churchill called him ``a foremost apostle of liberty.'' Burke was a
staunch defender of our American Colonies and his statue stands here in
Washington today. His 1790 conservative manifesto, ``Reflections on the
Revolution in France,'' cautioned that we are but ``temporary
possessors'' of our society. If individuals are ``unmindful of what
they have received from their ancestors or of what is due to their
posterity,'' he wrote, ``no one generation could link with another. Men
would become little better than flies of summer.''
In our case, flies of a carbon-fueled summer.
Russell Kirk was a distinguished scholar at the Heritage Foundation
who none other than President Ronald Reagan dubbed ``the prophet of
American conservatism.'' He wrote a 1970 piece for the Baltimore Sun:
``Conservation Activism Is a Healthy Sign.'' Kirk wrote: ``Nothing is
more conservative than conservation.''
The noted essayist and Kentucky farmer Wendell Berry, known for what
the American Conservative magazine called his ``unshakeable devotion to
the land, to localism, and to the dignity of traditional life,'' wrote
in 1993:
Our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship, or
stupid economics, or a betrayal of family responsibility; it
is the most horrid blasphemy.
Berry would also remind us in this Chamber that ``[w]hether we and
our politicians know it or not, Nature is a party to all our deals and
decisions, and she has more votes.''
No figure in American history embodied the conservative value of
conservation more than President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt resented
the ``malefactors of wealth,'' as he called them, the timber and mining
interests whose ``selfish and shortsighted greed seeks to exploit our
natural resources in such fashion as to ruin them and thereby to leave
our children and our children's children heirs only to an exhausted and
impoverished inheritance.'' To Roosevelt, this great land of ours was
the birthright of all Americans--past, present, and future--to be used,
to be sure, in achieving our destiny, but not wasted.
He wrote to Congress in 1907:
To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and
exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its
usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our
children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand
down to them.
That is a sentiment echoed by Republican Presidents throughout our
history, including President Dwight Eisenhower, whose 1961 farewell
address invoked this national legacy. Here is what he said:
As we peer into society's future, we--you and I, and our
government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today,
plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious
resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets
of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their
political and spiritual heritage.
Republican President Gerald Ford, who once worked actually as a
National Park ranger, said this in 1975:
We have too long treated the natural world as an adversary
rather than as a life-sustaining gift from the Almighty. If
man has the genius to build, which he has, he must also have
the ability and the responsibility to preserve.
And, of course, no one is more revered by today's Republican Party
than Ronald Reagan. His conservative credentials are unassailable and
GOP candidates for elected office strive mightily to out-Reagan each
other at every turn. In 1984, Reagan put this question to his fellow
Republicans:
What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one
who is committed to protecting and holding close the things
by which we live? . . . And we want to protect and conserve
the land on which we live--our countryside, our rivers and
mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. That is our
patrimony. That is what we leave to our children. And our
great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as
we found it or better than we found it.
President Ronald Reagan's words would make him a fringe liberal
candidate in today's extremist Republican Party.
In Congress, we have been boxed in by a barricade of special interest
propaganda and we refuse to admit the plain evidence piling up before
our eyes. We know with ever greater certainty what our carbon pollution
is doing to the climate, what it is doing to our atmosphere, what it is
doing to our oceans. And we know with ever greater certainty what that
means for the planet and future generations. What do Republicans in
Congress today have to say to our heirs, to our children and
grandchildren?
``Catastrophic global warming is a hoax,'' says one of my Republican
colleagues.
``It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination,'' says another.
A third dismisses the issue altogether, saying, ``A lot of this is
condescending elitism.'' That is the voice of today's Republican Party.
But what does the next generation have to say back to these
Republican voices of denial? More than half of young Republican voters
said they would describe a politician who denies climate change is
happening as ignorant, out of touch, or crazy--not my words, their
words in the poll: ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. That is what the
next generation says back to the Republican voices of denial.
Unfortunately, if one is a Republican in Congress today, it is more
likely than not that one either holds that view or is afraid to say
otherwise. According to one analysis, 58 percent of congressional
Republicans in the 113th Congress have denied or questioned the
overwhelming scientific consensus that the Earth's oceans and
atmosphere are changing in unprecedented ways, driven by our carbon
pollution. This includes, I am sad to report, every single Republican
member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. And
where there is not denial, there is silence.
Outside these barricaded walls, it is different. Outside Congress,
more and more Republicans acknowledge the threat of climate change and
call for responsible solutions. Former Members of Congress, free now
from the polluters' thrall, implore their colleagues to return to their
conservative principles. Former Representative Bob Inglis, for example,
invokes the tenets of conservative economics. Here is his quote:
If you're a conservative, it is time to step forward and
engage in the climate and energy debate because we have the
answer--free enterprise. . . . Conservatives understand that
we must set the correct incentives, and this should include
internalizing pollution and other environmental costs in our
market system. We tax income but we don't tax emissions. It
makes sense to conservatives to take the tax off something we
want more of, income, and shift the tax to something we want
less of, emissions.
Sherwood Boehlert and Wayne Gilchrest, former Republican
representatives from New York and Maryland, also argue for a market-
based approach to reducing carbon pollution. Here is what they said:
We could slash our debt by making powerplants and oil
refineries pay for the carbon emissions that endanger our
health and environment. This policy would strengthen our
economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, keep our skies
clean, and raise a lot of revenue.
Top advisors to former Republican Presidents have joined the chorus.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, Christine
Todd Whitman all headed the Environmental Protection Agency during
Republican administrations. They all recently testified before the
Environment and Public Works Committee that it is time to get serious
about climate change. Here is how they put it in a New York Times op-
ed. They wrote:
As administrators of the EPA under Presidents Richard M.
Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, we held
fast to common-sense conservative principles--protecting the
health of the American people, working with the best
technology available and trusting in the innovation of
American business and in the market to find the best
solutions for the least cost.
These former officials recognize both the wisdom of properly pricing
carbon and the truculence of the opponents who stand in the way of
progress. ``A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the
best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions,'' they say--``the best
path''--``but that is
[[Page 13575]]
unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. . . .'' I
would interject that political gridlock is the product of big-spending
polluters who profit from the gridlock that they create. But let me
continue with what the EPA Administrators said: ``But we must continue
efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our
planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world,'' they wrote,
``is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is
that there is no time to waste.'' Four Republican EPA Administrators.
One day folks are going to look back at this time and we are all
going to be judged very harshly with all the dread power that history
has to inflict on wrong. The polluters and their instruments will be
judged harshly, and the Republican Party will be judged harshly for
letting itself be led astray by polluters from its most basic
conservative values. Unless they step up, Republicans will leave--to
borrow language from Russell Kirk--``[t]he principle of real leadership
ignored, the immortal objects of society forgotten, practical
conservatism degenerated into mere laudation of private enterprise,
economic policy almost wholly surrendered to special interests.'' That
is about as good a description of where they are right now as I could
muster, and it comes from the conservative Russell Kirk.
We cannot do this alone, not with the numbers that we have.
Republicans and Democrats alike must approach this climate problem head
on with the full conviction of our ideals, but working together,
working in good faith, and working on a common platform of fact and
common sense to protect the American people and our American economy
from the looming effects of carbon pollution.
We must rise to our duty here and place our own natural resources,
our own American international reputation, and our legacy to future
American generations first, ahead of the poisonous influence of the
polluters that so dominates this debate now.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, thank you very much for recognizing
me.
I also wish to thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership on
environmental issues which are so immensely pressing and important for
our country, and I am proud and honored to join with him in that cause,
which he has helped to lead so often on the floor, but also privately
amongst our colleagues and in so many ways across the country. I hope
to continue our work together on that issue, and I thank him for
presiding now and for continuing that leadership.
Mr. President, I am speaking today, after listening to the people of
my State, on an issue that perplexes and challenges us in so many ways.
The situation on our southern border perplexes us because it is a
problem without easy or ready solutions. It is a challenge to America
in the resources that it requires and the spirit that it evokes. Our
resources are scarce. Our spirit and our inner strength are boundless.
Many have expressed to me in my State of Connecticut concerns about
those resources, about the limits on those resources, in facing a
seemingly endless challenge, as children come to our borders and
stretch the capacity of this Nation to accept them. I am sympathetic
with the folks who wonder whether we are capable, very simply, of
caring for these children--but I know we can--the children who are
coming here because of the humanitarian crisis they face in their
countries.
Our supplemental legislation, so ably guided by Senator Mikulski,
provides a path for providing the resources that are necessary. This
supplemental is a thoughtful and significant document that addresses
this situation without either breaking the bank or sacrificing American
values.
I am immensely impressed and inspired by the spirit that has been
evoked, again, among citizens of Connecticut in saying: We must care
for those individual children who need asylum because returning them to
the countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala would be a death
sentence for many of them. And we must respect our law which provides
for individual consideration and assessment of those children in
whether they deserve and need asylum and that status of fleeing
persecution and death that many of them, in fact, have faced in those
lands.
We must place those individuals, according to law, with their
families, if possible. Many of them have parents here, and the vast
majority have some family, moms and dads, aunts and uncles. They need
to be screened under the law. Their placement has to be in a safe and
secure home with people, in my view, who are here legally. That
screening has to be, as the law requires, to assure their safety and
security as children. The United States has a responsibility to follow
the law, and so do we as citizens and as lawmakers. As torn as we may
be, as conflicted as we may feel, as vehement as those conflicting
feelings may be felt and expressed by fellow citizens, let us uphold
the law and afford due process and individual consideration to those
children who, under the law, deserve that individual assessment,
individual treatment, individual consideration for the status of asylum
in this Nation.
People speak about these children as if they were a mass,
indistinguishable, a single societal challenge or problem. A Member of
the House of Representatives even referred to them as an ``invasion.''
What I saw at the border when I visited there with two of my
colleagues, Senator Hirono and Senator Murkowski, joined by a third,
Senator Cornyn, all friends and distinguished colleagues, hammered home
for me that these children are individuals and they should be treated
as such.
The vast outpouring of spirit and generosity in this country is
mirrored by countless organizations--we heard about them during our
visit--that want to help these children, want to volunteer and give of
themselves, their time, money, goods and services, everything from
blankets, to furniture, to pizza, to you name it. America is pouring
out its heart for these children.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to
Secretary Johnson and Commissioner Kerlikowske from Save the Children,
a Connecticut organization that has offered, very generously, its help
and support in very specific and concrete ways, along with a briefing
note that outlines what it perceives the children's needs at the border
to be.
Let's end one doubt: the need for and the urgent justification for
individual due process consideration and the full and adequate
screening of these children and a fair judicial proceeding. I would
describe just a few stories.
Girls are fleeing sexual violence at the hands of gangs in Honduras
and El Salvador. I will give just a few examples.
Ms. L was raped by more than a dozen gang members in Honduras. After
reporting the gang rape to police, her family began to receive death
threats.
There are only three shelters in Honduras for rape survivors, and two
of them actually operate as brothels. The one remaining shelter
declined to take Ms. L because it could not protect her or the other
shelter residents from gang violence. She had no choice but to flee
Honduras.
Carlita is a 13-year-old who fled gang violence in El Salvador. She
was kidnapped by the Zetas in Mexico, used for sex, and forced to be a
drug mule for them before escaping and ultimately reaching the United
States.
Ms. H survived multiple rapes in Honduras. After she fled she was
kidnapped by a Mexican gang and raped and tortured. She eventually
reached the United States.
Ms. N and Ms. O, ages 15 and 8, fled El Salvador. Their older female
cousins
[[Page 13576]]
had been forced to work as sex slaves for gang leaders. The gangs
threatened to kill Ms. N and were placed in removal proceedings.
Ms. E fled El Salvador when she was 8 years old. Gang members had
kidnapped her and two older sisters. The girl's mother did not want her
8-year-old daughter to suffer the same fate, so she arranged for her
daughter to be brought to the United States.
Many gangs use sexual violence as a part of the price or rent
demanded of girls.
Ms. X fled an area of El Salvador controlled by gangs. Her brother
was killed for refusing to join a gang that forcibly tried to recruit
him. She was raped by two men, became pregnant as a result, and then
was required to pay ``renta'' to the rapists, which increased over
time. She fled El Salvador and was attacked by Mexican robbers during
her journey, before arriving in the United States.
Many of these girls are victims of forced prostitution and human
trafficking. I have other stories that will be printed in the Record.
These stories come from personal experiences of advocates and others
who have interviewed them at length as well as our own officials. Many
of these girls are sexually assaulted during the treacherous journey
northward. Those stories are not imagined or fictionalize; they are
graphic and dramatic. Rape is so prevalent that many girls begin the
journey by taking birth control injections before they leave home from
Central America as a precaution against pregnancy.
I refer to these stories because they illustrate and illuminate the
need for a thoughtful humanitarian approach, especially to these young
girls whose stories are so real and so inspiring, not just in the
treacherous journey they overcome, not just in the torture and abuse
they suffer, but in the dignity and self-worth and strength and
resoluteness they continue to have. A thoughtful humanitarian approach
is what is required. It is the approach that this supplemental
exemplifies in providing resources.
There is an oath that doctors take: ``First do no harm.'' Let that be
the approach of this body in approving basic amounts of money, reduced
by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, so that it meets
appropriately and frugally the needs of these children to be placed in
humane circumstances with families who are screened for their safety
and security and their being here legally.
I will close with one last experience. In one interview I watched at
the border, I saw a 7-year-old girl crying quietly as she tried to
answer the questions of an armed border guard. The border guard did his
best. He was obviously caring in his approach. But neither his training
nor the experience of any border guard equips them really to play this
role with a 7-year-old-girl. They are in uniform, a police uniform,
which for this girl's whole life has meant fear, potential rape, bodily
harm. These children have learned from hard experience that that fear
is often justified. They are distrustful of adults generally and
authority figures in particular.
Nobody could watch this scene without feeling a sense of compassion
for those guards and, of course, most especially the girl, separated
from her family, sitting on a bench, her legs swinging free because she
was not big enough to reach the floor. The look on her face revealed
not just terror but a fervent desire to please, inspired by fear. She
could not communicate openly with the border guard.
What she needed was someone trained and equipped to elicit the facts
of her background, the reason she had fled, the motivation for her
escape, the facts and her feelings about it. That kind of individual
assessment is the reason we have the law passed by Congress in 2008,
unanimously. This Trafficking Victims Protection Act was designed for
these girls and boys coming from noncontiguous countries facing those
fears, those threatening conditions if they were to be returned. They
face a near certain death, many of them, if they are returned without
the individual assessment and consideration. Call it due process, call
it judicial, call it humane questioning--the title matters less than
what happens.
I know this Nation cannot be expected to rescue all of the children
of the world from all of the harsh and inhumane conditions they may
face. We are not limitless in our capacity to do good. But I know and I
believe we have the resources to do what is just and right under the
law considering every one of those children and every one of the
potential threats they face if they are returned to their countries.
It is an American value that we follow the rule of law, that we grant
asylum under the law to people who deserve it and need it. That much we
can do. I know we have the resources to do it. I believe we have the
will to do it. The heart of America and its citizens is big. We are a
big country. We are not limitless in our resources, but we are
boundless in our capacity for generosity and doing what is right.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Save the Children,
July 22, 2014.
Dear Secretary Johnson and Commissioner Kerlikowske: Like
you and your team, we are deeply concerned about the
thousands of unaccompanied minor children crossing our
southern border. To address the humanitarian crisis, I am
writing to offer our support and propose ways that Save the
Children can be of immediate assistance to improve the
conditions for children.
Save the Children has nearly a century of experience
working with displaced children around the world and has
responded to serve children in the face of every natural
disaster in the US for the past decade. In the US, we have
been a leading partner of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), supporting the needs of children. We have been
operating for the past month in McAllen, TX serving children
and mothers after their release from Customs and Border
Patrol (CBP) custody and have trained more than 80 FEMA Corps
members to begin offering basic child programming within the
CBP detention and overflow sites. However, we know we can do
more to improve the conditions and outcomes for these
children.
Your Rio Grande Valley CBP Team, under the leadership of
Chief Kevin Oaks, has been a great ally to us as we try to
support and assist in this unprecedented situation, offering
us tours and being open to dialogue about the needs of
children in their custody. However, he has been unable to
grant us permission to provide technical assistance and
professional child programming onsite without higher
authority--it is to you we appeal for this permission.
The conditions in which the children and mothers are being
detained are designed for accused criminals, not mothers and
children. Save the Children would like to work with you and
your team to be a part of the solution. We have the expertise
needed to give the children the unique support needed under
the current difficult circumstances.
I am writing to propose that Save the Children work with
you to immediately help improve conditions for children and
address children's urgent needs for care and mental health
supports. This would support the safety, protection and
wellbeing of the children--and it would relieve stress on the
CBP agents. All of these programs could be established at no
cost to you--or, if required through DHS/CBP policies and
procedures, Save the Children could be reimbursed for this
support.
Here is what Save the Children is proposing:
1. Save the Children is offering to immediately provide
care for the young children at the CBP detention sites,
including the new McAllen overflow site, while their cases
are being processed.
Save the Children would provide our Child-Friendly Spaces
program, a signature program that we use to support
children's mental health and safety in crisis in the U.S. and
around the world. This care would be customized to fit the
CBP space availability in each border detention site. We
would be able to provide basic programs directly in the
holding cells or in whatever space may be available. Our
teams are trained to provide this program in the U.S. and in
challenging, high-risk environments all over the world. For
example, we are currently providing this program in Iraq,
South Sudan, and the countries bordering Syria.
2. Save the Children is requesting your permission to
provide professional staff at each site that has FEMA Corps
members, whom we are now supporting to provide urgently
needed programming for children in custody. Our professional
staff would lead the work with children and provide ongoing
support and guidance to the FEMA Corps members while they are
in the CBP stations. This will help ensure that there is
consistent quality and safety for the children while they
participate in the program activities.
Through our partnership with FEMA, the Corporation for
National and Community
[[Page 13577]]
Service and FEMA Corps, this week, Save the Children is
training the FEMA Corps teams who are deployed to serve in
the CBP stations. Until now, the FEMA Corps members were not
trained to work with children and have not been supplied with
materials or program activities, specifically activities that
support children's emotional wellbeing. We know that many of
the children had arduous journeys at the hands of smugglers
and traffickers. The children need to receive psychosocial
support from the moment of their arrival to ensure their
wellbeing. Save the Children will be training and providing
ongoing technical support to the FEMA Corps members to help
them in their mission assignment to support the children in
CBP custody.
3. Save the Children is also offering to provide
psychosocial support programs to the CBP agents and their
families to help relieve their stress and support their
emotional wellbeing during this crisis. We know that many of
the border agents are heavily stressed by this crisis. By
supporting the psychosocial and mental health needs, and the
needs of their families, you will help ensure their longer-
term wellbeing. I am attaching a fact sheet about our Journey
of Hope program.
4. Save the Children is offering to distribute comfort kits
to the mothers and children. We have customized the kits to
be age appropriate for mothers, infants and toddlers, young
children and school-aged children. They include items such as
pacifiers, wipes, baby blankets, plush toys, and bilingual
storybooks. We would be happy to work with CBP to ensure that
the items provided meet with CBP security regulations. We are
ready to immediately provide 5,000 comfort kits for the
children, 1,000 infant and toddler kits, and 2,000 kits for
the mothers.
5. Save the Children is offering to conduct a multi-sector
assessment of needs and provide ongoing monitoring to ensure
the programs for children support CBP's mission and the
children's needs.
Save the Children is uniquely qualified to address the
needs of these children in collaboration with CBP and the
U.S. government during this crisis. We are reaching out
across all relevant federal and state agencies to both
advocate for the needs of these children and to offer our
support. Thank you again for your attention to this
humanitarian crisis and I appreciate your review of our
request to work with you and your team for the benefit of
all.
I look forward to working together,
Carolyn Miles,
President & CEO, Save the Children USA.
____
Briefing Note: Meeting the Needs of Children on the U.S. Border
The Crisis
For years, children and minors from Guatemala, Mexico, El
Salvador, Honduras and other Central American nations have
sought refuge in the United States. However, their numbers
have increased dramatically since late 2013 because of
violence, extreme poverty and other factors that make their
and their families' lives untenable. Between October 2013 and
May of this year, nearly 50,000 children, many unaccompanied
by a parent or guardian, arrived at the U.S. border. This is
a 92 percent increase from the prior year, according to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection. Projections suggest that the
number of children arriving will increase to between 60,000
and 90,000 by the end of 2014.
The Impact on Children
Children are always among the most vulnerable in any
emergency. Many of the children arriving at the border are
suffering from physical illnesses, diarrhea and dehydration,
and some have been victimized during their long and arduous
journey. They are in urgent need of protective adult care,
supportive supervision, medical and hygiene care, and
nutritious meals.
With intensive overcrowding at the border stations, reports
about sanitation and living conditions for children are
extremely disturbing. We have heard stories that children as
young as age six are being separated from their mothers for
days and kept in border detention sites that are ill-equipped
to meet the basic needs of children. Our staff in Texas has
also heard first-hand from women that they are fleeing
communities because of threats that have been made by gangs
to harm their families.
Recommendations
The large influx of migrants poses huge challenges for
local communities and Border Patrol agents charged with
protecting the border. Despite these challenges, it is
critical for local communities and U.S. government agencies
to:
Provide adequate sanitary conditions, and basic needs such
as food, water, blankets and places to sleep in the shelters,
detention centers and transit centers housing children;
Prevent traumatic separation of mothers from young children
where at all possible; and
Facilitate basic health services and mental health support
for children who are in need of psychosocial support.
NGOs like Save the Children have decades of experience in
addressing the needs of fleeing children in some of the
hardest hit areas of the world. In order to ensure that
children are receiving treatment and care that is up to
international standards, we urge the U.S. government to:
Allow NGOs with expertise in child protection issues to
gain access to border detention sites; and
Permit NGOs with expertise in child protection issues to
assess the needs of children and their families to devise
strategies that will ensure their well-being.
It is both important and obligatory under current U.S. and
international law to uphold the legal rights of children,
especially those with a possible claim to refugee status. To
this end, we ask the U.S. government to:
Provide unaccompanied children with adequate screenings and
a fair judicial process to ensure that they are not being
returned to life-threatening situations;
Uphold provisions in existing laws that provide due process
for unaccompanied children so that those with the right to
stay are not short-changed and lost in the shuffle; and
Ensure children and their families are made aware of their
legal protections and options.
Finally, any viable long term strategy must include a
robust effort to address the root causes for the surge and
not focus only on its symptoms. To this end, we request that
the U.S. government:
Dedicate funding to address issues of violence and poverty
that drive migration from the countries of origin and not
only on border security and deterrence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Children in Need
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am especially grateful to the senior
Senator from Connecticut for his words tonight and the challenge those
words present to us. We are grateful for his efforts to stand for
children.
I rise tonight to speak about children here in the United States. I
spoke earlier about issues that related to women and girls and children
generally in Afghanistan. But I wanted to highlight a report that came
out recently by one of the leading organizations in the country that
charts the well-being of children over time and advocates on their
behalf. The name of the organization that many here have heard of, I am
sure, is the Annie E. Casey Foundation--no relation to me--a foundation
that has made it its mission to advocate on behalf of children. We
cannot be an effective advocate--none of us--unless we chart their
progress and find out what is working. So I am going to briefly
summarize tonight the findings of the 2014 Kids County Report by the
Casey Foundation.
I have here at the lectern kind of a color-coded chart which I will
not hold up because I do not have an enlarged version of it. I will not
be able to have it printed in the Record.
I want to summarize it. Basically, what is in front of me is a
summary of various categories that the Annie E. Casey Foundation has
developed to chart the well-being of children. They separate the
comparisons into four sections, and then they determine whether over
time--whether it is over 4 or 5 years or over a longer period of time--
whether for children the indicators have worsened or improved. It is a
very basic set of metrics.
The categories they track for children are the following four
categories: first, economic well-being, and I will talk about some of
the indicators there; second, education; third, health; and fourth, a
category they call family and community.
The basic indicators for the entire United States--of course, they
have a breakdown for how the children in every State are doing on those
indicators. For example, in terms of what is getting better, we should
highlight and note when there are improvements made. I think the fact
that we have improvements on these indicators for children over time
indicates that public policy matters, what happens here in the Congress
matters, what happens across the country in nonprofit organizations and
advocacy organizations that fight every day for children and say over
and over again, as the advocates tell us, that children are not small
adults--we need specific strategies for children, whether it is for
health care or for early education or to make sure they get enough to
eat or to protect them from predators. Whatever the issue, we have to
have specific strategies for children.
[[Page 13578]]
Let's go through a couple of areas where there has been improvement--
not dramatic improvement, not enough improvement for us to say we have
achieved a measure of success on one metric and we can move on.
In the area of education, just by way of example, eighth grade
children--eighth graders not proficient in math, so it is kind of
almost a negative indicator the way it is phrased. In 2005, across the
United States, 72 percent of eighth graders were not proficient in
math--a very high number, 72 percent. When they looked at it again in
2013, it was down to 66. So it has improved by 6 percentage points, but
thankfully it is moving in the right direction. But we can't be
satisfied with 66 percent of eighth graders not--not--proficient in
math, but it is good news it is moving in the right direction.
Another bit of good news and maybe a more urgent issue in terms of
what happens to very young children--in this case, low birth weight
babies--there is an improvement there from 2005 to 2012. So over 7
years, the percentage of low birth weight babies, according to this
data, has gotten better, but the unfortunate part is it only went from
8.2 percent to 8 percent--not much of an improvement but an
improvement.
We have a long way to go in the greatest country in the world when we
say that there has been an improvement but still 8 percent of babies
are low birth weight. So there is an improvement, but there is a lot
more work to do.
Maybe the best area indicator of improvement--and then I will move on
to areas where there has been a worsening--children without health
insurance. We hear a lot of discussion about health insurance, health
care, and the Affordable Care Act in Congress, but in 2008 when that
measurement was taken, 18 percent of children did not have health care.
So in 2008 it was 10 percent, and as of 2012 it is down to 7 percent.
So there is a substantial diminution or reduction in the number of
children without health insurance. But if we do the math, 7 percent of
the children of the country don't have health insurance. That is a big
number. So it is getting better, substantially better, better than
almost any other metric in terms of growth or progress, but we have to
do a lot more to make sure that it is not 7 percent--that number should
be zero--make sure that every child has health insurance. That has to
be the goal, and that has to be what we are determined to achieve in
the Senate.
I will go through a couple of areas that have worsened, but
thankfully, of what is 16 categories, there are more improvement
categories than worsening categories. Unfortunately, we have to go
through some of the areas where it is worse.
One that is particularly disturbing is children in poverty. That has
worsened between the years 2005 and 2012--19 percent in 2005 was the
percentage of children in poverty. As of 2012 that went up to 23
percent. So prior to the great recession and then some time after the
recession ended, the 2012 number was 23 percent. So that is a worsening
number, and it should give us not just pause, but it should be an
impetus to action to reduce that number--23 percent of the children in
the country in poverty as of 2012. Children whose parents lack secure
employment--that number got worse. Children living in households with
high-housing-cost burden--that number got worse, unfortunately.
I will give two more, and then I will conclude my remarks. Children
in single-parent families--that number got worse between 2005 and 2012.
Finally, children living in high-poverty areas--that was measured over
a different time period--2000 versus a time period between 2008 and
2012. That number got worse as well.
What this report indicates--and I won't go through the State
numbers--is that first and foremost we have to keep records and we have
to track progress. But it also indicates that even when there is an
improving metric, when the numbers are getting better, say, for
example, on low birth weight babies, that improvement is in many cases
very slight and not nearly adequate or acceptable.
I think both on the worsening numbers and on the improvement numbers,
it should be a call to action. I believe that if we are doing the right
thing for our children, if we are living up to what the Scriptures tell
us about justice, where the Scriptures talk about ``Blessed are they
who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied,'' if we
think of how we treat children as a measure or as an indicator of
justice and our commitment to justice, we cannot say that these numbers
are in any way acceptable, that our hunger and our thirst for that kind
of justice cannot be satisfied with these numbers.
We should be committed to not just tracking and making marginal or
incremental progress, we should be committed to the full measure of
justice for our children.
Hubert Humphrey said--and he may have said it on this floor when he
represented Minnesota--``It was once said that the moral test of a
government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of
life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly;
and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the
handicapped.'' He said that was the moral test of a government.
So if we are talking about what Humphrey said about children in the
dawn of their life, we have to reflect upon and be motivated by the
findings of the Annie E. Casey Foundation report. It is one of those
reports that remind us how we can improve when it comes to the well-
being of our children, but it also reminds us and I think alarms us
about areas where we have not improved and we have a ways to go.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
President's emergency supplemental request of $615 million to fight
wildfires throughout the United States.
We have witnessed increasingly large and devastating wildfires over
the last few decades.
Nationwide, the costs of fighting wildfires has increased from $200
million in 1986 to $1.7 billion in 2013. In that same time, the amount
of acres burned has increased from 2.7 million acres in 1986 to 4.3
million acres in 2013.
In many parts of the U.S., fire seasons are now 60 to 80 days longer
compared to three decades ago and in some places like Southern
California, the fire season never ends.
This is leading to seasonal firefighters being hired several months
earlier than normal and federal agencies spending more to make sure our
firefighters are prepared and have the necessary resources available
for the entire year.
So far this year, California has experienced a 35 percent increase in
fire activity and a 16 percent increase in acres burned over an average
year. These alarming statistics translate to more than 4,000 wildfires
in my State already that have burned more than 52,000 acres since the
beginning of the year.
Right now, brave firefighters in California are battling five
different large fires. The largest is the Sand Fire, which has burned
over 4,000 acres east of Sacramento. This fire has already destroyed 19
homes.
Although it has already been an unprecedented fire season in
California, we are not at all out of danger yet as the significant
wildland fire potential remains above normal for most of the State
through October of this year. It is also above normal in Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and parts of Arizona.
Adding to the difficulty of battling these enormous fires is the
constrained fire suppression budget we are currently operating under.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Interior announced that wildfire-fighting costs this
summer are projected to run about $400 million over budget.
In fact, since 2002, the United States has overspent its wildfire
suppression budget every year except one--and in three of those years,
went over the suppression budget by nearly $1 billion. This chronic
underfunding of our firefighting accounts cannot continue.
[[Page 13579]]
When we fail to budget for fire suppression, the Forest Service and
the Department of Interior are forced to transfer money from fire
prevention accounts to make up the difference. That makes no sense!
We are taking money from the very programs that help reduce the
threat of wildfires--such as hazardous fuel removal programs.
In my State, plans to remove dry brush and dead trees in the Tahoe
National Forest and the Plumas National Forest have been delayed
because wildfire prevention funding is not available.
The President's supplemental request not only adds funding for fire
suppression during this fiscal year, it solves the problem in the
future by creating a Wildfire Suppression Cap Adjustment so that
extraordinary fire costs are treated in the same way as destructive
hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes are funded.
This means that money to fight the largest fires would not be subject
to discretionary budget caps much like FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund.
As our fire seasons become longer, hotter, and endanger more
communities, we must act now to change how wildfire suppression is
funded so that we can reduce fire risk and increase the resiliency of
the Nation's public lands, forests, and the surrounding communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this emergency supplemental funding
and address the growing crisis of wildfires.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. 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. CASEY. 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 each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
KELLOGG-HUBBARD LIBRARY
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, every time I go by the children's library
at Kellogg-Hubbard Library in my hometown of Montpelier, VT, it brings
back happy memories. I would like to have printed in the Record an
article 1 wrote about the library and its wonderful librarian, Miss
Holbrook.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Times Argus, June 13, 1996]
Montpelier Boy Realizes Miss Holbrook Was Right
(By Patrick Leahy)
The 100th anniversary of the Kellogg-Hubbard Library
triggers memories for all of us who have lived in Montpelier.
And they are great memories.
While I was growing up, Montpelier did not have television.
We children did not have the advantage of cable TV with 10
channels giving us the opportunity to buy things we didn't
need and would never use or another 10 offering blessings or
redemptions for an adequate contribution.
Deprived as we were, we made do with the Lone Ranger and
Inner Sanctum on the radio and Saturday's serials at the
Strand Theater on Main Street. For a few minutes on Saturday
afternoon, we could watch Hopalong Cassidy, Tarzan, Flash
Gordon, Jungle Jim or Batman face death-defying predicaments
that would guarantee you would be back the next Saturday, 14
cents in hand, to see how they survived (and I recall they
always did).
Having exhausted radio, Saturday matinees, the latest comic
books (I had a favorite) and childhood games and chores, we
were left to our own imagination.
That was the best part.
We were a generation who let the genies of our imagination
out of the bottle by reading. Then, as now, reading was one
of my greatest pleasures.
My parents had owned the Waterbury Record Weekly newspaper
and then started the Leahy Press in Montpelier, which they
ran until selling it at their retirement. The Leahy family
was at home with the printed word and I learned to read early
in life.
At 5 years old I went down the stairs of the Kellogg-
Hubbard Children's Library, and the years that followed
provided some of the most important experiences of my life.
In the '40s and '50s, the Kellogg-Hubbard was blessed with
a white-haired children's librarian named Miss Holbrook. Her
vocation in life had to be to help children read and to make
reading enjoyable. She succeeded more than even she might
have dreamed.
She had the key to unlocking our imagination.
With my parents' encouragement, the Kellogg-Hubbard was a
regular stop every afternoon as I left school. On any day I
had two or three books checked out. My sister Mary, brother
John and I read constantly.
In my years as U.S. senator, it seems I never traveled so
far or experienced so much as I did as a child in Montpelier
with daily visits to the library. With Miss Holbrook's
encouragement I had read most of Dickens and Robert Louis
Stevenson in the early part of grade school.
To this day, I remember sitting in our home at 136 State
St. reading Treasure Island on a Saturday afternoon filled
with summer storms. I knew I heard the tap, tap, tap of the
blind man's stick coming down State Street and I remember the
great relief of seeing my mother and father returning from
visiting my grandparents in South Ryegate.
Miss Holbrook was right. A good and an active imagination
creates its own reality.
In my profession, I read computer messages, briefing
papers, constituent letters, legislation and briefings, the
Congressional Record--and an occasional book for pleasure--in
all, the equivalent of a full-length book each day.
Interesting as all this is, and owing much of my life to
those earlier experiences at the library, the truest reading
pleasure was then. I worry that so many children today miss
what our libraries offer.
During the past few years I have had many of my photographs
published. DC Comics and Warner Brothers have also asked me
to write for Batman or do voice-overs on their TV series. In
each case, I have asked them to send my payment to the
Kellogg-Hubbard Library to buy books for the Children's
Library.
It is my way of saying: ``Thank you, Miss Holbrook.''
____________________
RECOGNIZING RONALD McDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 30th
anniversary for two excellent charities in my home State of Kentucky,
the Ronald McDonald House Charities. The Ronald McDonald House
Charities of Kentuckiana in Louisville and the Ronald McDonald House
Charities of the Bluegrass in Lexington both first opened their doors
to needy families in 1984.
Since then, each house has served more than 25,000 families. In the
last year alone, more than 1,100 Kentucky families have spent nearly
15,000 nights in the two homes operated by these charities. The two
homes operate thanks to the generosity of Kentucky's McDonalds' owners,
a broad swath of Kentucky businesses, countless individual donors, and
the hundreds of thousands of hours given by tireless volunteers.
For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with the Ronald
McDonald House, it serves as a home away from home, at low or no cost,
for the families of children who are hospital patients. At a time when
a family is undergoing such a crisis as the illness of a child, infant,
or newborn, the last thing these families need to worry about is
finding housing near the hospital. The Ronald McDonald House eases that
need by providing a home away from home for families of children
receiving health care at area medical facilities while also lending
support to other organizations that aid children. Today there are 125
local chapters in 55 countries.
The Ronald McDonald House Charities of Kentuckiana first opened in
Louisville in September 1984. Since their most recent expansion in
2009, they feature 36 guest rooms, each accommodating up to four
people.
In 1992, the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Kentuckiana helped
pioneer one of the first Ronald McDonald Family Rooms in the world--a
smaller version of a Ronald McDonald House located inside a hospital so
a parent is only steps away from their seriously ill child. Today there
are Ronald McDonald Family Rooms in three Louisville hospitals.
The Ronald McDonald House Charities of the Bluegrass in Lexington
similarly opened their doors in 1984, and have since expanded to 20
rooms.
[[Page 13580]]
In 2005, through a partnership with the University of Kentucky, the
Ronald McDonald House Charities of the Bluegrass began the Ronald
McDonald Care Mobile to offer eastern Kentucky's children free
professional dental care and education aboard a state-of-the-art mobile
clinic. Centered in Hazard, KY, the Ronald McDonald Care Mobile cares
for underserved children in their own neighborhoods and schools.
Together, the Ronald McDonald House Charities of both Kentuckiana and
the Bluegrass have accomplished a great deal for the Commonwealth and
helped thousands of Kentucky families. Kentucky residents and
businesses are proud to have supported them for 30 years, and I know
will continue to do so for many years more. I want to thank the Ronald
McDonald House Charities of Kentuckiana and the Bluegrass for serving
as the home away from home for distressed families with a child in the
hospital for 30 years. Kentucky is proud of these institutions and the
many people behind them who make them work.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JIMMY RUSSELL
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend
and legendary Kentuckian, Wild Turkey Distillery's Master Distiller
Jimmy Russell. This year marks the 60th year Jimmy has been making
Bourbon for Wild Turkey, a fact that the distillery is rightfully proud
to celebrate. As a 60-year Bourbon veteran, Jimmy is the longest
tenured active spirits master distiller in the world.
Kentucky is, of course, the birthplace of Bourbon. The drink itself
is named for Bourbon County, KY, in the heart of the Bluegrass State,
where the product first emerged. Kentucky produces 95 percent of the
world's Bourbon supply, and Kentucky's iconic Bourbon brands ship more
than 30 million gallons of the spirit to 126 countries, making Bourbon
the largest export category among all U.S. distilled spirits. Not only
is Kentucky the overwhelming producer of the world's Bourbon, Bourbon
gives much back to Kentucky. It is a vital part of the state's tourism
and economy.
Jimmy grew up only 5 miles away from the Wild Turkey Distillery,
located in Lawrenceburg, KY. His passion for Bourbon led him to study
under whiskey luminaries, including Bill Hughes, Wild Turkey's second
master distiller; and Ernest W. Ripy, Jr., great-nephew of distillery
founder James Ripy and Wild Turkey's third master distiller. Jimmy
recalls being taken under Bill's wing and learning everything about the
business from the ground up. Since becoming master distiller in the
mid-1960s, he has traveled the world as an unofficial ambassador of
Bourbon, introducing people from as far and wide as Japan and Australia
to American's native spirit.
Over the past 60 years, Jimmy has been responsible for the launches
of several new Wild Turkey brands and expressions, such as Tradition,
Tribute, 17-year-old Wild Turkey for Japan, Rare Breed, American
Spirit, Kentucky Spirit and Russell's Reserve, which he cocreated with
his son and distilling partner Eddie Russell. Jimmy broke new ground in
1976 with the first honeyed Bourbon, at the time called Wild Turkey
Liqueur. The evolution of that product today is known as American
Honey. Jimmy is also responsible for overseeing the production of Wild
Turkey 101, the distillery's flagship brand. This fall, Wild Turkey
released a commemorative Diamond Anniversary limited-edition Bourbon
created by Jimmy's son, distilling partner and Bourbon Hall of Famer
Eddie Russell. As for Jimmy himself, he is known to enjoy his Bourbon
neat or with a touch of branch water.
As a legend in the distilled spirits industry, Jimmy is a member of
the Kentucky Bourbon Hall of Fame. He is a member of the Whiskey Hall
of Fame and a whiskey judge for the International Wine and Spirits
Competition. He has been honored by the Commonwealth of Kentucky
General Assembly, been anointed a Kentucky Colonel, and received the
key to the city from the mayor of Lawrenceburg.
When not hard at work at Wild Turkey, Jimmy spends time with his wife
Joretta. They have three children, Eddie, Mike, and Kathy, six
grandchildren and one great-grandchild. An avid sports fan, Jimmy is a
lifelong supporter of local Anderson County High School athletic
programs for girls and boys.
I want to congratulate Jimmy Russell for reaching his 60th
anniversary of work at Wild Turkey Distillery. His lifetime of
achievement in the distilled spirits industry is certainly something to
be proud of. I know my Senate colleagues join me in commending Jimmy
for decades of success.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MARCUS ADAMS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to SPC
Marcus Adams. Adams hails from Magoffin County, KY, and proudly served
his country on a tour of duty in Iraq.
Adams graduated from Magoffin County High School, and after his
freshman year in college he decided to enlist in the U.S. Army. Because
of the strong military tradition in his family--his father,
grandfather, and two uncles all served--he felt it was an easy decision
to carry on that legacy.
After completing his basic training and advanced individual combat
training, Adams was assigned to the 555th Engineer Brigade. In
September of 2008, he and his brigade were sent to Balad, Iraq, where
they would remain for the duration of their yearlong tour of duty.
In Iraq, Adams was responsible for all of his brigade's technology.
Managing the computer networks, servers, and radios were tasks that all
fell under his purview.
Adams is now happily back in his old Kentucky home with his wife
Ash'leigh and his son Alistair and will soon be joined by his first
daughter Hermione.
For his honorable service to this country, he is well deserving of
praise from this body. Therefore, I ask that my U.S. Senate colleagues
join me in honoring SPC Marcus Adams.
The Salyersville Independent recently published an article detailing
Adams' service in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that the full article
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Salyersville Independent, July 3, 2014]
Quick Decision Leads to Iraq
(By Heather Oney)
One ``drop of the hat'' decision took Marcus Adams all the
way to Iraq.
Adams, a graduate of Magoffin County High School, was 19
years old and had completed one year of college when he came
in one afternoon in February 2007 and told his wife,
Ash'leigh Nicole Prince Adams, he had joined the Army.
``There were no objections,'' Adams laughed. ``She stayed
in college at Morehead and I went to basic training.''
Adams said given his family's history, with his dad,
grandfather and two uncles serving in the military, it was a
no-brainer.
``With 9/11, I felt because everyone else in my family had
served, I felt the responsibility to at least do a minimum
tour,'' Adams said. ``I didn't feel productive in college and
the Army could give me steady employment and healthcare.''
Adams finished his basic training at Fort Jackson, South
Carolina, then his Advanced Individual Training (AIT) at Fort
Gordon, Georgia. He was then assigned to the 555th Engineer
Brigade, based out of Fort Lewis, Washington.
His primary job with the brigade, which he stayed in all
through his enlistment, was to be the computer guy, Adams
said. He was responsible for the computer networks, servers,
radios--any technology--the engineers needed.
In September 2008, only seven years after
9/11, Adams and his brigade were sent to Balad, Iraq, where
the team would stay a year.
``The War in the Middle East we have been engaged in for
the past 10-plus years is open-ended by its very nature,''
Adams said. ``In Vietnam, we had an actual bad guy, in
uniform and everything. In Iraq and Afghanistan, when the
enemy is terror, who is that? There's no way to define
victory.''
Despite recent developments in Iraq, Adams said, ``I'm
proud of the work we did. Less than 1 percent of U.S.
Americans ever serve in any capacity. The importance of
serving and the things I got from it turned me into the
person I am.''
Adams said the majority of the time he remained on base,
which was a former Iraqi Army base where temperatures got up
to 130 degrees in the day.
``It's hard to express how hot that is,'' Adams remembered.
[[Page 13581]]
He had one mission off-base, where he said he saw how big
the gap was between the poor and the rich in Iraq.
``Here, the poorest people get food stamps and aid,'' Adams
said. ``I've seen Iraqi men walking around bare naked,
picking up garbage, and the guys working with us are wearing
suits and eating lobster. We saw people working at a dump in
a junk-yard, building shelters out of it.''
While their truck was armored with additional plates, he
said a man threw a Russian RKG-3 anti-tank grenade between
the truck and the plate, causing damage to the truck, but no
one was hurt.
At one point Adams and a few other men received four-day
passes and they went to Doha, Qatar, to unwind. Located on
the Persian Gulf, Qatar is more of a tourist country, with
only 30 percent of the people in the country at any given
time actually being residents. Since they were there during
Ramadan, when it is illegal to be caught eating or drinking
during the daylight hours, Adams said they had to be careful
to stay hydrated. They would pull the curtains on the bus
they were traveling on and drank anyway in order to not
dehydrate in the well over 100-degree temperatures.
In September 2009, he came back to the states, getting to
travel all around the country. He worked in Fort Irwin,
California, twice, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Yakima
Training Center, Washington.
The hardest part, he said, was reintegrating with his wife.
``It's weird when you leave that long when you've been the
head of the household,'' Adams said. ``You have to leave and
hand it all over to her--the bills and all the decisions--and
when you come back, you try to come back in the same role,
but she's like, I've got this.''
Adams said for the first month back, all the soldiers had
to report for a daily briefing set up to help them with the
reintegration process, but he saw many dealing with
infidelity issues when they returned, as well as Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder.
``People can get really messed up and they used to just
tell us, `Suck it up and deal with it,' but I think they are
seeing now that's not the best policy.''
Thankfully, for him, he said they never had to deal with
either issue.
He could have gone to Afghanistan for another tour,
however, his contract would have had to be extended past the
usual six years. Since he was now the father of one, he took
the Army's offer for an early honorable discharge, leaving
three months early to be with his son. He was ranked as a
Specialist, under the E4 pay grade.
Marcus and Ash'leigh Adams have one son, Alistair Dean
Adams, who is three years old, and one daughter on the way
(at press time), Hermione Sue Adams.
____________________
CYPRUS
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in 1974, 40 years ago this month, Turkish
troops invaded the Republic of Cyprus. By August they had taken control
of more than one-third of the island. Turkey's invasion had immediate
consequences, such as the confiscation of property and the displacement
of Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike.
The invasion has also had more enduring consequences--consequences
that are still felt today. The so-called green line, a demilitarized
United Nations buffer zone, still cuts a jagged path across the island,
dividing one part of the country from the other. It even bisects the
capital city of Nicosia. In 1983, Turkish Cypriots declared a separate
country in the northern third of Cyprus--a country recognized to this
day by Turkey alone.
Vice President Joe Biden visited Cyprus in May, and he spoke of being
called the White House optimist for his belief that the best days are
yet to come. Well, by that standard, my colleagues here must think me
the Senate optimist. But I really do believe that the future is bright
for Cyprus and that most Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots want to
put aside decades of division and move forward together.
I was pleased to read that leaders issued a joint declaration in
February calling the status quo ``unacceptable'', and I am encouraged
by the resumption of high-level negotiations on a comprehensive
settlement. I think the United States, with its deep ties to Cyprus and
Turkey, can play a productive role in facilitating these discussions. I
also urge the Government of Turkey to step up and be a constructive
partner throughout this process.
It has been my experience that intractable problems rarely have
simple or easy solutions, so I am not under any illusions about this.
But I have seen what folks can accomplish when they set ideology aside,
and I remain a believer in a just settlement that brings an end to 40
years of division and reunites Cyprus.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the Helsinki
Commission, I wish to draw attention to the fact that July 20 marked
the 40th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus by a Turkish army.
Sadly, this year also marks more than 50 years since a power-sharing
arrangement between the two communities on Cyprus collapsed following
independence from Britain. As the situation in the eastern
Mediterranean and the wider Middle East is becoming more volatile and
fragile, it is time to end the forcible division of Cyprus, which has
endured for far too long.
The continued presence of Turkish troops in the northern part of
Cyprus exacerbates a number of human rights concerns including property
restitution, restrictions on freedom of worship, and damage to
religious and archeological sites. I have consistently raised these
concerns and want to emphasize that all religious sites in the north
must be protected.
It is gratifying that the Government of Cyprus remains fully
committed to the U.N.-sponsored process to reach a sustainable and
enduring settlement that would reunify Cyprus based on a bizonal,
bicommunal federation in accordance with relevant U.N. Security Council
resolutions.
The joint statement agreed to by Greek Cypriot President Anastasiades
and Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu on the island in February of
this year lays a solid foundation for results-oriented talks. The basic
parameters for a solution laid out in the statement should be fully
respected.
I applaud the efforts of both leaders to move this process forward.
Following the signing of the joint statement in February, President
Anastasiades called the chance for peace a ``win-win situation.'' ``I
believe that a solution that would be accepted by the Greek Cypriots
would create stability in the region. Greater cooperation with Turkish
Cypriots will contribute to foster growth . . . to do that you have to
have a settlement that is not at the expense of one community or to the
benefit of the other,'' he said.
After meeting in April with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon,
Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu said that during negotiations with
Greek Cypriot President Anastasiades, ``we'll try to bridge our
differences and find a comprehensive settlement in the shortest
possible time.'' ``We can finalize a settlement and take it to a
separate simultaneous referenda in 2014.''
Many observers believe the discovery of vast offshore oil and natural
gas reserves in the eastern Mediterranean could be a game changer in
pressing negotiations forward and could potentially also act as a
stabilizing and unifying factor in the eastern Mediterranean. The
cheapest and most expeditious way of exporting the reserves, discovered
first by Israel and then by Cyprus, would be through an underwater
pipeline to Turkey. I certainly hope this potential for economic
empowerment for all of the people of Cyprus will help both communities
to visualize and then implement a final settlement.
In keeping with the numerous U.N. resolutions on Cyprus and the
principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, it is time for Turkey
to remove its troops from the island. The people of Cyprus cannot wait
another 40 years for reconciliation.
____________________
MONHEGAN, MAINE QUADRICENTENNIAL
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in 1614, 6 years before the Pilgrims
landed at Plymouth, Captain John Smith--explorer, soldier, navigator,
and adventurer--landed at Monhegan Island off the coast of Maine. I
wish to commemorate the 400th anniversary of that discovery and to
congratulate the people of a truly remarkable community as they
celebrate their quadricentennial.
In the very first sentence of his remarkable journal of that voyage,
Captain Smith names the ``Isle of
[[Page 13582]]
Monhegan,'' the Wabanaki Indian word for ``island of the ocean.'' In
reference to the shared latitude with his home country, he coined the
term ``New England.''
As the Wabanaki had known for centuries, the fish were plentiful. In
addition, Captain Smith used the stands of timber to make small boats
to explore the inlets and rivers on the mainland coast. So, Monhegan
can rightly claim to be the birthplace of three industries that built
the State of Maine--fishing, boatbuilding, and logging.
Certainly, there were disappointments. The whales proved elusive, and
the gold Captain Smith sought was nonexistent. But the potential was
everywhere.
In addressing the question of what it would take to settle the
untamed region, the captain's log contains these lines that define
Monhegan today. It would take, Captain Smith wrote, ``the best parts of
art, judgment, courage, honesty, constancy, diligence, and industry.''
Maine's island communities are an essential part of our State's
identity. They survive and thrive because of the qualities Captain
Smith so wonderfully described.
The island's lobster industry is a shining example. More than 90
years ago, long before conservation was a watchword, Monhegan's
lobstermen voluntarily established their own ban on harvesting small
lobsters. To the list of Monhegan's firsts--fishing, boatbuilding, and
logging--we can add lobster management.
By mutual agreement, rather than government edict, Monhegan
lobstermen set trap limits to prevent overfishing. They established
their own management zone to ensure that this generations-old fishery
will sustain the generations to come. Most remarkable of all is the
tradition of Trap Day, now October 1, when all boats, captains, and
crews wait for each other and head to their fishing grounds together at
the crack of dawn. The ethic that ``no one goes until everyone goes''
is the very definition of community.
For more than a century, Monhegan also has been a magnet for artists.
In 1902, Samuel Triscott became the first artist to live there year-
round, and he found the subject matter enticing enough to stay the rest
of his life, nearly one-quarter century. From Rockwell Kent to Andrew
and Jamie Wyeth, this singular place has inspired some of the best
artists to create their greatest work.
There is no question that the magnificent scenery is part of the
attraction. But as we look at the powerful works of art the island has
inspired, it is clear that the people of Monhegan, their judgment,
courage, honesty, constancy, diligence, and industry, enhance the
natural beauty of the island so that it represents something more
profound than crashing surf on rocky shores.
Captain Smith concluded his journal of that voyage four centuries ago
with these words: ``We are not born for ourselves, but each to help the
other. Let us imitate the virtues of our predecessors to be worthily
their successors.'' Those words are fitting for a celebration of the
past that looks with confidence to the future, and I congratulate the
people of Monhegan, Maine, on this landmark anniversary.
____________________
CAMPOBELLO INTERNATIONAL PARK
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I wish to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of Roosevelt Campobello International Park. This beautiful
and historic park preserves the summer home that Franklin Delano
Roosevelt enjoyed both as a boy and as president. It was established by
treaty between the United States and Canada and is the only memorial to
an American president on Canadian soil.
The 2,800-acre park on Campobello Island, New Brunswick, was opened
on August 20, 1964, by Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson and
American President Lyndon Johnson. It is jointly owned and managed by
both countries and is a beautiful and historic testament to a legacy of
friendship. Like all true friendships, the friendship commemorated at
Roosevelt Campobello International Park is based not upon expedience or
self-interest, but upon shared values.
It is a legacy of friendship between two men: one of America's
greatest presidents and one of Canada's greatest prime ministers.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Mackenzie King could not have been more
dissimilar in personality--one gregarious and outgoing, the other
reticent and intensely private--yet they saw beyond the superficial
traits and into the depths of character. Together, they led their
nations out of the Great Depression. Together, they led their nations
through the Second World War and made North America the arsenal of
democracy so crucial to victory. Although only one lived to see the
peace, together they forged an alliance that has allowed that peace to
endure.
It is a legacy of friendship between two communities. By land,
Campobello Island is accessible only from Lubec, ME, our Nation's
easternmost town, via the FDR Memorial Bridge, itself a stunning
example of international cooperation and friendship. The people of
eastern Maine and western New Brunswick share a past, a present, and
the future. They are bound together by a rugged yet rewarding way of
life, by personal and family ties, by commerce and by mutual
assistance. They earn their livelihoods from the land and from the sea,
and they care for this special place so that those livelihoods may
continue for generations to come.
It was at Campobello, his ``beloved island,'' that young Franklin
Roosevelt learned to guide a sailboat through the challenging Lubec
Narrows and developed the inner strength and self-reliance that enabled
him to meet any challenge. Among the proud and determined people on
both shores of the narrows, he felt the power of committed individuals
working together in common cause.
In 1933, during his first return visit as President, with First Lady
Eleanor at his side, FDR recalled his happy childhood memories and
again thanked the islanders who taught him to sail. Then, in words that
still ring true today, he described the region as, ``The finest example
of friendship between Nations--permanent friendship between nations--
that we can possibly have.''
The United States and Canada share the world's longest undefended
border, a common history and culture. In trade, we are each other's
best customers. We are, as one of the park's permanent exhibits
declares, ``Good Neighbours--Best Friends.''
George Washington wrote that, ``True friendship is a plant of slow
growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity.'' The
friendship between the United States and Canada is the hardiest of
plants with the deepest of roots. The adversities are but minor shocks;
they are no match for the values of freedom, human rights and the rule
of law that bind us together.
Those values are the foundation of this legacy, and they are our
guarantee that this friendship will endure. They are what make the 50th
anniversary of Roosevelt Campobello International Park an event so
worthy of celebration.
____________________
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE ANNIVERSARY
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to honor the U.S. Marshals
Service on the occasion of the 225th anniversary of its founding. Since
its establishment in 1789, the Marshals Service has distinguished
itself as not only the oldest, but one of the most effective law
enforcement agencies in the United States. In recent years, the
Marshals Service has demonstrated its versatility through Operation
FALCON, a nationwide fugitive apprehension initiative. In this program,
resources of Federal, State, city, and county law enforcement agencies
are combined to locate and apprehend criminals wanted for crimes of
violence. Since its inception in 2005, Operation FALCON has made 91,086
arrests and cleared 117,874 warrants and is the single most successful
initiative aimed at apprehending violent fugitives in
[[Page 13583]]
U.S. law enforcement history. Congratulations to the Marshals Service
on 225 years of service to our Nation.
____________________
REMEMBERING ADMIRAL CHARLES R. LARSON
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to an
exceptional leader, public servant, patriot, and friend. Earlier this
week, ADM Charles Larson passed away after a 2-year battle against
leukemia. This morning, we said goodbye to him as he was memorialized
and laid to rest at the U.S. Naval Academy Cemetery in Annapolis.
Although it is always hard to lose a friend, and it is certainly proper
to mourn, I also want to celebrate his life and his tremendous
accomplishments and contributions to the Navy, Naval Academy, and
Nation.
Chuck and I were good friends, flight school roommates, and both
members of the Class of 1958. An Eagle Scout, brigade commander and
class president, he continued his meteoric trajectory, becoming the
first naval officer selected as a White House Fellow and the second
youngest officer to be promoted to the flag rank. On top of his
operational commands, he also served as naval aide to President Richard
Nixon. Chuck was bright, extremely talented, and never shied away from
a challenge. For instance, after earning his pilot wings and doing a
tour aboard the USS Shangri-la, he decided to go to nuclear power
school to become a submariner and be at the tactical tip of the Cold
War. Similarly, instead of pursuing a lucrative civilian job after
finishing his tour as the commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Command, he
took on what he considered his most challenging but rewarding job of
his career, returning to his alma mater for a second tour as the
superintendent.
A man of unparalleled character and vision, Admiral Larson wanted to
refocus the academy to be ``an ethical beacon for the nation.'' He
established the Character Development Division and implemented
innovative ethical and character-enhancing programs and initiatives to
both the curriculum and student life. His devotion to the academy and
midshipmen went beyond his two tenures at the helm, serving as the
chairman of the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation for nearly a decade after
his retirement.
Chuck was more than a renowned four-star admiral; he was a friend to
many, husband to Sally, father to Sigrid, Erica, and Kirsten, and
grandfather to seven beautiful children. I join many past and present
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Class of 1958, the
Naval Academy family, and thousands of military personnel who have
served under and alongside Chuck in extending our most sincere
gratitude for his legacy of excellence and ethical leadership.
Fair winds and following seas, Admiral Larson. You will be missed,
but not forgotten.
____________________
REMEMBERING JEFFREY B. WESTERFIELD
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize and honor the
extraordinary service and ultimate sacrifice of Gary, IN police
department officer Jeffrey B. Westerfield. Dedicated, loyal, and above
all compassionate to those in need, Officer Westerfield served with the
Gary Police Department, GPD, for 19 years.
On Sunday, July 6, 2014, Officer Westerfield was found shot and
unresponsive in his patrol car. Sadly, despite the best efforts of his
fellow officers, EMTs, and medical personnel, Officer Westerfield, 47,
succumbed to his wounds.
A native of Owensboro, KY, Officer Westerfield joined the U.S. Army
at the age of 18. Jeffrey was stationed in Georgia for basic training,
where he earned the nickname ``Rambo'' after sustaining a leg injury
and surviving alone in the wilderness for 2 days during a training
maneuver.
After being honorably discharged from the U.S. Army, Jeffrey began
his career in law enforcement. In August 1995, Jeffrey fulfilled his
dream when he was sworn in as an officer with the Gary Police
Department. Officer Westerfield served in various capacities during his
career with the GPD, including with the patrol division, traffic
division, K-9 handler, and as a field training officer.
Known for his quiet demeanor, Officer Westerfield was a man of few
words and genuine in his actions. ``He was very soft-spoken. He was
like a huge teddy bear. [H]e was able to actually go to any situation,
and calm the situation down immediately, just by his presence and his
voice,'' said Gary deputy police chief Gary McKinley.
Officer Westerfield is survived and deeply missed by his fiancee
Denise Cather, and his five children: Allie, Katie, Cheyenne, Rachel
and Brady.
Officer Westerfield loved his work, and he gave his life to serve and
protect the citizens of Gary. He was a quintessential Hoosier and a
true American hero. Let us always remember and treasure the memory of
this stalwart, brave man and honor him for his selfless commitment to
serving his fellow citizens. My thoughts and prayers, along with those
of fellow Hoosiers, are with Jeff's family and friends.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Staff Sergeant Benjamin Prange
Ms. FISCHER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and
sacrifice of U.S. Army SSG Benjamin G. Prange, who was killed in action
on July 24 while serving in Kandahar Province in Afghanistan. Staff
Sergeant Prange ``Ben'' to his friends and family--was a soldier in the
4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, CO. He repeatedly answered the
call to deploy, serving three tours in Afghanistan in 6 years.
Ben was born and raised in rural Nebraska south of Lincoln, near
Hickman and Roca. He was no stranger to adversity early in life,
overcoming the deaths of both of his parents before he turned 16. He
was raised by his grandparents, Kent and Carolyn Prange, who live just
west of Roca, NE.
Ben attended Norris High School, where he met his future wife
Elizabeth. Ben is remembered as a ``good, solid kid'' by his high
school superintendent Roy Baker. Liz and Ben married a year after his
graduation. They would have celebrated their 11th wedding anniversary
on July 26. He enlisted in the Army in January 2007 to fulfill a dream
of becoming an infantryman. Liz is left to care for their two sons,
Corbin and Dillon, who I hope will understand in time the tremendous
debt of gratitude this Nation owes to their father for selfless
sacrifice to protect all that we hold dear.
Ben served our country with distinction. He was a four time recipient
of the Army Commendation Medal and a recipient of the Combat
Infantryman Badge for service under direct enemy fire. He was also
awarded an Army Achievement Medal, two Good Conduct Medals, a National
Defense Service Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, an
Overseas Service Ribbon, and two NATO Medals, in addition to his
Afghanistan Campaign Medal with three campaign stars for his tours of
duty.
My thoughts and prayers remain with his family, friends, and his
fellow soldiers who have lost a great father, soldier, and friend. His
sacrifice will never be forgotten.
____________________
VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE ACT REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to speak on S. 1799, the Victims of
Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act of 2013, which recently passed the
House of Representatives and is awaiting the President's signature. In
addition to the bill's support for Child Advocacy Centers, it contains
an important provision that bears mentioning. S. 1799 makes Congress'
intent clear that money from the Crime Victims Fund should only be used
to assist victims of crime. Since the funds for the Crime Victims Fund
are derived from fines collected from those convicted of Federal crimes
rather than tax revenue, Congress directed the funds to only be used
for crime victims. I offered the provision clarifying this intent as an
amendment to the Justice For All Act, and it was accepted unanimously
by
[[Page 13584]]
the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am pleased the sponsors of S. 1799
agreed to include it at my request.
Crime victims can face a confusing and sometimes overwhelming system,
and so it is important for someone to explain their rights and address
other victim-centered issues. Encumbering victim advocates with other
non-victim-related tasks could delay or prevent the resources needed to
meet victims' needs such as assisting victims with impact statements
and collecting restitution information and associated receipts. It
could also delay or prevent ongoing safety assessments for the victim.
Victim specialists, also referred to as victim advocates, along with
their supervisors, victim witness coordinators, should be improving
services for the benefit of crime victims and not tasked with other
duties, such as arranging travel for witnesses.
My amendment makes clear it is Congress' intent that the funds
authorized for victims services are limited to those dedicated to
victims services and their direct support staff. This will ensure that
that none of the funds available is used for purposes that do not
benefit crime victims.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
CONGRATULATING PATRICIA ZULKOSKY
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Patricia
Zulkosky for her outstanding years of service to the State of Alaska
and congratulate her on the occasion of her retirement from the
Department of Juvenile Justice.
Born into and raised by a large Polish family in northern Minnesota,
Patricia moved to Alaska in 1978, making her home in the western tundra
community of Bethel. After quickly falling in love with the Yup'ik
Eskimo and rural Alaska lifestyle, she took to subsistence fishing and
gathering. Patricia built lifelong friendships in Alaska. After 6
years, she began her family by welcoming the arrival of her first and
only daughter, Tiffany.
Patricia started working for the State of Alaska in 1985 as a clerk
typist for Alaska Public Health Nursing, but it wasn't until Patricia
was hired by the Department of Juvenile Justice in December 1988 that
she would come to know her passion for working with troubled youth and
the families of rural Alaska. Hired as a youth counselor, Patricia's
work ethic, commitment, and enthusiasm would quickly help her move up
in the ranks. Not letting life get in the way, Patricia pursued her
bachelor's degree in social work while being a single mom of a young
daughter and working several other jobs to make ends meet.
After graduating in 1996, she returned to Alaska fulltime where she
would hold supervisory positions before becoming the Bethel Youth
Facility superintendent. Under her leadership as superintendent, the
Bethel Youth Facility has become an exemplary facility in Alaska for
utilizing subsistence ways of life as a form of treatment. They have
successfully hosted a community-based Cultural Heritage Week and begun
to undergo a long-planned expansion. Patricia's love of community,
culture, and hard work has resulted in a public service career that
exemplifies the Alaska and American dream.
I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to Patricia for her
many years of service to the people she has come to call family. I wish
the absolute best for her and her family as they begin this next stage
in their lives.
____________________
RECOGNIZING MINNESOTA POLICE OFFICERS
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, the Minnesota Police and Peace
Officers Association, the largest association representing Minnesota's
rank-and-file police officers, recently met for its annual conference
in Alexandria, MN.
During that conference, MPPOA recognized several outstanding police
officers: Sergeant Eric Kilian of the Hutchinson Police Department was
named Police Officer of the Year, and Officer Mark Blumberg of the St.
Paul Police Department and Officer Brian Hasselman of the Burnsville
Police Department received Honorable Mentions. In addition, the
Minnesota Association of Women Police, a wonderful organization that
trains women police officers and promotes professionalism in law
enforcement, recently honored Detective Alesia Metry of the Maplewood
Police Department as Officer of the Year at its annual conference in
Duluth.
I join MPPOA and MAWP in recognizing these brave public servants, and
I would like to take this opportunity to thank both organizations and
their members for the work they do every single day to keep our
communities safe.
____________________
CONGRATULATING JOHN STROUD
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Commander
John W. Stroud from Hawthorne, NV, on being named the National
Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States for
2015. I am proud to honor a Nevadan who has dedicated his life to
serving our country and is committed to ensuring that our Nation's
heroes receive the care that they deserve.
As a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I recognize
the important role the Veterans of Foreign Wars plays for combat
veterans and military servicemembers from the Active, Guard, and
Reserve forces. This distinguished national group of veterans has been
a constant influence, furthering the voice of all of our Nation's
heroes. On July 23, 2014, at the 115th National Convention, John Stroud
was elected as VFW national commander. This is the second time in VFW
history that a Nevadan has been elected commander. John has served the
VFW in many leadership positions, and I have no doubt that he will work
tirelessly in his new position as commander towards the VFW's mission
to ensure that veterans are respected for their service, always receive
their earned entitlements, and are recognized for the sacrifices they
and their loved ones have made on behalf of this great country.
Graduating from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University with a bachelor
of science degree in professional aeronautics, Commander Stroud decided
to serve his Nation by joining the U.S. Air Force, where he went on to
enjoy a distinguished career. Upon joining the Air Force, he was sent
overseas for a tour in Korea with the 51st Fighter Wing at Osan Air
Base as a flight operations superintendent. For his service, he was
awarded four Meritorious Service Medals, three Air Force Commendation
Medals, three Air Force Achievement Medals, the Korea Defense Service
Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal. Commander Stroud's
accomplishments extend far beyond his numerous commendations; he has
also been recognized for his service to the community. He dedicates
much of his time as a member of many volunteer organizations, like the
American Legion and the Elks, and is a Life Member of the Disabled
American Veterans, the Military Order of the Cootie, and the VFW
National Home for Children.
I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Commander Stroud for his
courageous contributions to the United States of America and to
freedom-loving nations around the world. His service to his country and
his bravery and dedication earn him a place among the outstanding men
and women who have valiantly defended our Nation. As a member of the
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I recognize that Congress has a
responsibility not only to honor these brave individuals who serve our
Nation but also to ensure they are cared for when they return home. I
remain committed to upholding this promise for our veterans and
servicemembers in Nevada and throughout the Nation.
I am both humbled and honored by Commander Stroud's service and am
proud to call him a fellow Nevadan. Today, I ask my colleagues to join
me in recognizing Commander Stroud for all of his accomplishments and
wish him well in all of his future endeavors.
[[Page 13585]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING EDIE JOHNSTON AND ELDERTIDE LLC
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to commend Edie Johnston and
her company, Eldertide LLC, for being named a 2014 Small Business
Administration Tibbetts Award recipient. Located in Dresden, ME,
Eldertide harvests and produces elderberries for medicinal purposes.
Along with Eldertides sister company, Maine Medicinals, the business
creates various herbal supplements with the elderberry product. Fueled
by the belief that natural, native elderberries are nutritionally
valuable, Eldertide has successfully marketed and sold their Maine-made
supplements nationwide and around the world.
With just two employees and 6 years of business experience, the
company is expanding vastly. Their antioxidant-rich elderberry juice
concentrate is now being distributed nationally and internationally.
Maine Medicinals, which serves as the retail branch of the company,
recently reached an agreement with Whole Foods to sell their
supplements.
Eldertide and Maine Medicinals not only represent a successful
entrepreneurial spirit, but they also strive to impact Maine, the
United States, and the world with an emphasis on innovation and
education. The company has contributed to two university research
initiatives through the University of Southern Maine and the University
of Maine-Orono and has also engaged Kennebec Valley Community College
students in valuable research to examine the health effects of
phytochemicals from whole foods such as elderberries. Specifically,
this research has examined the impact of elderberry juice on chronic
diseases such as type 2 diabetes.
In addition, Mrs. Johnston founded the Elderberry School, an
institution where family farmers interested in the science and business
of herbal supplements can learn the process that has propelled
Eldertide to where it is today. Some recent graduates have even gone on
to own small businesses dedicated to the same core principles that
Eldertide espouses.
We have many great small businesses in Maine, and 2014 Tibbetts Award
recipient Mrs. Edie Johnston and Eldertide LLC is certainly one of
them. Eldertide and its sister company Maine Medicinals represent the
innovative, entrepreneurial spirit that defines the State of Maine. I
am proud to join in recognizing their creativity and dedication to
larger social and economic goals, and I expect they will continue to
impress us--both in Maine and around the world with their superb
nutraceuticals.
____________________
REMEMBERING LIEUTENANT GENERAL MARC C. REYNOLDS
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, On July 21, 2014, America lost one of
her finest veterans. Lt. Gen. Marc C. Reynolds, U.S. Air Force,
Retired, passed away with his family by his side after a life full of
tremendous achievements and honors. I share a few of those achievements
from his own recollections and from the recollections of those who knew
him.
General Reynolds was not always a Utahn, although we have proudly
claimed him as one for decades. He was born in Chamberlain, SD in 1928
to Morris and Ione Reynolds. He grew up during the Second World War, a
time--as we sometimes forget--of tremendous sacrifice for our entire
Nation. He observed that this experience shaped his entire life.
He graduated from Chamberlain High School in 1946 and subsequently
moved to Colorado, where he attended the University of Denver. In 1950,
the year after his graduation, North Korean forces invaded South Korea.
Within 24 hours of hearing the news, Marc went to the Air Force
recruitment office in downtown Denver and signed up for the aviation
cadet program. He trained at Perrin and Vance Air Force bases and
graduated from pilot training as a
second lieutenant. He subsequently
attended jet interceptor training at Moody and Tyndall Air Force bases.
All of General Reynolds' moving and training was part of the American
Defense Command's initiative to build forces in response to the ever-
growing threat of tyranny and oppression from the Soviet Union. In
1952, he was assigned to the 83rd Fighter-Interceptor Squadron and
Hamilton Air Force Base and moved with the squadron to Paine Air Force
Base.
In 1953, near the end of the Korean war, he was transferred to
Okinawa, where he flew F-94Bs on fighter-interceptor missions. After
the war was over, he was assigned to the 437th Fighter-Interceptor
Squadron as the tactical flight commander out of Otis Air Force Base.
He later became a maintenance officer with the 602nd Consolidated
Maintenance Squadron, also at Otis.
General Reynolds then transitioned to reconnaissance, joining the
19th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron in Europe as flight commander. He
served at various posts around the world and completed Air Command and
Staff College in 1966.
During this time, war was being waged in Indochina and a proxy war
between the United States and the Soviet and Chinese Communist regimes
was beginning to form. General Reynolds was assigned to the 460th
Tactical Reconnaissance Wing at Tan Son Nhut Air Base near Saigon in
South Vietnam. He arrived on December 7, 1966. In reference to the
anniversary of Pearl Harbor, he occasionally joked that it was ``a good
day to go to war.''
General Reynolds' achievements and endurance during this time are
remarkable. Throughout his 10-month deployment to Vietnam, he flew 230
combat missions--a majority being flown at night. He also flew many
missions over North Vietnam, which was heavily defended by Viet Cong
radar, antiaircraft guns, and surface-to-air missiles. Flying 10 of
these missions up north would merit month off of the year-long
deployment.
In an interview with KUED, he recalled his first mission in Vietnam:
I had one of these ten-mile squares that was probably 80 or 90 miles
south of Saigon, so it was deep down in the south. It's flat down there
with no mountains, so they put the starter guys down there, where they
won't run into a mountain. I had an experienced navigator, but it was
my first mission. We went down there, and we found the target area. We
started running up and down these preplanned lines, and I noticed on
the third line what I'd call--well, I'd seen a little bit of flak in my
life, but this was obviously a .50 caliber or 20 millimeter gun. I'd
see these tracers go over my head. So I did . . . three of these lines,
and of course, the back-seater's got his head buried in the scope, and
he's concentrating seriously on keeping the airplane in the right place
in the target area. When I got the end of a line, I came around and I
said, ``Hey, why don't you pull your head out of the scope a minute and
take a look at what's going on up here.'' And he used immediately, a
long series of four letter words to describe how he felt about what was
going on, but the last thing he said is like, ``Get outta here.'' I
said, ``Well, he's been here longer than I have,'' so we went back to
Saigon, and we talked about it. But that was my first mission.
He subsequently served in Japan as a deputy chief of the
Reconnaissance Division and then as a commander of the 16th Tactical
Reconnaissance Squadron. Upon his return to the United States in
February 1971, he was assigned to Shaw Air Force Base, where he served
as assistant deputy commander for operations in the 363rd Tactical
Reconnaissance Wing. He graduated from the Naval War College in August
1973 and was subsequently assigned to Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill
Air Force Base, initially as the director of distribution and later as
director of maintenance.
In July 1976 he transferred to McClellan Air Force Base, CA, as
director of materiel management, Sacramento Air Logistics Center. In
March 1978 he became the center's vice commander. General Reynolds
moved to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in May 1980 as vice commander
of the Air Force Acquisition Logistics Division and took command of the
division in October 1981. In July 1983 he was appointed commander of
Ogden Air Logistics
[[Page 13586]]
Center. General Reynolds subsequently received his third star and was
assigned as the vice commander of the Air Force Logistics Command at
Wright-Patterson, where he served until his retirement.
General Reynolds logged over 5,200 (with 475 combat) flying hours in
his career--most of which were spent in physically-taxing small fighter
and reconnaissance jets. His military decorations and awards include
the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying
Cross, Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, Air Medal with
15 oak leaf clusters and Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf
clusters.
In this storied 36-year career, General Reynolds lived all over the
world, but, according to those who knew him, one of his favorite places
on earth was the Hill Aerospace Museum near Ogden, UT. After he retired
from the Air Force, he became a member of the Utah Aerospace Heritage
Foundation board, on which he served for 26 years. He was a driving
force behind making the Hill Aerospace Museum one of the premier
aviation museums in the country. He was appointed chairman of the board
and served in that position for more than 20 years. General Reynolds'
work in preserving Air Force history was awe-inspiring and will
positively affect many generations to come.
Those who worked with General Reynolds describe his conduct and
character as that of a perfect gentleman. His smile was infectious and
he always treated those around him with tremendous respect and dignity.
I have been told that he lifted everyone around him and was committed
to excellence in all that he did.
I offer my deepest sympathies to his dear wife Ellie and to his
children: Pam, Barbara, Scott, Lisa, Kristan, and Karine, and to his 15
grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren. I was told that the date on
which he passed turned out to be a bit ironic. This great patriot-
statesman had a weakness, which I am sure many of us share, in that he
had trouble remembering his and Ellie's anniversary date. However, in
what seems to be coincidence, may have been an act of providence: Marc
was able to show his love on this last mortal anniversary by his
determination to hold on just one-half hour into the day of their 30th
anniversary before passing. Whatever the case may be, the timing offers
a sweet thought.
I praise Lieutenant General Reynolds' life as an example to all
Americans. I pray that we constantly remember those who serve, who have
served, and who have given all that we might maintain our rights and
enjoy the blessings of liberty. As citizens of a nation made great by
those who serve her, like Lieutenant General Reynolds, it is our duty
to honor those who have gone before by living our lives with excellence
today.
____________________
RECOGNIZING rosieMADE LLC
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, it is imperative to distinguish the
originality of women-owned small business owners who take a leap of
faith and invest in an idea that not only awards their own creativity
but also inspires other women throughout the Nation. Across the United
States, women-owned companies employ 7.9 million people, generate $1.4
trillion in sales, and are the fastest growing segment in our economy.
Today, I am proud to recognize rosieMADE of Meridian, ID, a women-owned
small business committed to selling products made in the U.S.A. by
women.
In November 2012, Alicia Vanderschuere launched rosieMADE, an online
marketplace that features vendors offering quality products made in the
U.S.A. by women-friendly companies. After 15 years of experience in
retail and corporate merchandising, Alicia Vanderschuere decided to
follow her dreams in pursuit of owning her own business and reached out
to the Idaho Women's Business Center, WBC, to help get started. The
Small Business Administration's WBCs represent a nationwide network of
educational centers designed to assist women entrepreneurs in starting
and growing their own businesses.
Inspired by the iconic champion for women Rosie the Riveter,
rosieMADE aims to increase the number of women engaged in
entrepreneurship while supporting homegrown products. In addition,
rosieMADE offers services beyond that of selling products. The business
promotes business prosperity through opportunities including training
and information sessions on leadership, balancing home and work life,
and various elements of small business. The roiseMADE team strives to
inspire women to pursue their own business ventures by featuring women-
owned business leaders and sharing their stories. As a resource for
women nationwide, women who have successfully overcome obstacles in the
business environment are honored regularly in the ``Real Life Rosies''
section of the Web site. These success stories are aimed to encourage
other women to take a risk and start their own businesses.
Within a few short years, Alicia Vanderschuere and rosieMADE have
already achieved an outstanding reputation for quality, as well as that
of a unique Idaho gem. It is not surprising that in 2013 Alicia
Vanderschuere was featured on the cover of the Idaho Women's Journal
and is currently listed as one of the Idaho Women's Journal's ``Who's
Who of Idaho Women.'' In addition, in February 2014 Alicia
Vanderschuere received the Women of the Year Award from the Idaho
Business Review. With rosieMADE's commitment to female small business
owners, I hope they will inspire more women throughout the Nation to
become entrepreneurs.
I would like to recognize rosieMADE on their mission to promote
products made by women in the U.S.A. and their willingness to take a
risk in inspiring future entrepreneurs. I congratulate the entire
rosieMADE team and wish them great success in the future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SCOTT AND JAMIE NAGY
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Scott and Jamie
Nagy of Brookings, SD, as my nominees for the 2014 Angels in Adoption
Award. Since 1999, the Angels in Adoption program, through the
Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institution, has honored more than
2,000 individuals, couples, and organizations nationwide for their work
in providing children with loving, stable homes.
In 2006, after being married 14 years, Scott and Jamie, along with
their four children Nick, Tyler, TJ, and Natalie, adopted their
daughter Naika from Haiti when she was 2\1/2\ years old. Jamie, who was
adopted as an infant, found the process helped her better understand
her own adoption story. Through their journey with Naika, the Nagys
decided to help others understand adoption and the needs of children
around the world. In 2009, Scott was one of the first coaches in the
country to coach barefoot at a basketball game to help raise awareness
for Samaritan's Feet, an organization that provides shoes to orphans
and impoverished children in developing countries. Scott cites his
interest in helping Naika's home country as a source of inspiration for
participation in the program.
Scott and Jamie's story demonstrates how parents and families can
foster patience, grace, and understanding as they grow their families
and open their hearts and homes. Their desire to help others understand
the effect of overwhelming change on both the child and the family and
learn how to overcome those challenges speaks to their strength of
character. I commend their efforts to assist other families navigate
the adoption process and raise awareness of the needs of children
around the world. It brings me great pride to honor South Dakotans
Scott and Jamie Nagy, my nominees for the 2014 Angels in Adoption
Award.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOSH CURRY
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Josh Curry, an
intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done
for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.
Josh is a graduate of Elk Point-Jefferson High School in Elk Point,
SD. Currently, Josh is attending Augustana College, where he is
majoring in business administration and government. Josh is a dedicated
worker who has
[[Page 13587]]
been committed to getting the most out of his experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Josh Curry for all of
the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years
to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JASON HELLAND
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Jason Helland,
an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office for all of the hard work he has
done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past
several weeks.
Jason is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD and
Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, MN. Currently, he is attending
the University of Denver Strum College of Law. He is a hard worker who
has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship
experience.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jason
for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in
the years to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO WILLIAM HYDE
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize William Hyde, a
legal fellow in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he
has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.
After graduating from the University of San Francisco in 2002,
William joined the U.S. Army. He was stationed abroad multiple times
and served a combat tour in Iraq. In 2009 William received his M.A.
from Stanford University, earning summa cum laude distinction.
Currently, William is attending Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA and
is serving as a Blackstone legal fellow through the Alliance Defending
Freedom. William and his wife, Celeste, are the proud parents of a son
William.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to William for his
service to our country and the work he has done on behalf of the people
of South Dakota. Bill is a consummate professional with excellent legal
research, writing, and analytical skills. I wish him continued success
in the years to come as he embarks on his legal career.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KYLEE KETTERING
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I recognize Kylee Kettering, an
intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work she has
done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.
Kylee is a graduate of Mobridge High School in Mobridge, SD.
Currently, Kylee is attending Augustana College, where she is majoring
in government and communications. Kylee is a dedicated worker who has
been committed to getting the most out of her experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kylee Kettering for
all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the
years to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHN KLUMPP
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize John Klumpp, an
intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office for all of the hard work he has
done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past
several weeks.
John is a graduate of Brandon Valley High School in Brandon, SD.
Currently, he is attending Iowa State University and majoring in
finance. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most
out of his internship experience.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to John for
all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the
years to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RUTH LATTERELL
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Ruth Latterell,
an intern in my Aberdeen, SD office for all of the hard work she has
done for me, my staff, and the state of South Dakota over the past
several months.
Ruth is a native of Aberdeen and a graduate of Aberdeen Christian
School. Currently, she is attending South Dakota State University,
where she is pursuing a degree in human development and family
sciences. She is a very hard worker who has been dedicated to getting
the most out of her internship experience.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ruth for
all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the
years to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SCOTT MAH
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I recognize Scott Mah, an intern in
my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for me,
my staff, and the State of South Dakota.
Scott is a graduate of Sioux Falls Christian High School in Sioux
Falls, SD. Currently, Scott is attending Northwestern University, where
he is majoring in economics. Scott is a dedicated worker who has been
committed to getting the most out of his experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Scott Mah for all of
the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years
to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SAM REULAND
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I recognize Sam Reuland, an intern
in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work he has done for
me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.
Sam is a graduate of White Lake High School in White Lake, SD.
Currently, Sam is attending University of South Dakota, where he is
majoring in history and political science. Sam is a dedicated worker
who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sam Reuland for all of
the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years
to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KATHERINE VEENIS
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I recognize Katherine Veenis, an
intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work she has
done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.
Katherine is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD.
Currently, Katherine is attending Texas Christian University, where she
is majoring in political science. Katherine is a dedicated worker who
has been committed to getting the most out of her experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Katherine Veenis for
all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the
years to come.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KRISTIN WILEMAN
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Kristin Wileman,
an intern in my Aberdeen, SD office for all of the hard work she has
done for me, my staff, and the state of South Dakota over the past
several months.
Kristin is a native of Aberdeen and a graduate of Aberdeen Central
High School. Currently, she is attending North Central University,
where she is pursuing a degree in journalism communications. She is a
very hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her
internship experience.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kristin
for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in
the years to come.
____________________
PITTOCK MANSION CENTENNIAL
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to honor the centennial
of a unique historical landmark in my home State. The Pittock Mansion
in Portland, OR, educates Oregonians and tourists from around the world
about the city's history and the legacy of the family who once owned
it.
When Henry Pittock completed construction of the large 46-room house
in the West Hills of Portland in 1914, there was nothing like it in the
region--and arguably, there still isn't.
[[Page 13588]]
Henry came to Oregon by covered wagon with little in his pocket but
grew to become a respected local businessman and the owner of our State
newspaper, the Oregonian. His wife Georgiana was a philanthropist who
was known for serving the needs of the elderly, women and children, and
for her famous rose garden. Georgiana often hosted garden parties where
she would showcase her famous roses and is credited with kick-starting
the first Portland Rose Society and the tradition of the Portland Rose
Festival, which now draws thousands of people from around the world
each summer.
When Henry and Georgiana built their mansion, they hired Oregon
craftsman and artisans and used northwest materials, helping their
community and contributing to the bourgeoning city in a variety of
ways. They lived a long, happy life together and had 6 children and 18
grandchildren, including some who lived in the mansion up until it was
put up for sale in 1958.
Today, the mansion serves as a historical museum. The interior of the
house and the surrounding property are publicly owned and preserved by
dedicated staff and volunteers. Tourists, locals, and schoolchildren
are often seen wandering through the home and along the paths around
the large property learning about the historic significance of the
mansion and of Portland. The house represents an era of growth that was
occurring throughout the Pacific Northwest at the time of its
construction.
For its symbolism, history, and meaning, today we recognize the
Pittock Mansion's Centennial Year. May it continue to serve as a place
to learn and enjoy for many years to come.
____________________
BENTON COUNTY FAIR AND RODEO ANNIVERSARY
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this week is the opening of the
101st Benton County Fair and Rodeo. For more than a century, the
citizens of Benton County, OR, have come together to show off the
literal and metaphorical fruits of their yearlong labor, display their
talents, and enjoy a few diversions.
The roots of the Benton County Fair actually run as far back as those
of the State of Oregon. Just 7 months after Oregon achieved statehood,
the Benton Agricultural Society began holding small fairs. In the early
1900s, Benton County had an outstanding showing at the Oregon State
Fair, handily winning the State fair's blue ribbon for its display of
produce five times--in 1907, 1908, 1910, 1911, and 1912. In 1912, J.F.
Yates, the mayor of Corvallis, announced a public holiday to celebrate
Benton County's outstanding showing at the Oregon State Fair. The
following year, the county had its own celebration on the grounds of
the Oregon Agricultural College, later to become Oregon State
University. That year, the county brought out its finest produce,
livestock, and technology, starting a tradition that will be continued
this week.
The Benton County Fair and Rodeo found its current home in 1957, when
the county purchased 20 acres of land for the fair in Corvallis. In
1958, the Future Farmers of America and 4-H joined the thriving county
fair in its longstanding practice of showcasing the region's rich
agricultural tradition. The fair has matured beyond its roots to
include carnival festivities, rides, and concession stands in addition
to live music. I know that folks in Benton County will enjoy a
wonderful week as they take in the region's storied culture.
I would like to recognize Betty Malone, the Benton County Fair and
Rodeo's committee chair, for proposing a quilt to be sewn to
commemorate the fair's centennial last year, an important date in the
county's history. I would also like to congratulate Dawn Wunder and
Donna Johnson for leading the charge to make Betty's proposal a
reality. The centennial quilt will be presented to the region's
residents in a ceremony today. Dozens of community members decorated
the patches that make up the quilt, a collective celebration of the
county's history. It is a fitting tribute to folks in Benton County who
for more than 100 years have graced the region with their strong spirit
and hard work.
It is my pleasure to submit this statement in recognition of the
Benton County Fair and Rodeo's 101st year. I look forward to the Fair's
continued success for many more years.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
Enrolled Bill Signed
At 12:49 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
had signed the following enrolled bill:
S. 1799. An act to reauthorize subtitle A of the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990.
____
At 1:21 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, 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. 3896. An act to amend the Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act to provide a definition of
recreational vessel for purposes of such Act.
H.R. 4315. An act to amend the Endangered Species Act of
1973 to require publication on the Internet of the basis for
determinations that species are endangered species or
threatened species, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4626. An act to ensure access to certain information
for financial services industry regulators, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 4709. An act to improve enforcement efforts related to
prescription drug diversion and abuse, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 4809. An act to reauthorize the Defense Production
Act, to improve the Defense Production Act Committee, and for
other purposes.
H.R. 5062. An act to amend the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 to specify that privilege and
confidentiality are maintained when information is shared by
certain nondepository covered persons with Federal and State
financial regulators, and for other purposes.
Enrolled Bill Signed
At 3:17 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker had
signed the following enrolled bill:
H.R. 4028. An act to amend the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 to include the desecration of cemeteries
among the many forms of violations of the right to religious
freedom.
The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Leahy).
____
At 5:28 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
agreed to the following concurrent resolutions, in which it requests
the concurrence of the Senate:
H. Con. Res. 107. Concurrent resolution denouncing the use
of civilians as human shields by Hamas and other terrorist
organizations in violation of international humanitarian law.
H. Con. Res. 111. Concurrent resolution directing the Clerk
of the House of Representatives to make certain corrections
in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3230.
The message also announced that the House agrees to the report of the
committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 3230) to improve the access of veterans to medical services from
the Department of Veterans Affairs, 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. 4315. An act to amend the Endangered Species Act of
1973 to require publication on the Internet of the basis for
determinations that species are endangered species or
threatened species, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
H.R. 4709. An act to improve enforcement efforts related to
prescription drug diversion and abuse, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
H.R. 5062. An act to amend the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 to specify that privilege and
confidentiality are maintained when information is shared by
certain nondepository covered persons with Federal and State
financial regulators, and for other
[[Page 13589]]
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bill was read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:
S. 2685. A bill to reform the authorities of the Federal
Government to require the production of certain business
records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers
and trap and trace devices, and use other forms of
information gathering for foreign intelligence,
counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other
purposes.
The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous
consent, and placed on the calendar:
H.R. 4626. An act to ensure access to certain information
for financial services industry regulators, and for other
purposes.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bill was read the first time:
S. 2709. A bill to extend and reauthorize the Export-Import
Bank of the United States, 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-6638. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report relative to the Department of Defense (DoD)
intending to open the skill identifier associated with
attending the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle Commander's
Course to women; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6639. A communication from the Director of Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement:
Domestically Nonavailable Articles-Elimination of DoD-Unique
List'' ((RIN0750-AI11) (DFARS Case 2013-D020)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2014;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6640. A communication from the Director of Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Use of
Military Construction Funds in Countries Bordering the
Arabian Sea'' ((RIN0750-AI33) (DFARS Case 2014-D016))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July
28, 2014; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6641. A communication from the Director of Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement:
Application of Certain Clauses to Acquisitions of Commercial
Items'' ((RIN0750-AI13) (DFARS Case 2013-D035)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2014;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-6642. A communication from the Secretary of the
Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic
report on the national emergency that was declared in
Executive Order 12947 with respect to terrorists who threaten
to disrupt the Middle East peace process; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-6643. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Addition of Certain
Persons to the Entity List'' (RIN0694-AG16) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2014; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-6644. A communication from the Associate General Counsel
for Legislation and Regulations, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of
HOPE for Homeowners Program Regulations'' (RIN2501-AD68)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July
28, 2014; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-6645. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, Office of Protected
Resources, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and
Threatened Species: Designation of a Nonessential
Experimental Population of Upper Columbia River Spring-run
Chinook Salmon in the Okanogan River Subbasin, Washington,
and Protective Regulations'' (RIN0648-BD51) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2014; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-6646. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Basis of Indebtedness of S Corporations to
their Shareholders'' ((RIN1545-BG51) (TD 9682)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 24, 2014;
to the Committee on Finance.
EC-6647. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Partnerships; Start-up Expenditures;
Organization and Syndication Fees'' ((RIN1545-BL06) (TD
9681)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on July 24, 2014; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-6648. A communication from the Senior Procurement
Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation: Equal
Employment and Affirmative Action for Veterans and
Individuals with Disabilities'' (RIN9000-AM76) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2014;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-6649. A communication from the Senior Procurement
Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small
Business Protests and Appeals'' (RIN9000-AM46) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2014;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-6650. A communication from the General Counsel, Peace
Corps, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a
vacancy in the position of Deputy Director of the Peace
Corps, received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on July 28, 2014; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6651. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
export to the People's Republic of China of items not
detrimental to the U.S. space launch industry; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6652. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to sections 36(c) and
36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (DDTC 14-052); to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6653. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South
Atlantic; 2014 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure
for Deep-Water Complex in the South Atlantic Region''
(RIN0648-XD351) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on July 28, 2014; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6654. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2014
Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for the South
Atlantic Lesser Amberjack, Almaco Jack, and Banded Rudderfish
Complex'' (RIN0648-XD350) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 28, 2014; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6655. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of
the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Yellowfin Sole for
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Trawl Limited Access
Sector in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area'' (RIN0648-XD348) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 28, 2014; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6656. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; `Other
Flatfish' in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area'' (RIN0648-XD372) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 28, 2014; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6657. A communication from the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of
Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States;
Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2014''
(RIN0648-BE16) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on July 28, 2014; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6658. A communication from the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of
Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Magnuson-Stevens
[[Page 13590]]
Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries
of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies
Fishery; Unused Catch Carryover; Emergency Action'' (RIN0648-
BE19) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on July 28, 2014; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6659. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Ocean Perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the
Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-XD358) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on July 28, 2014; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6660. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Dusty
Rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of
Alaska'' (RIN0648-XD360) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 28, 2014; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6661. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Northern Rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf
of Alaska'' (RIN0648-XD359) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 28, 2014; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6662. A communication from the Chair of the Board of
Governors, Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report entitled ``Annual Report to Congress on the
Presidential $1 Coin Program''; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-6663. A communication from the Chief, Policy and
Directives Management Division, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Addresses of Headquarters
Offices'' (RIN1018-BA52) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 29, 2014; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-6664. A communication from the Chief of the Endangered
Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Zuni Bluehead
Sucker'' (RIN1018-AY25) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 29, 2014; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-6665. A communication from the Chief of the Endangered
Species Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Revision of Critical Habitat for Salt Creek Tiger
Beetle'' (RIN1018-AY56) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 29, 2014; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-6666. A communication from the Chief of the Branch of
Listing, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean Distinct Population Segment of the Loggerhead Sea
Turtle'' (RIN1018-AY71) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 29, 2014; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-6667. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Amendments to Compliance Certification Content
Requirements for State and Federal Operating Permits
Programs'' ((RIN2060-AQ71) (FRL No. 9913-88-OAR)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 24, 2014;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-6668. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: the 2014 and
2015 Critical Use Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl
Bromide'' ((RIN2060-AR80) (FRL No. 9911-99-OAR) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 24, 2014;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-6669. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Maine; Nitrogen Oxides Exemption
Request'' (A-1-FRL-9913-56-OAR) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 24, 2014; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-6670. A communication from the Director of the
Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Texas; Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds''
(FRL No. 9914-44-Region 6) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 24, 2014; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-6671. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Money Market Funds and the Wash Sale
Rules'' (Rev. Proc. 2014-45) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 29, 2014; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-6672. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Branded Prescription Drug Fee; Procedural
and Administrative Guidance'' (Notice 2014-42) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 29, 2014;
to the Committee on Finance.
EC-6673. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Branded Prescription Drug Fee'' ((RIN1545-
BJ39) (TD 9684)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on July 29, 2014; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-6674. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Revenue Procedure Guidance on Indexing
Under Section 36B and Section 5000A'' (Rev. Proc. 2014-37)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July
29, 2014; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-6675. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Revenue Procedure Providing Guidance To
Compute the Section 162(I) Deduction with Section 36B
Credit'' (Rev. Proc. 2014-41) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 29, 2014; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-6676. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Section 5000A National Average Premium for
a Bronze Level of Coverage'' (Rev. Proc. 2014-46) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 29, 2014;
to the Committee on Finance.
EC-6677. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``IRS Truncated Taxpayer Identification
Numbers'' ((RIN1545-BJ16) (TD 9675)) received in the Office
of the President of the Senate on July 29, 2014; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-6678. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Information Reporting by Passport
Applicants'' ((RIN1545-AJ93) (TD 9679)) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on July 29, 2014; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-6679. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Applicable Federal Rates--August 2014''
(Rev. Rul. 2014-19) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on July 29, 2014; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-6680. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, an addendum to a
certification, of the proposed sale or export of defense
articles and/or defense services to a Middle East country
(OSS-2014-1057); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6681. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, an addendum to a
certification, of the proposed sale or export of defense
articles and/or defense services to a Middle East country
(OSS-2014-1056); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-6682. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to a section of the Arms
Export Control Act (RSAT 14-3942); to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-6683. A communication from the Deputy Inspector General,
Office of Inspector General, Department of the Interior
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department of the
Interior's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the
period from October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6684. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report
[[Page 13591]]
on D.C. Act 20-378, ``Residential Real Property Equity and
Transparency Amendment Act of 2014''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6685. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 20-376, ``Fiscal Year 2014 Revised Budget
Request Temporary Adjustment Act of 2014''; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary:
Report to accompany S.J. Res. 19, A joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to
affect elections (Rept. No. 113-223).
By Mr. TESTER, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 2132. A bill to amend the Indian Tribal Energy
Development and Self-Determination Act of 2005, and for other
purposes (Rept. No. 113-224).
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:
By Mr. LEVIN for the Committee on Armed Services.
*Jessie Hill Roberson, of Alabama, to be a Member of the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for a term expiring
October 18, 2018.
*Daniel J. Santos, of Virginia, to be a Member of the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for a term expiring
October 18, 2017.
Air Force nomination of Col. Clarence Ervin, to be
Brigadier General.
Army nomination of Brig. Gen. Charles L. Gable, to be Major
General.
Army nomination of Brig. Gen. Stephen L. Danner, to be
Major General.
Army nominations beginning with Brigadier General Patricia
M. Anslow and ending with Brigadier General David C. Wood,
which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in
the Congressional Record on July 17, 2014. (minus 1 nominee:
Brigadier General Matthew P. Beevers)
Army nomination of Brig. Gen. Mark W. Palzer, to be Major
General.
Army nominations beginning with Brig. Gen. Neal G. Loidolt
and ending with Col. Wallace N. Turner, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Army nomination of Col. Robert J. Ulses, to be Brigadier
General.
Army nomination of Col. Timothy J. Sheriff, to be Brigadier
General.
Army nomination of Col. Timothy S. Paul, to be Brigadier
General.
Army nomination of Col. Glenn A. Goddard, to be Brigadier
General.
Army nominations beginning with Colonel Gregrey C. Bacon
and ending with Colonel David S. Werner, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Army nomination of Col. Robert J. Howell, Jr., to be
Brigadier General.
Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Kerry M. Metz, to be Rear
Admiral.
Navy nominations beginning with Capt. Gene F. Price and
ending with Capt. Linnea J. Sommerweddington, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on July 17, 2014.
Navy nomination of Capt. Dawn E. Cutler, to be Rear Admiral
(lower half).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Air Force nominations beginning with Jonathan Ackley and
ending with Aaron Allen Wilson, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Air Force nominations beginning with Richard Edward Alford
and ending with Dylan B. Williams, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Air Force nominations beginning with William J. Annexstad
and ending with David J. Western, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Air Force nomination of Robert P. McCoy, to be Lieutenant
Colonel.
Air Force nominations beginning with Michael E. Coghlan and
ending with Ajay K. Ojha, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
22, 2014.
Army nomination of Burton C. Glover, to be Lieutenant
Colonel.
Army nomination of Paul A. Thomas, to be Major.
Army nominations beginning with Aleksandr Baron and ending
with Ryan D. Zimmerman, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
17, 2014.
Army nominations beginning with Carlo J. Alphonso and
ending with Jordan E. Yokley, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 17, 2014.
Army nomination of Desiree S. Dirige, to be Major.
Army nomination of Nealanjon P. Das, to be Major.
Army nominations beginning with Yong K. Cho and ending with
Thomas A. Starkoski, Jr., which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
22, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with John I. Actkinson and
ending with Robert E. Zubeck II, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Christopher W. Acor and
ending with Richard P. Zabawa, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Mate W. Aerandir and ending
with Jacquelinemar W. Wrona, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Christian G. Acord and
ending with Brian P. Worden, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Aaron N. Aaron and ending
with Chelsey L. Zwicker, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Brian F. Breshears and
ending with David A. Ziemba, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Daniel J. Bradshaw and
ending with Ross W. Peters, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Arlo K. Abrahamson and
ending with Tiffani B. Walker, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with James C. Bailey and ending
with Amanda J. Wells, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 17,
2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Eric S. Kinzbrunner and
ending with Eric M. Zack, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Jermaine A. Bailey and
ending with Jeremiah J. Young, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Jemar R. Ballesteros and
ending with Anne L. Zack, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
17, 2014.
Navy nomination of Christopher A. Cegielski, to be Captain.
Navy nominations beginning with Kevin C. Antonucci and
ending with Joshua D. Weiss, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Ferdinand D. Abril and
ending with Allen E. Willey, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Michael D. Amedick and
ending with Dennis M. Wheeler, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Kerry E. Baker and ending
with Michael D. Winn, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 17,
2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Kenneth R. Basford and
ending with John P. Zalar, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Brian J. Ellis, Jr. and
ending with Sylvaine W. Wong, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with Kevin S. Bailey and ending
with Theodor A. Zainal, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July
17, 2014.
Navy nominations beginning with David L. Bell, Jr. and
ending with Nathan J. Wonder, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
July 17, 2014.
[[Page 13592]]
Navy nominations beginning with Ruben D. Acosta and ending
with David M. You, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 17,
2014.
Navy nomination of Adam J. Rains, to be Commander.
By Mrs. BOXER for the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
*Ann Elizabeth Dunkin, of California, to be an Assistant
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
*Manuel H. Ehrlich, Jr., of New Jersey, to be a Member of
the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board for a term
of five years.
*Jane Toshiko Nishida, of Maryland, to be an Assistant
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
By Mr. CARPER for the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
*James C. Miller, III, of Virginia, to be a Governor of the
United States Postal Service for the term expiring December
8, 2017.
*Stephen Crawford, of Maryland, to be a Governor of the
United States Postal Service for the remainder of the term
expiring December 8, 2015.
*David Michael Bennett, of North Carolina, to be a Governor
of the United States Postal Service for a term expiring
December 8, 2018.
*Victoria Reggie Kennedy, of Massachusetts, to be a
Governor of the United States Postal Service for a term
expiring December 8, 2016.
*Joseph L. Nimmich, of Maryland, to be Deputy
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
*Anne E. Rung, of Pennsylvania, to be Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy.
*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. CORNYN:
S. 2686. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to prevent the extension of the tax collection period merely
because the taxpayer is a member of the Armed Forces who is
hospitalized as a result of combat zone injuries; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Brown, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin,
Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs.
Feinstein, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Franken, Mr. Schatz, Mr.
Tester, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Begich):
S. 2687. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
ensure that women members of the Armed Forces and their
families have access to the contraception they need in order
to promote the health and readiness of all members of the
Armed Forces, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cornyn,
and Mr. Isakson):
S. 2688. A bill to ensure labor organization transparency
and accountability; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mrs. Shaheen):
S. 2689. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to specify coverage of continuous glucose monitoring
devices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Walsh, and
Mr. Kirk):
S. 2690. A bill to amend the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act of 1974 to ensure that student data handled by
private companies is protected, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 2691. A bill to encourage and support partnerships
between the public and private sectors to improve our
nation's social programs, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. McCASKILL (for herself, Mr. Heller, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms.
Ayotte, Mr. Warner, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Graham):
S. 2692. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
and the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and
Campus Crime Statistics Act to combat campus sexual violence,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Shaheen,
Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Walsh):
S. 2693. A bill to reauthorize the women's business center
program of the Small Business Administration, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Rockefeller, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 2694. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to extend the application of the Medicare payment rate
floor to primary care services furnished under Medicaid and
to apply the rate floor to additional providers of primary
care services; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2695. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to require institutions of higher education to have an
independent advocate for campus sexual assault prevention and
response; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. KING (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2696. A bill to require the Federal Reserve to make
certain changes to the small bank holding company policy
statement on assessment of financial and managerial factors,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. KING (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2697. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to
clarify the application of the qualified mortgage rule to
rural lenders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. KING (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Tester, and
Mrs. Fischer):
S. 2698. A bill to provide regulatory easement for lending
institutions that enable a vibrant economy; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. KING (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2699. A bill to require the National Credit Union
Administration to provide pass-through share insurance for
the deposits or shares of any interest on lawyers trust
accounts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. Tester):
S. 2700. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
identify the persons who are eligible to request headstones
or markers furnished by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Mr. VITTER:
S. 2701. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to address certain inconsistencies between the
self-attested information provided by an applicant in
enrolling in a health plan on an Exchange and being
determined eligible for premium tax credits and cost-sharing
reductions or in being determined to be eligible for
enrollment in a State Medicaid plan or a State child health
plan under the State Children's Health Insurance Program and
the data received through the Federal Data Services Hub or
from other data sources; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. VITTER:
S. 2702. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to require the Social Security number of the student and the
employer identification number of the educational institution
for purposes of education tax credits; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 2703. A bill to establish eligibility, assignment,
training, and certification requirements for sexual assault
forensic examiners for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Reed):
S. 2704. A bill to prohibit the award of Federal Government
contracts to inverted domestic corporations, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. BEGICH:
S. 2705. A bill to establish, within the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, an integrated and
comprehensive ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric
research and environmental information sharing program to
support renewable energy, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. ENZI:
S. 2706. A bill to ensure that organizations with religious
or moral convictions are allowed to continue to provide
services for children; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. MORAN:
S. 2707. A bill to provide for coordination between the
TRICARE program and eligibility for making contributions to a
health savings account; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. COATS (for himself and Mr. Blunt):
S. 2708. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide equal access to
[[Page 13593]]
declaratory judgments for organizations seeking tax-exempt
status; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Donnelly, Mr. Warner, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Johnson of
South Dakota, and Mr. Kaine):
S. 2709. A bill to extend and reauthorize the Export-Import
Bank of the United States, and for other purposes; read the
first time.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Thune):
S. 2710. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to exempt private foundations from the tax on excess business
holdings in the case of certain philanthropic enterprises
which are independently supervised, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2711. A bill to reauthorize the United States Commission
on International Religious Freedom, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2712. A bill to amend section 455(m) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 in order to allow adjunct faculty
members to qualify for public service loan forgiveness; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 2713. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain
property to the Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation located in
Bethel, Alaska; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. TOOMEY:
S. Res. 529. A resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary
of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and
commending its members for their courage and sacrifice in
service to the United States; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Heller, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Johanns, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Lee, Mr. Levin, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Moran, Mr. Risch, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr.
Rubio, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Thune, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Vitter,
and Ms. Ayotte):
S. Res. 530. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate on the current situation in Iraq and the urgent need
to protect religious minorities from persecution from the
Sunni Islamist insurgent and terrorist group the Islamic
State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL), as it expands its control over areas in
northwestern Iraq; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 240
At the request of Mr. Tester, the names of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Boozman) and the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) were added
as cosponsors of S. 240, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code,
to modify the per-fiscal year calculation of days of certain active
duty or active service used to reduce the minimum age at which a member
of a reserve component of the uniformed services may retire for non-
regular service.
S. 392
At the request of Mr. Udall of New Mexico, the name of the Senator
from New York (Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 392, a bill
to support and encourage the health and well-being of elementary school
and secondary school students by enhancing school physical education
and health education.
S. 489
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 489, a bill to amend the
Tariff Act of 1930 to increase and adjust for inflation the maximum
value of articles that may be imported duty-free by one person on one
day, and for other purposes.
S. 569
At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Ms. Baldwin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 569, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to count a period of receipt of
outpatient observation services in a hospital toward satisfying the 3-
day inpatient hospital requirement for coverage of skilled nursing
facility services under Medicare.
S. 632
At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 632, a bill to amend the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to repeal a duplicative
program relating to inspection and grading of catfish.
S. 734
At the request of Mr. Nelson, the names of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Schatz) and the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) were added
as cosponsors of S. 734, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code,
to repeal the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities under the
Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation.
S. 758
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 758, a bill to establish a
comprehensive literacy program.
S. 933
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 933, a bill to amend
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to
extend the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Program through fiscal year 2018.
S. 1011
At the request of Mr. Johanns, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Portman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1011, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the
centennial of Boys Town, and for other purposes.
S. 1040
At the request of Mr. Portman, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Ms. Baldwin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1040, a bill to provide
for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Jack Nicklaus,
in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence,
good sportsmanship, and philanthropy.
S. 1089
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1089, a bill to provide
for a prescription drug take-back program for members of the Armed
Forces and veterans, and for other purposes.
S. 1188
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1188, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the definition of full-time
employee for purposes of the individual mandate in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
S. 1249
At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from New
York (Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1249, a bill to
rename the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking of the Department
of State the Bureau to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and to
provide for an Assistant Secretary to head such Bureau, and for other
purposes.
S. 1330
At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1330, a bill to
delay the implementation of the employer responsibility provisions of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
S. 1381
At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1381, a bill to amend
the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to clarify provisions enacted by the
Captive Wildlife Safety Act, to further the conservation of certain
wildlife species, and for other purposes.
S. 1397
At the request of Mr. Portman, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Paul) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1397, a bill to improve the
efficiency, management, and interagency coordination of the Federal
permitting process through reforms overseen by the
[[Page 13594]]
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and for other
purposes.
S. 1410
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Ms. Hirono) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1410, a bill to focus
limited Federal resources on the most serious offenders.
S. 1463
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1463, a bill to
amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to prohibit importation,
exportation, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition, and purchase
in interstate or foreign commerce, or in a manner substantially
affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of any live animal of any
prohibited wildlife species.
S. 1507
At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1507, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify
the treatment of general welfare benefits provided by Indian tribes.
S. 1562
At the request of Mr. Sanders, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1562, a bill to
reauthorize the Older Americans Act of 1965, and for other purposes.
S. 1710
At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1710, a bill to
require Amtrak to propose a pet policy that allows passengers to
transport domesticated cats and dogs on certain Amtrak trains, and for
other purposes.
S. 1842
At the request of Mr. Portman, the names of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from New
Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham)
were added as cosponsors of S. 1842, a bill to require the Secretary of
the Treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration of the Pro
Football Hall of Fame.
S. 2003
At the request of Mr. Heinrich, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2003, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the energy credit for certain property under construction.
S. 2023
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2023, a bill to reform the financing of Senate elections, and for
other purposes.
S. 2075
At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2075, a bill to prohibit a
reduction in funding for the defense commissary system in fiscal year
2015 pending the report of the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission.
S. 2082
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2082, a bill to
provide for the development of criteria under the Medicare program for
medically necessary short inpatient hospital stays, and for other
purposes.
S. 2109
At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2109, a bill to
eliminate duplicative, outdated, or unnecessary Congressionally
mandated Federal agency reporting.
S. 2115
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2115, a bill to provide
for the establishment of a fund to provide for an expanded and
sustained national investment in biomedical research.
S. 2133
At the request of Ms. Baldwin, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2133, a bill to amend title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other statutes to clarify
appropriate liability standards for Federal antidiscrimination claims.
S. 2301
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2301, a bill to amend
section 2259 of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes.
S. 2307
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2307, a bill to prevent
international violence against women, and for other purposes.
S. 2329
At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2329, a
bill to prevent Hezbollah from gaining access to international
financial and other institutions, and for other purposes.
S. 2333
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2333, a bill to
amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for certain behavioral
health treatment under TRICARE for children and adults with
developmental disabilities.
S. 2359
At the request of Mr. Franken, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Mr. King) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2359, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to protect and preserve access of
Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas to health care providers under
the Medicare program, and for other purposes.
S. 2481
At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2481, a bill to
amend the Small Business Act to provide authority for sole source
contracts for certain small business concerns owned and controlled by
women, and for other purposes.
S. 2515
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2515, a bill to ensure
that Medicaid beneficiaries have the opportunity to receive care in a
home and community-based setting.
S. 2543
At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Ms. Hirono) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2543, a bill to support
afterschool and out-of-school-time science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics programs, and for other purposes.
S. 2611
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2611, a bill
to facilitate the expedited processing of minors entering the United
States across the southern border and for other purposes.
S. 2621
At the request of Mr. Vitter, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2621, a bill to
amend the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act to increase
the price of Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps to fund the
acquisition of conservation easements for migratory birds, and for
other purposes.
S. 2631
At the request of Mr. Cruz, the names of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Boozman) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2631, a bill to prevent the expansion of the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals program unlawfully created by Executive
memorandum on August 15, 2012.
S. 2655
At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2655, a bill to
reauthorize the Young Women's Breast Health Education and Awareness
Requires Learning Young Act of 2009.
S. 2673
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Ms. Baldwin) and the Senator from
[[Page 13595]]
Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer) were added as cosponsors of S. 2673, a bill to
enhance the strategic partnership between the United States and Israel.
S.J. RES. 19
At the request of Mr. Udall of New Mexico, the names of the Senator
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin)
were added as cosponsors of S.J. Res. 19, a joint resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to
contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.
S. RES. 517
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. Res. 517, a resolution expressing support for Israel's right to
defend itself and calling on Hamas to immediately cease all rocket and
other attacks against Israel.
S. RES. 519
At the request of Ms. Murkowski, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 519, a resolution
designating August 16, 2014, as ``National Airborne Day''.
S. RES. 526
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. Res. 526, a resolution supporting Israel's right to defend itself
against Hamas, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3677
At the request of Mr. Barrasso, the names of the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 3677 intended to be proposed
to S. 2569, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs
back to America.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CORNYN:
S. 2686. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent
the extension of the tax collection period merely because the taxpayer
is a member of the Armed Forces who is hospitalized as a result of
combat zone injuries; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2686
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 ``Wounded Warrior Tax Equity
Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF EXTENSION OF TAX COLLECTION PERIOD FOR
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO ARE
HOSPITALIZED AS A RESULT OF COMBAT ZONE
INJURIES.
(a) In General.--Section 7508(e) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Collection period after assessment not extended as
a result of hospitalization.--With respect to any period of
continuous qualified hospitalization described in subsection
(a) and the next 180 days thereafter, subsection (a) shall
not apply in the application of section 6502.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxes assessed before, on, or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mrs. Shaheen):
S. 2689. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
specify coverage of continuous glucose monitoring devices, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the founder and co-chair of the Senate
Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this devastating
disease affecting nearly 29 million Americans. Fortunately, due to the
Special Diabetes Program and increased investments in diabetes
research, we have seen some encouraging breakthroughs and are on the
threshold of a number of important new discoveries.
This is particularly true for the estimated 3 million Americans
living with type I diabetes. Advances in technology, like continuous
glucose monitors, are helping patients control their blood glucose
levels, which is key to preventing costly and sometimes deadly diabetes
complications. We are also moving closer and closer to our goal of an
artificial pancreas, which would control blood glucose levels
automatically and revolutionize diabetes care.
The National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug
Administration have been extremely supportive of these innovations in
diabetes care. I was therefore surprised and extremely troubled to
learn that insulin-dependent Medicare beneficiaries are being denied
coverage for continuous glucose monitors, or CGMs, because the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has determined that they do
not meet the Medicare definition of durable medical equipment and do
not fall under any other Medicare category. As a consequence, we are
seeing situations--similar to what we saw with insulin pumps in the
late 1990s--where individuals with type 1 diabetes have had coverage
for their continuous glucose monitor on their private insurance, only
to lose it when they age into Medicare.
A CGM is a physician-prescribed, FDA-approved medical device that can
provide real-time readings and data about trends in glucose levels
every five minutes, thus enabling someone with insulin-dependent
diabetes to eat or take insulin and prevent dangerous low or high
glucose levels. As demonstrated by extensive clinical evidence, adults
using a CGM have had improved overall glucose control and have reduced
rates of hypoglycemia or low blood glucose levels. Professional medical
societies, including the American Association of Clinical
Endocrinologists and the Endocrine Society, recognize this clinical
evidence and have published guidelines recommending CGM be used in
appropriate patients with type 1 diabetes. Today, about 95 percent of
commercial insurers provide coverage for CGM devices.
The ironic thing is that it is only because of advances in diabetes
care like the continuous glucose monitor that people with type 1
diabetes can expect to live long enough to become Medicare
beneficiaries. I am particularly concerned given the implications that
this coverage decision will have for future decisions regarding
artificial pancreas systems, which will combine a continuous glucose
monitor, insulin pump, and sophisticated algorithm to control high and
low blood sugar around the clock.
I am therefore joining my colleague from New Hampshire and my Co-
Chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus in introducing the Medicare CGM
Access Act of 2014 to create a separate benefit category under Medicare
for the continuous glucose monitor and require coverage of the device
for individuals meeting specified medical criteria.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Walsh):
S. 2693. A bill to reauthorize the women's business center program of
the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am joining with my colleagues to
introduce legislation to empower women entrepreneurs and to help
address the persistent challenges women face when trying to start and
grow a business.
It was just 26 years ago that Congress enacted landmark legislation,
the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 that eliminated requirements
that women obtain the signature of their husband or other man to secure
a business loan.
Between 1997 and 2013, the number of women-owned businesses in the
United States grew by 59 percent, but significant barriers for women
still exist and there is still much more work to do.
Last week, the Small Business Committee released a report entitled
``21st Century Barriers to Women's Entrepreneurship'' that assesses the
current challenges faced by women-owned businesses. The report also
makes policy recommendations to increase economic opportunity for women
and help to put them on a level playing field with other business
owners.
Our committee report makes four critical findings and includes policy
[[Page 13596]]
recommendations to help remedy the business climate for women
entrepreneurs.
First, women business owners face challenges in getting access to
capital. The report highlights a study by the Urban Institute finding
that only 4 percent of the total value of all conventional small
business loans goes to women entrepreneurs. That means only $1 of every
$23 is being loaned to a women-owned business. The report also notes
that women are forced to rely on personal savings, loans from family or
friends, or high interest credit because they cannot get traditional
small business lending from banks.
Second, the report finds that women business owners still face
challenges in getting access to loans of the right size. Women-owned
businesses have been very successful with the SBA's Microloan program,
under which they can obtain loans of up to $50,000 through
intermediaries that also provide assistance in the development of
business plans. However, this program has not been updated since 1991.
The report highlights the importance of reauthorizing the
Intermediary Lending Program that expired in 2013 and provided capital
for women business owners who were ready to take out loans that
exceeded the $50,000 provided by the SBA's Microloan Program, but were
not yet able to take advantage of the SBA's 7(a) lending program.
Third, the report finds that women entrepreneurs face challenges
obtaining relevant business training and counseling. Women's Business
Centers provide specialized counseling and training designed to address
the unique challenges women face in starting a small business. The
report shows that the Women's Business Center program has not been re-
authorized since the 1990s and is in need of a 21st century
modernization.
Last, the committee report finds that women business owners face
challenges getting access to Federal contracts. Despite the growing
number of businesses owned by women, the Federal Government has never
met its goal of awarding 5 percent of its contracts to women-owned
small businesses. Our report notes that if the government met this
goal, women-owned small businesses would have access to additional
market opportunity worth up to $4 billion a year.
That is why we are introducing the Women's Small Business Ownership
Act. This legislation follows the policy recommendations made in the
committee report and helps to address the glass ceiling many women
entrepreneurs still encounter in the 21st century. While women-owned
businesses as a whole continue to grow and succeed, to do so many women
must overcome barriers men do not face.
The Women's Small Business Ownership Act increases the flow of
capital to women business owners by modernizing the SBA's Microloan
program and reauthorizing the Intermediary Lending Program. Women have
been particularly successful in using microloans, which are loans of
under $50,000, and receive about half of all SBA Microloans.
The Microloan program would be modernized by increasing the total
amount lenders can loan, as well as allowing lenders to provide
flexible terms and improved technical assistance to better suit the
needs of borrowers.
The Intermediary Lending Program is also an important program, which
this legislation reauthorizes to address a gap in lending options for
small businesses, including women-owned small businesses that are
unable to obtain financing from traditional lenders. The Intermediary
Lending Program offers low-interest loans of between $50,000 and
$200,000 and closes the gap that can exist for small businesses that
have outgrown the SBA's Microloan program, but are not yet able to take
advantage of SBA's other lending guarantee programs.
This legislation removes barriers to the federal contracting
marketplace by allowing sole source contracts to be awarded to women-
owned small businesses. Every other small business in a unique
socioeconomic category, including HUB Zone firms, service-disabled
veteran-owned small businesses, and small disadvantaged businesses, can
receive a non-competitive or sole source contract, but women's small
businesses cannot. Women-owned companies deserve parity with other
programs and a fair shot to grow their businesses.
The Women's Small Business Ownership Act ensures that the SBA's
Women's Business Centers are adequately and effectively meeting the
needs of women entrepreneurs in the 21st century. It provides the
resources for Women's Business Centers to provide the technical support
and counseling tailored to the unique challenges for women-owned
businesses.
Women make up 51 percent of the population and have tremendous
potential as business owners and job-creators. We need to empower women
to break through the glass ceiling so it will be easier for even more
women to succeed in the 21st century, grow the U.S. economy and create
more U.S. jobs.
When women have equal opportunity to access capital, obtain the right
business counseling, and compete for federal contracts, the economy
grows and the country moves forward.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2693
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 ``Women's Small Business
Ownership Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
In this Act--
(1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean
the Small Business Administration and the Administrator
thereof, respectively;
(2) the term ``disability'' has the meaning given that term
in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12102);
(3) the term ``microloan program'' means the program
established under section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(m));
(4) the term ``rural small business concern'' means a small
business concern located in a rural area, as that term is
defined in section 1393(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986; and
(5) the terms ``small business concern'', ``small business
concern owned and controlled by veterans'', and ``small
business concern owned and controlled by women'' have the
meanings given those terms under section 3 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
SEC. 3. OFFICE OF WOMEN'S BUSINESS OWNERSHIP.
Section 29(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(g))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``in the areas'' and all
that follows through the end of subclause (I), and inserting
the following: ``to address issues concerning the management,
operations, manufacturing, technology, finance, retail and
product sales, international trade, Government contracting,
and other disciplines required for--
``(I) starting, operating, and increasing the business of a
small business concern;''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``Women's Business Center
program'' each place that term appears and inserting
``women's business center program''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, the National Women's Business
Council, and any association of women's business centers'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Training.--The Administrator may provide annual
programmatic and financial examination training for women's
business ownership representatives and district office
technical representatives of the Administration to enable
representatives to carry out their responsibilities.
``(4) Program and transparency improvements.--The
Administrator shall maximize the transparency of the women's
business center financial assistance proposal process and the
programmatic and financial examination process by--
``(A) providing public notice of any announcement for
financial assistance under subsection (b) or a grant under
subsection (l);
``(B) in the announcement described in subparagraph (A),
outlining award and program evaluation criteria and
describing the weighting of the criteria for financial
assistance under subsection (b) and grants under subsection
(l); and
``(C) not later than 60 days after the completion of a site
visit to the women's business center (whether conducted for
an audit,
[[Page 13597]]
performance review, or other reason), when feasible,
providing to each women's business center a copy of any site
visit reports or evaluation reports prepared by district
office technical representatives or officers or employees of
the Administration.''.
SEC. 4. WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTER PROGRAM.
(a) Women's Business Center Financial Assistance.--Section
29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking paragraph (4);
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively;
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) the term `association of women's business centers'
means an organization--
``(A) that represents not less than 51 percent of the
women's business centers that participate in a program under
this section; and
``(B) whose primary purpose is to represent women's
business centers;
``(3) the term `eligible entity' means--
``(A) a private nonprofit organization;
``(B) a State, regional, or local economic development
organization;
``(C) a development, credit, or finance corporation
chartered by a State;
``(D) a junior or community college, as defined in section
312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1058(f)); or
``(E) any combination of entities listed in subparagraphs
(A) through (D);''; and
(D) by adding after paragraph (5), as so redesignated, the
following:
``(6) the term `women's business center' means a project
conducted by an eligible entity under this section.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), and adjusting the margins
accordingly;
(B) by striking ``The Administration'' and all that follows
through ``5-year projects'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Administration may provide financial
assistance to an eligible entity to conduct a project under
this section'';
(C) by striking ``The projects shall'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Use of funds.--The project shall be designed to
provide training and counseling that meets the needs of
women, especially socially and economically disadvantaged
women, and shall''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Amount of financial assistance.--The Administrator
may award financial assistance under this subsection of not
more than $250,000 per project year.
``(4) Consultation with associations of women's business
centers.--The Administrator shall seek advice, input, and
recommendations for policy changes from any association of
women's business centers to develop--
``(A) a training program for the staff of women's business
centers; and
``(B) recommendations to improve the policies and
procedures for governing the general operations and
administration of the women's business center program,
including grant program improvements under subsection
(g)(4).'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``the recipient
organization'' and inserting ``an eligible entity'';
(B) in paragraph (3), in the second sentence, by striking
``a recipient organization'' and inserting ``an eligible
entity'';
(C) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``recipient of assistance'' and inserting
``eligible entity'';
(ii) by striking ``such organization'' and inserting ``the
eligible entity''; and
(iii) by striking ``recipient'' and inserting ``eligible
entity''; and
(D) by adding at end the following:
``(5) Separation of project and funds.--An eligible entity
shall--
``(A) carry out a project under this section separately
from other projects, if any, of the eligible entity; and
``(B) separately maintain and account for any financial
assistance under this section.'';
(4) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``applicant organization'' and inserting
``eligible entity'';
(B) by striking ``a recipient organization'' and inserting
``an eligible entity''; and
(C) by striking ``site'';
(5) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Applications and Criteria for Initial Financial
Assistance.--
``(1) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring financial
assistance under subsection (b) shall submit to the
Administrator an application that contains--
``(A) a certification that the eligible entity--
``(i) has designated an executive director or program
manager, who may be compensated using financial assistance
under subsection (b) or other sources, to manage the center;
``(ii) as a condition of receiving financial assistance
under subsection (b), agrees--
``(I) to receive a site visit at the discretion of the
Administrator as part of the final selection process;
``(II) to undergo an annual programmatic and financial
examination; and
``(III) to remedy any problems identified pursuant to the
site visit or examination under subclause (I) or (II); and
``(iii) meets the accounting and reporting requirements
established by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget;
``(B) information demonstrating that the eligible entity
has the ability and resources to meet the needs of the market
to be served by the women's business center for which
financial assistance under subsection (b) is sought,
including the ability to obtain the non-Federal contribution
required under subsection (c);
``(C) information relating to the assistance to be provided
by the women's business center for which financial assistance
under subsection (b) is sought in the area in which the
women's business center is located;
``(D) information demonstrating the experience and
effectiveness of the eligible entity in--
``(i) conducting financial, management, and marketing
assistance programs, as described in subsection (b)(2), which
are designed to teach or upgrade the business skills of women
who are business owners or potential business owners;
``(ii) providing training and services to a representative
number of women who are socially and economically
disadvantaged; and
``(iii) working with resource partners of the
Administration and other entities, such as universities; and
``(E) a 5-year plan that describes the ability of the
women's business center for which financial assistance is
sought--
``(i) to serve women who are business owners or potential
business owners by conducting training and counseling
activities; and
``(ii) to provide training and services to a representative
number of women who are socially and economically
disadvantaged.
``(2) Review and approval of applications for initial
financial assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall--
``(i) review each application submitted under paragraph
(1), based on the information described in such paragraph and
the criteria set forth under subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph; and
``(ii) to the extent practicable, as part of the final
selection process, conduct a site visit to each women's
business center for which financial assistance under
subsection (b) is sought.
``(B) Selection criteria.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator shall evaluate
applicants for financial assistance under subsection (b) in
accordance with selection criteria that are--
``(I) established before the date on which applicants are
required to submit the applications;
``(II) stated in terms of relative importance; and
``(III) publicly available and stated in each solicitation
for applications for financial assistance under subsection
(b) made by the Administrator.
``(ii) Required criteria.--The selection criteria for
financial assistance under subsection (b) shall include--
``(I) the experience of the applicant in conducting
programs or ongoing efforts designed to teach or enhance the
business skills of women who are business owners or potential
business owners;
``(II) the ability of the applicant to begin a project
within a minimum amount of time, as established under the
program announcement or by regulation;
``(III) the ability of the applicant to provide training
and services to a representative number of women who are
socially and economically disadvantaged; and
``(IV) the location for the women's business center
proposed by the applicant, including whether the applicant is
located in a State in which there is not a women's business
center receiving funding from the Administration.
``(C) Proximity.--If the principal place of business of an
applicant for financial assistance under subsection (b) is
located less than 50 miles from the principal place of
business of a women's business center that received funds
under this section on or before the date of the application,
the applicant shall not be eligible for the financial
assistance, unless the applicant submits a detailed written
justification of the need for an additional center in the
area in which the applicant is located.
``(D) Record retention.--The Administrator shall maintain a
copy of each application submitted under this subsection for
not less than 7 years.''; and
(6) in subsection (m)--
(A) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Application and approval for renewal grants.--
``(A) Solicitation of applications.--The Administrator
shall solicit applications and award grants under this
subsection for the first fiscal year beginning after the date
of enactment of the Women's Small Business Ownership Act of
2014, and every third fiscal year thereafter.
``(B) Contents of application.--Each eligible entity
desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit to the
Administrator an application that contains--
``(i) a certification that the applicant--
``(I) is an eligible entity;
[[Page 13598]]
``(II) has designated an executive director or program
manager to manage the women's business center operated by the
applicant; and
``(III) as a condition of receiving a grant under this
subsection, agrees--
``(aa) to receive a site visit as part of the final
selection process;
``(bb) to submit, for the 2 full fiscal years before the
date on which the application is submitted, annual
programmatic and financial examination reports or certified
copies of the compliance supplemental audits under OMB
Circular A-133 of the applicant; and
``(cc) to remedy any problem identified pursuant to the
site visit or examination under item (aa) or (bb);
``(ii) information demonstrating that the applicant has the
ability and resources to meet the needs of the market to be
served by the women's business center for which a grant under
this subsection is sought, including the ability to obtain
the non-Federal contribution required under paragraph (4)(C);
``(iii) information relating to assistance to be provided
by the women's business center in the area served by the
women's business center for which a grant under this
subsection is sought;
``(iv) information demonstrating that the applicant has
worked with resource partners of the Administration and other
entities;
``(v) a 3-year plan that describes the ability of the
women's business center for which a grant under this
subsection is sought--
``(I) to serve women who are business owners or potential
business owners by conducting training and counseling
activities; and
``(II) to provide training and services to a representative
number of women who are socially and economically
disadvantaged; and
``(vi) any additional information that the Administrator
may reasonably require.
``(C) Review and approval of applications for grants.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator shall--
``(I) review each application submitted under subparagraph
(B), based on the information described in such subparagraph
and the criteria set forth under clause (ii) of this
subparagraph; and
``(II) at the discretion of the Administrator, and as part
of the final selection process, conduct a site visit to each
women's business center for which a grant under this
subsection is sought.
``(ii) Selection criteria.--
``(I) In general.--The Administrator shall evaluate
applicants for grants under this subsection in accordance
with selection criteria that are--
``(aa) established before the date on which applicants are
required to submit the applications;
``(bb) stated in terms of relative importance; and
``(cc) publicly available and stated in each solicitation
for applications for grants under this subsection made by the
Administrator.
``(II) Required criteria.--The selection criteria for a
grant under this subsection shall include--
``(aa) the total number of entrepreneurs served by the
applicant;
``(bb) the total number of new startup companies assisted
by the applicant;
``(cc) the percentage of clients of the applicant that are
socially or economically disadvantaged; and
``(dd) the percentage of individuals in the community
served by the applicant who are socially or economically
disadvantaged.
``(iii) Conditions for continued funding.--In determining
whether to make a grant under this subsection, the
Administrator--
``(I) shall consider the results of the most recent
evaluation of the women's business center for which a grant
under this subsection is sought, and, to a lesser extent,
previous evaluations; and
``(II) may withhold a grant under this subsection, if the
Administrator determines that the applicant has failed to
provide the information required to be provided under this
paragraph, or the information provided by the applicant is
inadequate.
``(D) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of each deadline to submit applications, the Administrator
shall approve or deny any application under this paragraph
and notify the applicant for each such application of the
approval or denial.
``(E) Record retention.--The Administrator shall maintain a
copy of each application submitted under this paragraph for
not less than 7 years.''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) Award to previous recipients.--There shall be no
limitation on the number of times the Administrator may award
a grant to an applicant under this subsection.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 29 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is amended--
(1) in subsection (h)(2), by striking ``to award a contract
(as a sustainability grant) under subsection (l) or'';
(2) in subsection (j)(1), by striking ``The
Administration'' and inserting ``Not later than November 1 of
each year, the Administrator'';
(3) in subsection (k)--
(A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (4);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
(C) by inserting before paragraph (2) the following:
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Administration to carry out this section, to remain
available until expended, $26,750,000 for each of fiscal
years 2015 through 2019.''; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Continuing grant and cooperative agreement
authority.--
``(A) Prompt disbursement.--Upon receiving funds to carry
out this section for a fiscal year, the Administrator shall,
to the extent practicable, promptly reimburse funds to any
women's business center awarded financial assistance under
this section if the center meets the eligibility requirements
under this section.
``(B) Suspension or termination.--If the Administrator has
entered into a grant or cooperative agreement with a women's
business center under this section, the Administrator may not
suspend or terminate the grant or cooperative agreement,
unless the Administrator--
``(i) provides the women's business center with written
notification setting forth the reasons for that action; and
``(ii) affords the women's business center an opportunity
for a hearing, appeal, or other administrative proceeding
under chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.'';
(4) in subsection (m)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (b) or (l)''
and inserting ``this subsection or subsection (b)''; and
(B) in paragraph (4)(D), by striking ``or subsection (l)'';
and
(5) by redesignating subsections (m), (n), and (o), as
amended by this Act, as subsections (l), (m), and (n),
respectively.
(c) Effect on Existing Grants.--
(1) Terms and conditions.--A nonprofit organization
receiving a grant under section 29(m) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 656(m)), as in effect on the day before the
date of enactment of this Act, shall continue to receive the
grant under the terms and conditions in effect for the grant
on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, except
that the nonprofit organization may not apply for a renewal
of the grant under section 29(m)(5) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 656(m)(5)), as in effect on the day before the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Length of renewal grant.--The Administrator may award a
grant under section 29(l) of the Small Business Act, as so
redesignated by subsection (a)(5) of this section, to a
nonprofit organization receiving a grant under section 29(m)
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(m)), as in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act, for the
period--
(A) beginning on the day after the last day of the grant
agreement under such section 29(m); and
(B) ending at the end of the third fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. MATCHING REQUIREMENTS UNDER WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTER
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 29(c) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 656(c)), as amended by section 4 of this Act, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``As a condition'' and
inserting ``Subject to paragraph (6), as a condition''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Waiver of non-federal share relating to technical
assistance and counseling.--
``(A) In general.--Upon request by a recipient
organization, and in accordance with this paragraph, the
Administrator may waive, in whole or in part, the requirement
to obtain non-Federal funds under this subsection for the
technical assistance and counseling activities of the
recipient organization carried out using financial assistance
under this section for a fiscal year. The Administrator may
not waive the requirement for a recipient organization to
obtain non-Federal funds under this paragraph for more than a
total of 2 consecutive fiscal years.
``(B) Considerations.--In determining whether to waive the
requirement to obtain non-Federal funds under this paragraph,
the Administrator shall consider--
``(i) the economic conditions affecting the recipient
organization;
``(ii) the impact a waiver under this clause would have on
the credibility of the women's business center program under
this section;
``(iii) the demonstrated ability of the recipient
organization to raise non-Federal funds; and
``(iv) the performance of the recipient organization.
``(C) Limitation.--The Administrator may not waive the
requirement to obtain non-Federal funds under this paragraph
if granting the waiver would undermine the credibility of the
women's business center program under this section.
``(7) Solicitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a recipient organization may--
``(A) solicit cash and in-kind contributions from private
individuals and entities to be used to carry out the
activities of the recipient organization under the project
conducted under this section; and
[[Page 13599]]
``(B) use amounts made available by the Administration
under this section for the cost of such solicitation and
management of the contributions received.''.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall--
(A) except as provided in paragraph (2), and not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, publish in
the Federal Register proposed regulations by the
Administrator to carry out the amendments made to section 29
of the Small Business Act by this Act; and
(B) accept public comments on such proposed regulations for
not less than 60 days.
(2) Existing proposed regulations.--Paragraph (1)(A) shall
not apply to the extent proposed regulations by the
Administrator have been published on the date of enactment of
this Act that are sufficient to carry out the amendments made
to section 29 of the Small Business Act by this Act.
SEC. 6. STUDY AND REPORT ON ECONOMIC ISSUES FACING WOMEN'S
BUSINESS CENTERS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a broad study of the unique economic issues
facing women's business centers located in covered areas to
identify--
(1) the difficulties such centers face in raising non-
Federal funds;
(2) the difficulties such centers face in competing for
financial assistance, non-Federal funds, or other types of
assistance;
(3) the difficulties such centers face in writing grant
proposals; and
(4) other difficulties such centers face because of the
economy in the type of covered area in which such centers are
located.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report containing the results of the study
under subsection (a), which shall include recommendations, if
any, regarding how to--
(1) address the unique difficulties women's business
centers located in covered areas face because of the type of
covered area in which such centers are located;
(2) expand the presence of, and increase the services
provided by, women's business centers located in covered
areas; and
(3) best use technology and other resources to better serve
women business owners located in covered areas.
(c) Definition of Covered Area.--In this section, the term
``covered area'' means--
(1) any State that is predominantly rural, as determined by
the Administrator;
(2) any State that is predominantly urban, as determined by
the Administrator; and
(3) any State or territory that is an island.
SEC. 7. STUDY AND REPORT ON OVERSIGHT OF WOMEN'S BUSINESS
CENTERS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the oversight of women's business
centers by the Administrator, which shall include--
(1) an analysis of the coordination by the Administrator of
the activities of women's business centers with the
activities of small business development centers, the Service
Corps of Retired Executives, and Veteran Business Outreach
Centers;
(2) a comparison of the types of individuals and small
business concerns served by women's business centers and the
types of individuals and small business concerns served by
small business development centers, the Service Corps of
Retired Executives, and Veteran Business Outreach Centers;
and
(3) an analysis of performance data for women's business
centers that evaluates how well women's business centers are
carrying out the mission of women's business centers and
serving individuals and small business concerns.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report containing the results of the study
under subsection (a), which shall include recommendations, if
any, for eliminating the duplication of services provided by
women's business centers, small business development centers,
the Service Corps of Retired Executives, and Veteran Business
Outreach Centers.
SEC. 8. SOLE SOURCE CONTRACTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS
OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY WOMEN.
(a) In General.--Section 8(m) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 637(m)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Authority for sole source contracts for economically
disadvantaged small business concerns owned and controlled by
women in underrepresented industries.--A contracting officer
may award a sole source contract under this subsection to a
small business concern owned and controlled by women that
meets the requirements under paragraph (2)(A) if--
``(A) the small business concern owned and controlled by
women is in an industry in which small business concerns
owned and controlled by women are underrepresented, as
determined by the Administrator;
``(B) the contracting officer determines that the small
business concern owned and controlled by women is a
responsible contractor with respect to performance of the
contract opportunity;
``(C) the anticipated award price of the contract,
including options, is not more than--
``(i) $6,500,000, in the case of a contract opportunity
assigned a North American Industry Classification System code
for manufacturing; or
``(ii) $4,000,000, in the case of any other contract
opportunity; and
``(D) in the estimation of the contracting officer, the
contract award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.
``(8) Authority for sole source contracts for small
business concerns owned and controlled by women in
substantially underrepresented industries.--A contracting
officer may award a sole source contract under this
subsection to a small business concern owned and controlled
by women that meets the requirements under paragraph (2)(E)
if--
``(A) the small business concern owned and controlled by
women is in an industry in which small business concerns
owned and controlled by women are substantially
underrepresented, as determined by the Administrator;
``(B) the contracting officer determines that the small
business concern owned and controlled by women is a
responsible contractor with respect to performance of the
contract opportunity;
``(C) the anticipated award price of the contract,
including options, is not more than--
``(i) $6,500,000, in the case of a contract opportunity
assigned a North American Industry Classification System code
for manufacturing; or
``(ii) $4,000,000, in the case of any other contract
opportunity; and
``(D) in the estimation of the contracting officer, the
contract award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.''.
(b) Reporting on Goals for Sole Source Contracts for Small
Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by Women.--Section
15(h)(2)(E)(viii) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
644(h)(2)(E)(viii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (IV), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating subclause (V) as subclause (VIII); and
(3) by inserting after subclause (IV) the following:
``(V) through sole source contracts awarded under section
8(m)(7);
``(VI) through sole source contracts awarded under section
8(m)(8);
``(VII) by industry for contracts described in subclause
(III), (IV), (V), or (VI); and''.
(c) Deadline for Report on Underrepresented Industries
Accelerated.--Section 29(o)(2) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 656(o)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``5 years after the date of enactment of
this subsection'' and inserting ``January 2, 2015''; and
(2) by striking ``5-year period'' and inserting ``2-year or
5-year period, as applicable,''.
(d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 8(m) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(m)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (4)''; and
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``paragraph (2)(F)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``paragraph (2)(E)''.
SEC. 9. SMALL BUSINESS INTERMEDIARY LENDING PROGRAM.
Section 7(l) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(l))
is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Pilot'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``pilot'';
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``3-year''; and
(B) by striking ``pilot'';
(4) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) Loan limits.--
``(i) In general.--No single loan to an eligible
intermediary under this subsection may exceed $1,000,000.
``(ii) Total amount.--The total amount outstanding and
committed to an eligible intermediary by the Administrator
under the Program may not exceed $5,000,000.''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting the
following:
``(G) Maximum amounts.--The Administrator may make loans
under the Program--
``(i) during each of fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, in
a total amount of not more than $20,000,000; and
``(ii) during fiscal year 2018 and each fiscal year
thereafter, using such amounts as are made available for the
Program.''; and
(5) by striking paragraph (6).
SEC. 10. ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.
(a) Microloan Program.--Section 7(m) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ``short-term,'';
(2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$7,000,000'';
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (E); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (E);
(4) in paragraph (6)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``short-term,''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Report to commercial credit reporting agencies.--The
Administrator shall
[[Page 13600]]
establish a process under which an intermediary that makes a
loan to a small business concern under this paragraph shall
provide to 1 or more of the commercial credit reporting
agencies, through the Administration or independently,
including through third party intermediaries, information on
the small business concern that is relevant to credit
reporting, including the payment activity of the small
business concern on the loan.'';
(5) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``Program'' and all that follows through
``Under'' and inserting the following: ``Number of
participants.--Under''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B);
(6) in paragraph (8), by striking ``such intermediaries''
and all the follows through the period at the end and
inserting the following: ``intermediaries that serve a
diversity of geographic areas in the United States to ensure
appropriate availability of loans for small business concerns
in all industries that are located in metropolitan,
nonmetropolitan, and rural areas.''; and
(7) in paragraph (11)(B), by striking ``short-term,''.
(b) Guarantee Fee Waiver.--During fiscal year 2016, the
Administrator may not collect a guarantee fee under section
7(a)(18)(A)(i) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(18)(A)(i)) with respect to a loan guaranteed under
section 7(a) of such Act, unless amounts are made available
to the Administrator to subsidize the cost of guaranteeing
such loans for fiscal year 2016.
(c) Annual Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the Office
of Capital Access of the Administration shall submit to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives a report on assistance provided by the
Administration under--
(A) section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a));
(B) the microloan program;
(C) part A of title III of the Small Business Investment
Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 681 et seq.); and
(D) section 502 of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958 (15 U.S.C. 696).
(2) Requirement.--Each report required under paragraph (1)
shall include, for the year preceding the date on which the
report is submitted--
(A) for each type of assistance described under
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of paragraph (1)--
(i) the number of loans made by the Administration;
(ii) the total amount of loans made by the Administration;
(iii) the percentage of the number and total amount of
loans made by the Administration to--
(I) rural small business concerns;
(II) small business concerns owned and controlled by
individuals with a disability;
(III) small business concerns owned and controlled by low-
income individuals, broken down by each racial or ethnic
minority group of which those individuals are members;
(IV) small business concerns owned and controlled by
veterans;
(V) small business concerns owned and controlled by women;
and
(VI) small business concerns owned and controlled by
members of a racial or ethnic minority group, broken down by
each such racial or ethnic minority group; and
(iv) the number of jobs created and retained by borrowers
as a result of such assistance; and
(B) for assistance described under subparagraph (C) of
paragraph (1)--
(i) the number of investments made by small business
investment companies;
(ii) the total amount of equity capital provided and loans
made by small business investment companies;
(iii) the percentage of the number of investments and loans
made and total amount of equity capital provided by small
business investment companies to--
(I) rural small business concerns;
(II) small business concerns owned and controlled by
individuals with a disability;
(III) small business concerns owned and controlled by low-
income individuals, broken down by each racial or ethnic
minority group of which those individuals are members;
(IV) small business concerns owned and controlled by
veterans;
(V) small business concerns owned and controlled by women;
and
(VI) small business concerns owned and controlled by
members of a racial or ethnic minority group, broken down by
each such racial or ethnic minority group;
(iv) the number of jobs created and retained by small
business concerns as a result of investments made by small
business investment companies; and
(v) the number of licenses issued by the Administration
under section 301(c) of the Small Business Investment Act (15
U.S.C. 681(c)), including the percentage of licenses issued
to entities headed by a woman or a member of a racial or
ethnic minority, respectively.
SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) access to capital for small business concerns owned and
controlled by women comes from a variety of sources,
including important contributions and early investments from
angel capital and other venture capital investors; and
(2) those investors should continue to work to develop
small business concerns owned and controlled by women to
expand the rate at which those women receive venture
investment.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Reed):
S. 2704. A bill to prohibit the award of Federal Government contracts
to inverted domestic corporations, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier today I, along with Senator Dick
Durbin and Senator Jack Reed, introduced the No Federal Contracts for
Corporate Deserters Act. Our bill will put a stop to companies that
renounce their U.S. citizenship but come back to try to seek taxpayer
funded government contracts. There is an existing law on the books that
is supposed to ban Federal contracts with inverted corporations, but
just like with the tax code, after about a decade of lawyers looking
for loopholes in the law, a number of corporations have found them.
This bill would bring that ban up-to-date.
Over the last few months, there has been a growing rush of U.S.
corporations seeking to swear off their U.S. citizenship and move their
mailboxes, for tax purposes, to a low-tax jurisdiction. I don't think
that is right, and it is time we put a stop to it, which we can do by
passing the Stop Corporate Inversions Act I introduced 2 months ago
with 22 cosponsors.
Most Americans agree with us that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used
for contracts with companies that move their addresses abroad to dodge
U.S. laws. And because of that, Congress has passed a series of
restrictions on contracting with inverted corporations over the last
decade. We passed one in 2002, and another in 2006 and 2007. Since
fiscal year 2008, a government-wide provision has been included in
every annual appropriations bill banning contracts with inverted
corporations.
Our bill would strengthen that ban by closing a number of loopholes
in the current law. Those loopholes have allowed some inverted
corporations to continue collecting revenue from American taxpayers,
while at the same time, shifting their tax burden onto those same
American taxpayers. Our bill also makes the existing ban, which has
been included in annual appropriations bills, permanent.
Some may say that the real reason for inversions is that our tax rate
is too high. It is true the top corporate rate is 35 percent. But the
effective tax rate--what corporations really pay--is about 12 percent.
When companies can go to places like Ireland or the Caribbean and
negotiate sweetheart deals to pay little or no taxes, there will always
be tax incentives for companies to abandon their country instead of
paying their tax bill, no matter what our tax rate is.
Some may say that we should wait for tax reform to address this
issue. There are two reasons why we shouldn't. First, if it happens at
all, tax reform is months or years away; these inversions are happening
now. Second, this is a bill about contracting. This bill doesn't amend
the tax code. I expect it will be referred to the Homeland Security and
Government Affairs Committee, not to the Finance Committee. So even
Senators who believe that fixing the tax inversions problem should wait
until comprehensive tax reform should be able to support this bill.
In the past, in similar circumstances, Congress has chosen to act--
overwhelmingly, and in a bipartisan fashion. This should not be a
partisan issue. This is about fairness. It is simply unfair to
businesses who don't invert to have to compete with companies that do
invert. This is about putting American families who work hard and pay
their share. We shouldn't sacrifice the interests of those families. We
shouldn't ask them to send their hard-earned tax dollars to contractors
who skip out on their tax obligations.
[[Page 13601]]
I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill forward.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2711. A bill to reauthorize the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom, USCIRF, Reform and
Reauthorization Act of 2014.
This legislation would reauthorize the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, also known as USCIRF, while making
important reforms to the Commission to encourage bipartisanship,
enhance coordination with the State Department, and improve
Congressional oversight.
I strongly support USCIRF's mission of promoting and protecting
international religious freedom. My legislation will help USCIRF to
more effectively pursue this mission.
In 2011, I authored a number of reforms in the previous USCIRF
reauthorization legislation, including term limits for Commissioners; a
prohibition on employee discrimination; a requirement that
Commissioners follow federal travel regulations; and maintaining nine
Commissioners, rather than five Commissioners, as called for by the
House-passed reauthorization. I have heard from USCIRF that these
reforms have strengthened the Commission, and the legislation I am
introducing today will build on these reforms.
The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act is supported by a broad
swath of religious and civic leaders and faith organizations,
including, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of America; United Methodist Church, General Board of
Church and Society; HIAS; Muslim Public Affairs Council; Cardinal
Theodore E. McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington and former
USCIRF Commissioner; Dr. William J. Shaw, Immediate Past President of
the National Baptist Convention, USA. Inc. and former USCIRF
Commissioner; former Congressman and USCIRF Commissioner Sam Gejdenson;
Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, A National
Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Rateb Rabie, President of the Holy Land
Christian Ecumenical Foundation; Dr. Azizah Al-Hibri, former USCIRF
Commissioner and Founder and Chair of KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for
Human Rights; Rev. Drew Christiansen, S.J., Distinguished Professor of
Ethics and Global Development at Georgetown University; Dr. Alfred
Rotondaro, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; Dr. Laila
Al-Marayati, former USCIRF Commissioner; and Benjamin Palumbo, Board of
Trustees, Catholics United.
There is bipartisan agreement about the need for our government to
promote and protect international religious freedom. USCIRF is, by
design, a bipartisan organization, with Commissioners appointed by the
President and Congressional leaders, and USCIRF can most effectively
promote religious freedom by doing so on a bipartisan basis. This issue
is too important to be stymied by the excessive partisanship which too
often leads to political gridlock in Washington.
It is to be expected that the members of a bipartisan Commission will
not always reach consensus. However, I am troubled that some
Commissioners have on occasion engaged in partisan rhetoric that is not
conducive to USCIRF's bipartisan mission and does not represent
USCIRF's official views.
For example, one Commissioner recently appeared on Fox News' Hannity
program, and, after identifying himself as a member of USCIRF, claimed
that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had failed to take steps
to combat Boko Haram in Nigeria and accused the Obama Administration of
having ``no strategy'' for combating terrorism. Mother Commissioner
testified in Congress on behalf of USCIRF and said that the Obama
Administration ``sends a message to other countries that we don't
care'' about religious freedom.
The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act will facilitate
bipartisanship by taking a number of steps. First, the legislation will
codify USCIRF's existing procedures for the election of a Chair and
Vice Chair so that these positions rotate annually between
Commissioners appointed by elected officials of each political party.
This will help ensure continued bipartisan leadership at the
Commission.
Second, this bill will establish a dedicated bipartisan staff as a
complement to nonpartisan professional staff. The legislation permits
Commissioners appointed by elected officials of each political party to
appoint designated Staff Directors and three designated staff members.
This will help foster a bipartisan environment at USCIRF.
Third, the bill will codify procedures for publishing the views of
the Commission. The bill encourages Commissioners to reach consensus on
statements on behalf of the Commission. When consensus is not possible,
the bill requires a statement to be approved by at least six of the
nine Commissioners. This supermajority requirement is current USCIRF
policy for the approval of statements that are circulated
electronically. Codifying this policy will ensure that at least one
Commissioner of each political party supports every Commission
statement.
USCIRF has noted that it is the only organization of its kind in the
world. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, recently issued a
report on USCIRF which highlights some of the challenges inherent to
USCIRF's unique mission.
The GAO notes that there are two governmental entities charged with
promoting international religious freedom: USCIRF and the State
Department's Office of International Religious Freedom. The GAO found
that these overlapping missions and ``the lack of a definition
regarding how State and the Commission are to interact has sometimes
created foreign policy tensions that State has had to mitigate.'' The
GAO notes that State Department officials highlighted several instances
``when the Commission's approach with foreign government officials
created bilateral tensions.''
The GAO's concerns about the overlap between State and USCIRF are
serious enough that it included USCIRF in its annual duplication
report. As my colleagues know, Senator Coburn authored legislation
requiring GAO to issue this report to identify unnecessary duplication
in the federal government.
I am concerned that the lack of coordination between the State
Department and USCIRF may undermine our government's efforts to promote
international religious freedom by sending mixed messages to foreign
governments and human-rights activists who are fighting to defend
religious freedom in their countries.
Consider another example. The State Department and USCIRF both
produce an annual report on international religious freedom. Under
current law, USCIRF is required to publish its report ``[n]ot later
than May 1 of each year,'' but the State Department's report is often
not completed before May 1. This forces USCIRF to issue its report
prior to publication of the State Department report, which leads to
unnecessary duplication of efforts, saps USCIRF's limited staff
resources, and prevents USCIRF from opining on the State Department
report.
The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act will enhance cooperation
between USCIRF and the State Department with two measures. First, it
clarifies that the Ambassador at Large for International Religious
Freedom, as an ex officio member of USCIRF, is permitted to attend all
Commission meetings. GAO's duplication report specifically highlights
the failure to define the role of the Ambassador at Large as an ex
officio member of USCIRF.
Second, this legislation requires USCIRF to publish its annual report
after reviewing the State Department's annual report on International
Religious Freedom. This division of labor takes advantage of the State
Department's worldwide presence and much larger staff to draft a
comprehensive report. It also takes advantage of
[[Page 13602]]
USCIRF's unique role to provide an independent and bipartisan
commentary on the State Department report.
USCIRF is a part of the legislative branch and it is ultimately the
responsibility of Congress to oversee USCIRF's work and ensure that it
is effectively pursuing its mission. The need for greater Congressional
oversight of USCIRF has been highlighted by concerns about USCIRF's
practices, including, for example, the work environment at USCIRF for
religious minorities, particularly prior to the 2011 reauthorization.
In the past, human rights advocates made allegations about financial
improprieties at USCIRF, particularly that USCIRF Commissioners had
made lavish travel arrangements. As a result, in 2011 I authored a
provision clarifying that USCIRF Commissioners are subject to Federal
travel regulations.
I was troubled to learn about more allegations of financial
irregularities at USCIRF only a few weeks after the last
reauthorization. In early 2012, USCIRF staff notified my office that
USCIRF's office manager had been involved in embezzlement and fraud for
several years. The office manager subsequently pled guilty and was
sentenced to 20 months in prison for embezzling $217,000 from 2007-
2011. This is a significant amount of taxpayer money in any
circumstance, but particularly for a small organization like USCIRF.
I am also concerned about unresolved claims that USCIRF, an
organization charged with protecting religious freedom, discriminated
against a former employee on the basis of her religion.
In 2011, I included language in the last USCIRF reauthorization
providing anti-discrimination protections to USCIRF employees and
allowing pending civil rights claims to proceed. The impetus for this
provision was a lawsuit filed by a former USCIRF employee, who claimed
that her permanent employment offer was rescinded after the
Commissioners learned of her prior job with a Muslim civil rights
organization. USCIRF did not deny the discrimination claim. Instead,
they argued that USCIRF employees do not have federal civil rights
protections.
Unfortunately, the lawsuit is still pending. I understand that
USCIRF's lawyers have refused to enter into settlement negotiations
with the Commission's former employee and instead are aggressively
litigating the case.
As Christianity Today said, ``the trial will be one of the most
ironic in American history, with the congressional commission charged
with monitoring religious freedom around the world defending its own
employment practices in court.''
In light of these concerns, the USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act
would improve Congressional oversight by reauthorizing the Commission
for two years. A 2-year reauthorization period will allow the
Commission to continue to pursue its important mission while Congress
closely monitors USCIRF's activities to assure the reforms in this
legislation are fully implemented.
I strongly support the mission of the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom to protect and promote international
religious freedom. I believe the reforms in my legislation will help
USCIRF more effectively pursue this mission.
I urge my colleagues to support the USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization
Act so that USCIRF can quickly be reauthorized with these important
reforms.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2711
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 ``United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom Reform and Reauthorization
Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION.
(a) Leadership.--Subsection (d) of section 201 of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6431(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Election of Chair.--At the first meeting of the
Commission after May 30 of each year, a majority of the
Members of the Commission present and voting shall elect the
Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission, subject to the
following requirements:
``(1) Initial elections.--At the first meeting of the
Commission after May 30, 2015, the Members of the Commission
shall elect as Chair a Commissioner appointed by an elected
official of the political party that is not the political
party of the President, and as Vice Chair a Commissioner
appointed by an elected official of the political party of
the President.
``(2) Future elections.--At the first meeting of the
Commission after May 30, 2016, the Members of the Commission
shall elect as Chair a Commissioner appointed by an elected
official of the political party of the President, and as Vice
Chair a Commissioner appointed by an elected official of the
political party that is not the political party of the
President. Thereafter, positions of Chair and Vice Chair
shall continue to rotate on an annual basis between
Commissioners appointed by elected officials of each
political party.
``(3) Term limits.--No Member of the Commission is eligible
to be elected as Chair of the Commission for a second term,
and no Member of the Commission is eligible to be elected as
Vice Chair of the Commission for a second term.''.
(b) Attendance at Meetings of Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom.--Subsection (f) of such
section (22 U.S.C. 6431(f)) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``The Ambassador at Large shall be given
advance notice of all Commission meetings and may attend all
Commission meetings as a non-voting Member of the
Commission.''.
(c) Appointments in Cases of Vacancies.--Subsection (g) of
such section (22 U.S.C. 6431(g)) is amended by striking the
second sentence.
SEC. 3. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
Section 203(e) of the International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6432a) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Views of the Commission.--The Members of the
Commission may speak in their capacity as private citizens.
Statements on behalf of the Commission shall be issued in
writing over the names of the Members. Members of the
Commission shall make every effort to reach consensus on all
statements on behalf of the Commission, including testimony,
press releases, and articles by Commissioners or Commission
staff. When a statement supported by all Commissioners is not
possible, the Commission shall issue a statement only if such
statement is approved by an affirmative vote of at least six
of the nine Members of the Commission and each Member of the
Commission may include the individual or dissenting views of
the Member. The Commission shall in its written statements
clearly describe its statutory authority, distinguishing that
authority from that of appointed or elected officials of the
United States Government. Oral statements, where practicable,
shall include a similar description.''.
SEC. 4. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Staff Directors.--Section 204 of the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6432b) is amended by
striking subsections (a), (b), and (c) and inserting the
following new subsections:
``(a) Committee Functions.--Subject to subsection (c), the
Commission may appoint and fix the pay of such staff
personnel as it deems desirable. All decisions pertaining to
the hiring, firing, and fixing of pay of personnel of the
Commission shall be by an affirmative vote of at least six of
the nine Members of the Commission, except that--
``(1) Members of the Commission appointed by an elected
official of the political party of the President, by a
majority vote thereof, shall be entitled to appoint,
terminate, and fix the pay of a Majority Staff Director and
shall have the authority to appoint, terminate, and fix the
pay of three professional staff members who shall be
responsible to the Members of the Commission of the political
party of the President; and
``(2) Members of the Commission appointed by an elected
official of the political party that is not the political
party of the President, by a majority vote thereof, shall be
entitled to appoint, terminate, and fix the pay of a Minority
Staff Director and shall have the authority to appoint,
terminate, and fix the pay of three professional staff
members who shall be responsible to the Members of the
Commission of the political party that is not the political
party of the President.
``(b) Staff Appointments and Compensation.--All staff
appointments shall be made without regard to the provisions
of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the Majority Staff
Director, Minority Staff Director, and other personnel may
not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive
Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
``(c) Qualifications of Professional Staff.--The Commission
shall ensure that the professional staff of the Commission
consists of persons with expertise in areas relevant to the
issue of international religious
[[Page 13603]]
freedom, including foreign affairs, direct experience abroad,
human rights, and international law.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (e) of such section
(22 U.S.C. 6432b(e)) is amended by striking ``The Executive
Director'' both places it appears and inserting ``The
Majority Staff Director and the Minority Staff Director''.
SEC. 5. REPORT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Report Publication Date.--Section 205(a) of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6433(a)) is amended by striking ``Not later than May 1 of
each year'' and inserting ``Each year, not earlier than 30
days after, and not later than 90 days after, the publication
of the Department of State's Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom''.
(b) Consensus on Reports.--Section 205(c) of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6433(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Individual or Dissenting Views.--Members of the
Commission shall make every effort to reach consensus on the
report. When a report supported by all Commissioners is not
possible, the report shall be approved by an affirmative vote
of at least six of the nine Members of the Commission and
each Member of the Commission may include the individual or
dissenting views of the Member.''.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 207(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6435(a)) is amended by striking ``2014''
and inserting ``2016''.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION.
Section 209 of the International Religious Freedom Act of
1998 (22 U.S.C. 6436) is amended by striking ``September 30,
2014'' and inserting ``September 30, 2016''.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2712. A bill to amend section 455(m) of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 in order to allow adjunct faculty members to qualify for public
service loan forgiveness; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I introduced the Adjunct Faculty
Loan Fairness Act, a bill that would make adjunct professors eligible
to participate in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness Program.
Contingent faculty members are like full-time instructors. They have
advanced degrees. They teach classes and spend many hours outside the
classroom preparing for class. They hold office hours, grade papers and
give feedback to students. They provide advice and write letters of
recommendation. Students rely on them. Since most adjuncts have
advanced degrees and, as almost 75 percent of graduate degree
recipients have an average of $61,000 in student loans, they are also
among the 40 million Americans with student debt.
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is meant to encourage
graduates to go into public service by offering student loan
forgiveness for eligible federal loans after ten years of full-time
work in government or the non-profit sector. Public service fields like
nursing, military service, and public health qualify. And many
education jobs qualify, including full-time work at public universities
and part-time work at community colleges in high-needs subject areas or
areas of shortage. But other faculty members who work part-time are not
eligible for loan forgiveness because the law requires an annual
average of 30 hours per week to qualify for the program. For adjunct
faculty working at several schools on a contingent basis, this
requirement can be difficult or impossible to meet, even when they are
putting in more than 30 hours of work each week.
The number of faculty hours given for each class is calculated
differently at different schools. Some give one hour per hour in the
classroom while others actually take into consideration the time
required outside the classroom. So, even as these faculty members are
working hard and as their options for tenured, full-time positions
become slimmer, more of them are overworked and undervalued for their
work in public service.
The Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2014 would solve this by
amending the Higher Education Act to expand the definition of a
``public service job'' to include a part-time faculty member who
teaches at least one course at an eligible institution of higher
education. They would still have to meet all the other requirements to
qualify for the program, including making 120 on-time payments while
employed at a qualifying institution, and they could not be employed
full-time elsewhere at the same time.
This bill would benefit someone like David Weiss, an adjunct
professor from St. Paul, Minnesota, who graduated with $48,000 in
student debt and, after 12 years of on-time payments, has $35,000 left.
Like most adjuncts, David has dealt with uncertain job security. In
good years, he is able to teach 5 to 7 courses a year, but recently he
has only been offered two to three courses. He supplements his income
from teaching with other part-time work. This bill would ensure that
David and many thousands like him, could obtain credit towards PSLF for
payments made while teaching whether or not he was teaching one course
or 7.
Unfortunately, for all their contributions to the college programs
and the students they work with, adjunct faculty don't have the same
employment benefits or job security as their colleagues. The number of
classes they teach every semester varies. To make ends meet, these
professors often end up teaching classes at more than one school in the
same semester, getting paid about $3,000 per class and making an
average annual income that hovers around minimum wage. This also means
that, in some parts of the country, they spend as much time commuting
as they do teaching.
Nationally, \2/3\ of all higher education faculty work on a
contingent basis, with low pay and little or no benefits or job
security. In the past, these were a minority of professors who were
hired to teach an occasional class because they could bring experience
to the classroom in a specific field or industry. Over time, as
university budgets have tightened and it has gotten more expensive to
hire full-time, tenure track professors, higher education institutions
have increasingly hired adjuncts.
From 1991 to 2011, the number of part-time faculty in the U.S.
increased two and a half times from 291,000 to over 760,000. At the
same time, the percentage of professors holding tenure-track positions
has been steadily decreasing--from 45 percent of all instructors in
1975 to only 24 percent in 2011. The number of full-time instructors,
tenured and non-tenured, now makes up only about 50 percent of
professors on U.S. campuses. The other 50 percent of the 1.5 million
faculty employees at public and non-profit colleges and universities in
the U.S. work on a part-time, contingent basis.
Illinois colleges rely heavily on adjuncts. In 2012, 53 percent of
all faculty at public and not-for-profit colleges and universities in
the State, more than 30,400 faculty employees, worked on a part-time
basis. This is a 52.6 percent increase in part-time faculty in Illinois
compared to a 13 percent increase in full-time faculty since 2002.
Not surprisingly, in Illinois, 69 percent of all part-time faculty
work in Chicago, where the cost of living is 16 percent higher than the
U.S. average. Based on an average payment of $3,000 per class an
adjunct professor must teach between seventeen and thirty classes a
year to pay for rent and utilities in Chicago.
They would have to teach up to 7 classes to afford groceries for a
family of four and two to four classes per year just to cover student
loan payments. Because they are part-time, they are not eligible for
vacation time, paid sick days, or group health-care. So they would have
to teach an additional two to three classes to afford family coverage
from the lowest priced health insurance offered on Get Covered
Illinois, the official health marketplace.
Even though these professors are working in a relatively low-paying
field, teaching our students, their part-time status also means they
aren't eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.
This bill does not completely fix this growing reliance on part-time
professors who are underpaid and undervalued. But it would ensure that
members of the contingent faculty workforce are no longer excluded from
the loan forgiveness program for public servants. I hope my colleagues
will join me in the effort to provide this benefit
[[Page 13604]]
to faculty members who provide our students with a quality education.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2712
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 ``Adjunct Faculty Loan
Fairness Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR ADJUNCT FACULTY.
Section 455(m)(3)(B)(ii) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``teaching as'' and inserting the
following: ``teaching--
``(I) as'';
(2) by striking ``, foreign language faculty, and part-time
faculty at community colleges), as determined by the
Secretary.'' and inserting ``and foreign language faculty),
as determined by the Secretary; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(II) as a part-time faculty member or instructor who--
``(aa) teaches not less than 1 course at an institution of
higher education (as defined in section 101(a)), a
postsecondary vocational institution (as defined in section
102(c)), or a Tribal College or University (as defined in
section 316(b)); and
``(bb) is not employed on a full-time basis by any other
employer.''.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 529--RECOGNIZING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMENDING ITS
MEMBERS FOR THEIR COURAGE AND SACRIFICE IN SERVICE TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. TOOMEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 529
Whereas on September 17, 1914, members of the American
Veterans of Foreign Service and the National Society of the
Army of the Philippines merged their organizations and voted
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to adopt the name ``Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States'';
Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
remains active in communities at the international, national,
State, and local levels with more than 2,000,000 members;
Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
provides financial, social, and emotional support to members
of the Armed forces, veterans, and their dependents
throughout the United States;
Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
works on behalf of service members of the United States by
calling on Congress for better health care and benefits for
veterans;
Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
annually donates more than 13,000,000 volunteer hours of
community service; and
Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
has played an instrumental role in each significant veterans
legislation passed since its founding and continues to play
such a role: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States on its 100th anniversary as a national
organization with a mission to--
(A) foster camaraderie among United States veterans of
overseas conflicts;
(B) serve veterans, the military, and communities across
the United States; and
(C) advocate on behalf of all veterans;
(2) commends the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States for their courage and sacrifice in service
to the United States; and
(3) encourages all individuals of the United States to
express their appreciation for the honor, courage, and
bravery of United States veterans and for the service of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 530--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE
CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ AND THE URGENT NEED TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS
MINORITIES FROM PERSECUTION FROM THE SUNNI ISLAMIST INSURGENT AND
TERRORIST GROUP THE ISLAMIC STATE, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE
OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT (ISIL), AS IT EXPANDS ITS CONTROL OVER AREAS IN
NORTHWESTERN IRAQ
Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrasso,
Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Chambliss, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Heller,
Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Kirk, Ms.
Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lee, Mr. Levin, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey,
Mr. McCain, Mr. Moran, Mr. Risch, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Rubio,
Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Thune, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Vitter, and Ms. Ayotte) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 530
Whereas Iraq is currently embroiled in a surge of violence
arising from an Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)-
led offensive that began in Anbar province and has spread to
key locations such as Mosul, Tikrit, and Samarra and
continues to engulf the region in violence and instability;
Whereas, on June 29, 2014, ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
renamed the group the Islamic State and pronounced himself
Caliph of a new Islamic Caliphate encompassing the areas
under his control, and Mr. al-Baghdadi has a stated mission
of spreading the Islamic State and caliphate across the
region through violence against Shiites, non-Muslims, and
unsupportive Sunnis;
Whereas Iraq's population is approximately 31,300,000
people, with 97 percent identifying themselves as Muslim and
the approximately 3 percent of religious minorities groups
comprising of Christians, Yezidis, Sabean-Mandaeans, Bahais,
Shabaks, Kakais, and Jews;
Whereas the Iraqi Christian population is estimated to be
between 400,000 and 850,000, with two-thirds being Chaldean,
one-fifth Assyrian, and the remainder consisting of Syriacs,
Protestants, Armenians, and Anglicans;
Whereas the Iraqi constitution provides for religious
freedom by stating that ``no law may be enacted that
contradicts the principles of democracy,'' ``no law may be
enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms
stipulated in this Constitution,'' and ``[this Constitution]
guarantees the full religious rights to freedom of religious
belief and practice of all individuals such as Christians,
Yazidis, and Mandean Sabeans'';
Whereas over 1,000,000 people have been displaced by
violence in Iraq, and reports have surfaced of targeted
harassment, persecution, and killings of Iraqi religious
minorities by the Islamic State with little to no protection
from the Government of Iraq and other security forces;
Whereas the fall of Mosul in particular has sparked enough
anxiety among the Christian population that, for the first
time in 1,600 years, there was no Mass in that city;
Whereas over 50 percent of Iraq's Christian population has
fled since the fall of Saddam Hussein, and the government
under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has not upheld its
commitment to protect the rights of religious minorities;
Whereas the United States Government has provided over
$73,000,000 of cumulative assistance to Iraq's minority
populations since 2003 through economic development,
humanitarian services, and capacity development;
Whereas 84,902 Iraqis have resettled to the United States
between 2007 and 2013 and over 300,000 Chaldean and Assyrians
currently reside throughout the country, particularly in
Michigan, California, Arizona, Illinois, and Ohio; and
Whereas President Barack Obama recently declared on
Religious Freedom Day, ``Foremost among the rights Americans
hold sacred is the freedom to worship as we choose . . . we
also remember that religious liberty is not just an American
right; it is a universal human right to be protected here at
home and across the globe. This freedom is an essential part
of human dignity, and without it our world cannot know
lasting peace'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) reaffirms its commitment to promoting and protecting
religious freedom around the world and providing relief to
minority groups facing persecution;
(2) calls on the Department of State to work with the
Kurdistan Regional Government, the Government of Iraq,
neighboring countries, the diaspora community in the United
States, and other key stakeholders to help secure safe havens
for those seeking safety and protection from religious
persecution in Iraq;
(3) respectfully requests the addition of a Special
Representative for Religious Minorities to be included in
Iraq's government; and
(4) urges the President to ensure the timely processing of
visas for Iraq's minority groups fleeing religious
persecution, in accordance with existing United States
immigration law and national security screening procedures.
[[Page 13605]]
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 3706. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3707. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3708. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3709. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3710. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3711. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3712. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3713. Mr. BEGICH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 3714. Mr. BEGICH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 3715. Mr. CASEY (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Warner, and Mrs. Shaheen) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3716. Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Flake, and Mr.
Barrasso) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 2648, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3717. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2410, to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3718. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2410, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 3719. Mr. WICKER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2648, making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2014, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 3720. Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Vitter,
Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lee, Mr. Johanns, and Mr. Boozman) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
2648, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 3721. Mr. WHITEHOUSE submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 2410, to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 3722. Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Heller) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2648,
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 3706. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1087. REPORT ON POW/MIA POLICIES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
policies and proposals for providing access to information
and documents to the next of kin of missing service
personnel, including under chapter 76 of title 10, United
States Code, as amended by section 911.
(b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following elements:
(1) A description of information and documents to be
provided to the next of kin, including the status of recovery
efforts and service records.
(2) A description of the Department's plans, if any, to
review the classification status of records related to past
covered conflicts and missing service personnel.
(3) An assessment of whether it is feasible and advisable
to develop a public interface for any database of missing
personnel being developed.
______
SA 3707. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 846. PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES STATUTE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide the
Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration with an effective
administrative remedy to obtain recompense for the Department
of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for losses resulting from the submission to
the Department or the Administration, respectively, of false,
fictitious, or fraudulent claims and statements.
(b) Program Fraud Civil Remedies.--
(1) In general.--Part IV of subtitle A of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 163 the
following new chapter:
``CHAPTER 164--ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES FOR FALSE CLAIMS AND STATEMENTS
``Sec.
``2751. Applicability of chapter; definitions.
``2752. False claims and statements; liability.
``2753. Hearing and determinations.
``2754. Payment; interest on late payments.
``2755. Judicial review.
``2756. Collection of civil penalties and assessments.
``2757. Right to administrative offset.
``2758. Limitations.
``2759. Effect on other laws.
``2751. Applicability of chapter; definitions.
``Sec. 2751. Applicability of chapter; definitions
``(a) Applicability of Chapter.--This chapter applies to
the following agencies:
``(1) The Department of Defense.
``(2) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
``(b) Definitions.--In this chapter:
``(1) Head of an agency.--The term `head of an agency'
means the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
``(2) Claim.--The term `claim' means any request, demand,
or submission--
``(A) made to the head of an agency for property, services,
or money (including money representing grants, loans,
insurance, or benefits);
``(B) made to a recipient of property, services, or money
received directly or indirectly from the head of an agency or
to a party to a contract with the head of an agency--
``(i) for property or services if the United States--
``(I) provided such property or services;
``(II) provided any portion of the funds for the purchase
of such property or services; or
``(III) will reimburse such recipient or party for the
purchase of such property or services; or
``(ii) for the payment of money (including money
representing grants, loans, insurance, or benefits) if the
United States--
``(I) provided any portion of the money requested or
demanded; or
``(II) will reimburse such recipient or party for any
portion of the money paid on such request or demand; or
``(C) made to the head of an agency which has the effect of
decreasing an obligation to pay or account for property,
services, or money.
``(3) Knows or has reason to know.--The term `knows or has
reason to know', for purposes of establishing liability under
section 2752 of this title, means that a person, with respect
to a claim or statement--
``(A) has actual knowledge that the claim or statement is
false, fictitious, or fraudulent;
``(B) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity
of the claim or statement; or
``(C) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of
the claim or statement, and no proof of specific intent to
defraud is required.
``(4) Responsible official.--The term `responsible
official' means a designated debarring and suspending
official of the agency named in subsection (a).
[[Page 13606]]
``(5) Respondent.--The term `respondent' means a person who
has received notice from a responsible official asserting
liability under section 2752 of this title.
``(6) Statement.--The term `statement' means any
representation, certification, affirmation, document, record,
or an accounting or bookkeeping entry made--
``(A) with respect to a claim or to obtain the approval or
payment of a claim (including relating to eligibility to make
a claim); or
``(B) with respect to (including relating to eligibility
for)--
``(i) a contract with, or a bid or proposal for a contract
with, the head of an agency; or
``(ii) a grant, loan, or benefit from the head of an
agency.
``(c) Claims.--For purposes of paragraph (2) of subsection
(b)--
``(1) each voucher, invoice, claim form, or other
individual request or demand for property, services, or money
constitutes a separate claim;
``(2) each claim for property, services, or money is
subject to this chapter regardless of whether such property,
services, or money is actually delivered or paid; and
``(3) a claim shall be considered made, presented, or
submitted to the head of an agency, recipient, or party when
such claim is actually made to an agent, fiscal intermediary,
or other entity acting for or on behalf of such authority,
recipient, or party.
``(d) Statements.--For purposes of paragraph (6) of
subsection (b)--
``(1) each written representation, certification, or
affirmation constitutes a separate statement; and
``(2) a statement shall be considered made, presented, or
submitted to the head of an agency when such statement is
actually made to an agent, fiscal intermediary, or other
entity acting for or on behalf of such authority.
``Sec. 2752. False claims and statements; liability
``(a) False Claims.--Any person who makes, presents, or
submits, or causes to be made, presented, or submitted, to
the head of an agency a claim that the person knows or has
reason to know--
``(1) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent;
``(2) includes or is supported by any written statement
which asserts a material fact this is false, fictitious, or
fraudulent;
``(3) includes or is supported by any written statement
that--
``(A) omits a material fact;
``(B) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent as a result of
such omission; and
``(C) is made, presented, or submitted by a person who has
a duty to include such material fact; or
``(4) is for payment for the provision of property or
services which the person has not provided as claimed,
shall, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed
by law, be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000
for each such claim. Such person shall also be subject to an
assessment of not more than twice the amount of such claim,
or the portion of such claim which is determined by the
responsible official to be in violation of the preceding
sentence.
``(b) False Statements.--Any person who makes, presents,
submits, or causes to be made, presented, or submitted, a
written statement in conjunction with a procurement program
or acquisition of the an agency named in section 2751(a) of
this title that--
``(1) the person knows or has reason to know--
``(A) asserts a material fact that is false, fictitious, or
fraudulent; or
``(B)(i) omits a material fact; and
``(ii) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent as a result of
such omission;
``(2) in the case of a statement described in subparagraph
(B) of paragraph (1), is a statement in which the person
making, presenting, or submitting such statement has a duty
to include such material fact; and
``(3) contains or is accompanied by an express
certification or affirmation of the truthfulness and accuracy
of the contents of the statement,
shall be subject to, in addition to any other remedy that may
be prescribed by law, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000
for each such statement.
``Sec. 2753. Hearing and determinations
``(a) Transmittal of Notice to Attorney General.--If a
responsible official determines that there is adequate
evidence to believe that a person is liable under section
2752 of this title, the responsible official shall transmit
to the Attorney General, or any other officer or employee of
the Department of Justice designated by the Attorney General,
a written notice of the intention of such official to
initiate an action under this section. The notice shall
include the following:
``(1) A statement of the reasons for initiating an action
under this section.
``(2) A statement specifying the evidence which supports
liability under section 2752 of this title.
``(3) A description of the claims or statements for which
liability under section 2752 of this title is alleged.
``(4) An estimate of the penalties and assessments that
will be demanded under section 2752 of this title.
``(5) A statement of any exculpatory or mitigating
circumstances which may relate to such claims or statements.
``(b) Statement From Attorney General.--(1) Within 90 days
after receipt of a notice from a responsible official under
subsection (a), the Attorney General, or any other officer or
employee of the Department of Justice designated by the
Attorney General, shall transmit a written statement to the
responsible official which specifies--
``(A) that the Attorney General, or any other officer or
employee of the Department of Justice designated by the
Attorney General, approves or disapproves initiating an
action under this section based on the allegations of
liability stated in such notice; and
``(B) in any case in which the initiation of an action
under this section is disapproved, the reasons for such
disapproval.
``(2) If at any time after the initiation of an action
under this section the Attorney General, or any other officer
or employee of the Department of Justice designated by the
Attorney General, transmits to a responsible official a
written determination that the continuation of any action
under this section may adversely affect any pending or
potential criminal or civil action, such action shall be
immediately stayed and may be resumed only upon written
authorization from the Attorney General, or any other officer
or employee of the Department of Justice designated by the
Attorney General.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Claim That May Be Pursued
Under This Section.--No action shall be initiated under this
section, nor shall any assessment be imposed under this
section, if the total amount of the claim determined by the
responsible official to violate section 2752(a) of this title
exceeds $500,000. The $500,000 threshold does not include
penalties or any assessment permitted under section 2752(a)
of this title greater than the amount of the claim determined
by the responsible official to violate such section.
``(d) Procedures for Resolving Claims.--(1) Upon receiving
approval under subsection (b) to initiate an action under
this section, the responsible official shall mail, by
registered or certified mail, or other similar commercial
means, or shall deliver, a notice to the person alleged to be
liable under section 2752 of this title. Such notice shall
specify the allegations of liability against such person,
specify the total amount of penalties and assessments sought
by the United States, advise the person of the opportunity to
submit facts and arguments in opposition to the allegations
set forth in the notice, advise the person of the opportunity
to submit offers of settlement or proposals of adjustment,
and advise the person of the procedures of the agency
governing the resolution of actions initiated under this
section.
``(2) Within 30 days after receiving a notice under
paragraph (1), or any additional period of time granted by
the responsible official, the respondent may submit in
person, in writing, or through a representative, facts and
arguments in opposition to the allegations set forth in the
notice, including any additional information that raises a
genuine dispute of material fact.
``(3) If the respondent fails to respond within 30 days, or
any additional time granted by the responsible official, the
responsible official may issue a written decision disposing
of the matters raised in the notice. Such decision shall be
based on the record before the responsible official. If the
responsible official concludes that the respondent is liable
under section 2752 of this title, the decision shall include
the findings of fact and conclusions of law which the
responsible official relied upon in determining that the
respondent is liable, and the amount of any penalty or
assessment to be imposed on the respondent. Any such
determination shall be based on a preponderance of the
evidence. The responsible official shall promptly send to the
respondent a copy of the decision by registered or certified
mail, or other similar commercial means, or shall hand
deliver a copy of the decision.
``(4) If the respondent makes a timely submission, and the
responsible official determines that the respondent has not
raised any genuine dispute of material fact, the responsible
official may issue a written decision disposing of the
matters raised in the notice. Such decision shall be based on
the record before the responsible official. If the
responsible official concludes that the respondent is liable
under section 2752 of this title, the decision shall include
the findings of fact and conclusions of law which the
responsible official relied upon in determining that the
respondent is liable, and the amount of any penalty or
assessment to be imposed on the respondent. Any such
determination shall be based on a preponderance of the
evidence. The responsible official shall promptly send to the
respondent a copy of the decision by registered or certified
mail, or other similar commercial means, or shall hand
deliver a copy of the decision.
``(5) If the respondent makes a timely submission, and the
responsible official determines that the respondent has
raised a genuine dispute of material fact, the responsible
official shall commence a hearing to resolve the genuinely
disputed material facts by mailing by registered or certified
mail, or other similar commercial means, or by hand
[[Page 13607]]
delivery of, a notice informing the respondent of--
``(A) the time, place, and nature of the hearing;
``(B) the legal authority under which the hearing is to be
held;
``(C) the material facts determined by the responsible
official to be genuinely in dispute that will be the subject
of the hearing; and
``(D) a description of the procedures for the conduct of
the hearing.
``(6) The responsible official and any person against whom
liability is asserted under this chapter may agree to a
compromise or settle an action at any time. Any compromise or
settlement must be in writing.
``(e) Respondent Entitled to Copy of the Record.--At any
time after receiving a notice under paragraph (1) of
subsection (d), the respondent shall be entitled to a copy of
the entire record before the responsible official.
``(f) Hearings.--Any hearing commenced under this section
shall be conducted by the responsible official, or a fact-
finder designated by the responsible official, solely to
resolve genuinely disputed material facts identified by the
responsible official and set forth in the notice to the
respondent.
``(g) Procedures for Hearings.--(1) Each hearing shall be
conducted under procedures prescribed by the head of the
agency. Such procedures shall include the following:
``(A) The provision of written notice of the hearing to the
respondent, including written notice of--
``(i) the time, place, and nature of the hearing;
``(ii) the legal authority under which the hearing is to be
held;
``(iii) the material facts determined by the responsible
official to be genuinely in dispute that will be the subject
of the hearing; and
``(iv) a description of the procedures for the conduct of
the hearing.
``(B) The opportunity for the respondent to present facts
and arguments through oral or documentary evidence, to submit
rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as
may be required to resolve any genuinely disputed material
facts identified by the responsible official.
``(C) The opportunity for the respondent to be accompanied,
represented, and advised by counsel or such other qualified
representative as the head of the agency may specify in such
procedures.
``(2) For the purpose of conducting hearings under this
section, the responsible official is authorized to administer
oaths or affirmations.
``(3) Hearings shall be held at the responsible official's
office, or at such other place as may be agreed upon by the
respondent and the responsible official.
``(h) Decision Following Hearing.--The responsible official
shall issue a written decision within 60 days after the
conclusion of the hearing. That decision shall set forth
specific findings of fact resolving the genuinely disputed
material facts that were the subject of the hearing. The
written decision shall also dispose of the matters raised in
the notice required under paragraph (1) of subsection (d). If
the responsible official concludes that the respondent is
liable under section 2752 of this title, the decision shall
include the findings of fact and conclusions of law which the
responsible official relied upon in determining that the
respondent is liable, and the amount of any penalty or
assessment to be imposed on the respondent. Any decisions
issued under this subsection shall be based on the record
before the responsible official and shall be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. The responsible official shall
promptly send to the respondent a copy of the decision by
registered or certified mail, or other similar commercial
means, or shall hand deliver a copy of the decision.
``Sec. 2754. Payment; interest on late payments
``(a) Payment of Assessments and Penalties.--A respondent
shall render payment of any assessment and penalty imposed by
a responsible official, or any amount otherwise agreed to as
part of a settlement or adjustment, not later than the date--
``(1) that is 30 days after the date of the receipt by the
respondent of the responsible official's decision; or
``(2) as otherwise agreed to by the respondent and the
responsible official.
``(b) Interest.--If there is an unpaid balance as of the
date determined under subsection (a), interest shall accrue
from that date on any unpaid balance. The rate of interest
charged shall be the rate in effect as of that date that is
published by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 3717
of title 31.
``(c) Treatment of Receipts.--All penalties, assessments,
or interest paid, collected, or otherwise recovered under
this chapter shall be deposited into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts as provided in section 3302 of title
31.
``Sec. 2755. Judicial review
``A decision by a responsible official under section
2753(d) or 2753(h) of this title shall be final. Any such
final decision is subject to judicial review only under
chapter 7 of title 5.
``Sec. 2756. Collection of civil penalties and assessments
``(a) Judicial Enforcement of Civil Penalties and
Assessments.--The Attorney General shall be responsible for
judicial enforcement of any civil penalty or assessment
imposed under this chapter.
``(b) Civil Actions for Recovery.--Any penalty or
assessment imposed in a decision by a responsible official,
or amounts otherwise agreed to as part of a settlement or
adjustment, along with any accrued interest, may be recovered
in a civil action brought by the Attorney General. In any
such action, no matter that was raised or that could have
been raised in a proceeding under this chapter or pursuant to
judicial review under section 2755 of this title may be
raised as a defense, and the determination of liability and
the determination of amounts of penalties and assessments
shall not be subject to review.
``(c) Jurisdiction of United States District Courts.--The
district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction
of any action commenced by the United States under subsection
(b).
``(d) Joining and Consolidating Actions.--Any action under
subsection (b) may, without regard to venue requirements, be
joined and consolidated with or asserted as a counterclaim,
cross-claim, or setoff by the United States in any other
civil action which includes as parties the United States, and
the person against whom such action may be brought.
``(e) Jurisdiction of United States Court of Federal
Claims.--The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have
jurisdiction of any action under subsection (b) to recover
any penalty or assessment, or amounts otherwise agreed to as
part of a settlement or adjustment, along with any accrued
interest, if the cause of action is asserted by the United
States as a counterclaim in a matter pending in such court.
The counterclaim need not relate to the subject matter of the
underlying claim.
``Sec. 2757. Right to administrative offset
``The amount of any penalty or assessment that has been
imposed by a responsible official, or any amount agreed upon
in a settlement or compromise, along with any accrued
interest, may be collected by administrative offset.
``Sec. 2758. Limitations
``(a) Limitation on Period for Initiation of Administrative
Action.--An action under section 2752 of this title with
respect to a claim or statement shall be commenced within six
years after the date on which such claim or statement is
made, presented, or submitted.
``(b) Limitation Period for Initiation of Civil Action for
Recovery of Administrative Penalty or Assessment.--A civil
action to recover a penalty or assessment under section 2756
of this title shall be commenced within three years after the
date of the decision of the responsible official imposing the
penalty or assessment.
``Sec. 2759. Effect on other laws
``(a) Relationship to Title 44 Authorities.--This chapter
does not diminish the responsibility of the head of an agency
to comply with the provisions of chapter 35 of title 44,
relating to coordination of Federal information policy.
``(b) Relationship to Title 31 Authorities.--The procedures
set forth in this chapter apply to the agencies named in
section 2751(a) of this title in lieu of the procedures under
chapter 38 of title 31, relating to administrative remedies
for false claims and statements.
``(c) Relationship to Other Authorities.--Any action,
inaction, or decision under this chapter shall be based
solely upon the information before the responsible official
and shall not limit or restrict any agency of the Government
from instituting any other action arising outside this
chapter, including suspension or debarment, based upon the
same information. Any action, inaction, or decision under
this chapter shall not restrict the ability of the Attorney
General to bring judicial action, based upon the same
information as long as such action is not otherwise
prohibited by law.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The tables of chapters at the
beginning of subtitle A, and at the beginning of part IV of
subtitle A, of such title are each amended by inserting after
the item relating to chapter 163 the following new item:
``164. Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Stateme2751''.....
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3801(a)(1) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``(other than the
Department of Defense)'' after ``executive department'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (B);
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F)
as subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E), respectively; and
(4) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated by paragraph (3),
by inserting ``(other than the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration)'' after ``not an executive department''.
(d) Effective Date.--Chapter 164 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by subsection (b), and the amendments made by
[[Page 13608]]
subsection (c), shall apply to any claim or statement made,
presented, or submitted on or after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
______
SA 3708. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:
SEC. 557. ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN MILITARY JUSTICE REVIEW
COMMITTEE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF MILITARY
JUSTICE REFORM.
The Secretary of Defense shall provide that the matters
considered by the Military Justice Review Committee in its
current comprehensive review of military justice reform shall
include the following:
(1) A recommendation as to the feasibility and advisability
of specifying separately as an offense under chapter 47 of
title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), each of the following offenses that are currently
encompassed by general article section 934 of title 10,
United States Code (article 134 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice):
(A) Assault with intent to commit murder, voluntary
manslaughter, rape, robbery, forcible sodomy, arson,
burglary, and housebreaking.
(B) Child endangerment.
(C) Child pornography.
(D) Negligent homicide.
(E) Kidnapping.
(F) Obstruction of justice.
(G) Pandering and prostitution.
(H) Subordination of perjury.
(I) Soliciting another to commit an offense.
(J) Any other offense currently encompassed by general
article section 934 of title 10, United States Code that the
Military Justice Review Committee considers appropriate.
(2) A recommendation as to the feasibility and advisability
of terminating the authority of the Courts of Criminal
Appeals to overturn a finding of guilt based on factual
insufficiency, including an assessment of any efficiencies
that could be achieved in the appellate process by the
termination of such authority.
______
SA 3709. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:
SEC. 567. APPLICABILITY OF ELIMINATION OF FIVE-YEAR STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS ON TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL TO
OFFENSES INVOLVING SEX-RELATED CRIMES TO
CERTAIN OFFENSES COMMITTED BEFORE ELIMINATION
OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
Section 1703(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 127 Stat. 958; 10
U.S.C. 843 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the date of the enactment of this Act''
and inserting ``December 26, 2013''; and
(2) by striking ``that is committed on or after that
date.'' and inserting ``that is committed as follows:
``(1) On or after December 26, 2013.
``(2) Before December 26, 2013, but only if such offense
was committed on such a date that the statute of limitations
on such offense, as in effect on December 25, 2013, had not
expired as of the date of the enactment of the Carl Levin
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.''.
______
SA 3710. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
Strike section 827 and insert the following:
SEC. 827. PROHIBITION ON REIMBURSEMENT OF CONTRACTORS FOR
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUIRIES.
(a) Civilian Contracts.--Section 4304(a) of title 41,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(17) Costs incurred by a contractor in connection with
any congressional investigation or inquiry.''.
(b) Defense Contracts.--Section 2324(e)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(Q) Costs incurred by a contractor in connection with a
congressional investigation or inquiry into an issue that is
the subject matter of a proceeding resulting in a disposition
as described in subsection (k)(2).''.
______
SA 3711. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of subtitle B of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 830. EXTENSION OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS FOR
CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES TO EMPLOYEES OF
CONTRACTORS OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY.
(a) Contractors of DoD and Related Agencies.--Subsection
(e) of section 2409 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(e) Disclosures With Respect to Elements of Intelligence
Community and Intelligence-related Activities.--(1) Any
disclosure under this section by an employee of a contractor,
subcontractor, or grantee of an element of the intelligence
community (as defined in section 3(4) of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4)) with respect to an
element of the intelligence community or an activity of an
element of the intelligence community shall comply with
applicable provisions of section 17(d)(5) of the Central
Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 3517(d)(5)) and
section 8H of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.)
``(2) Any disclosure described in paragraph (1) of
information required by Executive order to be kept classified
in the interests of national defense or the conduct of
foreign affairs that is made to a court shall be treated by
the court in a manner consistent with the interests of the
national security of the United States, including through the
use of summaries or ex parte submissions if the element of
the intelligence community awarding the contract or grant
concerned advises the court that the national security
interests of the United States warrant the use of such
summaries or submissions.''.
(b) Pilot Program on Other Contractor Employees.--
Subsection (f) of section 4712 of title 41, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Disclosures With Respect to Elements of Intelligence
Community and Intelligence-related Activities.--
``(1) Manner of disclosures.--Any disclosure under this
section by an employee of a contractor, subcontractor, or
grantee of an element of the intelligence community (as
defined in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 3003(4)) with respect to an element of the
intelligence community or an activity of an element of the
intelligence community shall comply with applicable
provisions of section 17(d)(5) of the Central Intelligence
Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 3517(d)(5)) and section 8H of
the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.)
``(2) Treatment by courts.--Any disclosure described in
paragraph (1) of information required by Executive order to
be kept classified in the interests of national defense or
the conduct of foreign affairs that is made to a court shall
be treated by the court in a manner consistent with the
interests of the national security of the United States,
including through the use of summaries or ex parte
submissions if the element of the intelligence community
awarding the contract or grant concerned advises the court
that the national security interests of the United States
warrant the use of such summaries or submissions.''.
______
SA 3712. Mrs. McCASKILL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of subtitle D of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 864. DEFENSE BASE ACT INSURANCE IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) Requirement for Use of Government Self-insurance
Program for Insurance Under Defense Base Act.--Section 1 of
the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
[[Page 13609]]
``(g) Transition to Government Self-Insurance Program.--
``(1) In general.--On the effective date of this
subsection, the requirements in paragraphs (1) through (6) of
subsection (a) imposed on contractors to secure the payment
of compensation and other benefits under the provisions of
this Act and to maintain in full force and effect such
security for the payment of such compensation and benefits
shall, for injuries sustained after such effective date, be
satisfied through the Government Defense Base Act self-
insurance program.
``(2) Government defense base act self-insurance program
defined.--In this subsection, the term `Government Defense
Base Act self-insurance program' means a self-insurance
program developed in the implementation strategy required by
section 864(b) of the Carl Levin National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and under which--
``(A) compensation and benefits for injuries sustained are
satisfied directly by the Federal Government, without action
of the contractor (or subcontractor or subordinate contractor
with respect to such contractor); and
``(B) compensation and benefits are funded by the agencies
whose contracts are affected.
``(3) Effective date.--The effective date of this
subsection is the date occurring one year after the date of
the enactment of the Carl Levin National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.''.
(b) Implementation Strategy for Government Defense Base Act
Self-insurance Program.--
(1) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Labor shall jointly develop and execute an
implementation strategy for a self-insurance program for
insurance required by the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et
seq.).
(2) Matters covered.--The implementation strategy required
under paragraph (1) shall address and provide a plan for the
following:
(A) Appropriate administration of the self-insurance
program, including appropriate program financing.
(B) Appropriate procedures for claims processing, claims
adjudication, and benefits delivery, taking into
consideration the unique circumstances of insuring overseas
contractors.
(C) A timeline and strategy to transfer existing claims
covered under the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.)
and the War Hazards Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
by private carriers to a Federal Government self-insurance
program.
(D) Recommendations for any additional statutory revisions
necessary to carry out the strategy.
(3) Report and deadline.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Labor shall jointly prepare and submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the
implementation strategy.
(c) Report.--
(1) Report requirement.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Labor shall jointly prepare a report on
the implementation of this section and the amendment made by
this section.
(2) Matters covered.--The report shall cover, at a minimum,
the following with respect to the Government Defense Base Act
self-insurance program (as defined in the amendment made by
subsection (a)):
(A) The cost savings from the use of the self-insurance
program.
(B) The quality of administration of the self-insurance
program.
(C) Whether the delivery of benefits to injured employees
and their survivors (in the case of death) has improved under
the self-insurance program.
(D) Recommendations for improvement of the self-insurance
program.
(E) Such other matters as the Secretaries consider
appropriate.
(d) Definition of Congressional Committees.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means the following:
(1) The Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
(2) The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform of the House of Representatives.
______
SA 3713. Mr. BEGICH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 737. EXTENSION OF QUALIFICATION OF CERTAIN MENTAL HEALTH
COUNSELORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR
PRACTICE IN CERTAIN AREAS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the termination of effect
of section 199.6(c)(3)(iii)(N)(2) of title 32, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on August 18, 2014), any
mental health counselor who meets the qualifications for a
TRICARE certified mental health counselor under the TRICARE
program and possesses a master's or higher-level degree from
a mental health counseling program of education and training
from a regionally accredited institution shall continue to
qualify as a TRICARE certified mental health counselor on and
after January 1, 2017, or any earlier termination date for
qualification as specified by the Secretary of Defense, for
purposes of providing mental health care to beneficiaries of
the TRICARE program in each of the following areas:
(1) Areas--
(A) that are 300 miles driving distance or more from an
institution of higher education that offers a mental health
counseling program of education and training accredited by
the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related
Educational Programs; or
(B) in which veterans in such area do not have access to
such an institution via road.
(2) Areas outside the United States.
(b) TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselor Defined.--In
this section, the term ``TRICARE certified mental health
counselor'' has the meaning given such term in section
199.6(c)(3)(iii)(N) of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations,
as in effect on August 18, 2014.
______
SA 3714. Mr. BEGICH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 603.
______
SA 3715. Mr. CASEY (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Warner,
and Mrs. Shaheen) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 1213. SUPPORT FOR SECURITY OF AFGHAN WOMEN AND GIRLS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Through the sacrifice and dedication of members of the
Armed Forces and civilian personnel, as well the American
people's generous investment, oppressive Taliban rule has
given way to a nascent democracy in Afghanistan. It is in our
national security interest to help prevent Afghanistan from
ever again becoming a safe haven and training ground for
international terrorism and to solidify and preserve the
gains our men and women in uniform fought so hard to
establish.
(2) The United States through its National Action Plan on
Women, Peace, and Security has made firm commitments to
support the human rights of the women and girls of
Afghanistan. The National Action Plan states that ``the
engagement and protection of women as agents of peace and
stability will be central to United States efforts to promote
security, prevent, respond to, and resolve conflict, and
rebuild societies''.
(3) As stated in the Department of Defense's July 2013 1230
Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in
Afghanistan (in this section, the ``1230 Report''), the
United States Government ``recognizes that promoting security
for Afghan women and girls must remain a top foreign policy
priority''. The November 2013 1230 Report also highlights
this priority and further states, ``A major focus of DoD and
others working to improve the conditions of women in
Afghanistan is now to maintain the gains made in the last
twelve years after the ISAF mission ends.''
(4) According to the November 1230 Report, female
recruitment and retention rates for the Afghan National
Security Forces fell short of the Ministry of Defense (MoD)
and Ministry of the Interior (MoI) female recruitment goals.
In regards to women serving in the ANP, the November 1230
report also states, ``Low female recruitment is due in part
to the MoI's passive female recruitment efforts, which has no
specific female recruitment strategy or plan.''
(5) According to the Special Inspector General for Afghan
Reconstruction (SIGAR) April 2014 report, despite more women
showing an interest in joining the security forces, women
still make up less than 1 percent of the ANA and AAF. Also,
according to the SIGAR report, ``As in prior quarters, the
number of women in the ANP is increasing,
[[Page 13610]]
but progress has been slow toward reaching the goal to have
5,000 women in the ANP by the end of 2014. This quarter, ANP
personnel included 1,743 women--226 officers, 728 NCOs, and
789 enlisted personnel--according to CSTC-A. This is an
increase of 539 women since August 22, 2011.''
(6) According to Shaheen Chughtai, Oxfam's deputy head of
policy and campaigns, ``This lack of policewomen, and
effective policewomen, is one of the main reasons why
violence and threats against women and girls in Afghanistan
are under-reported. It's why prosecutions are so rare and
it's why the culture of impunity continues.''
(7) According to the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs
report released in January 2014, of 4,505 cases of violence
against women in 2013, which include issues such as forced
marriage, fewer than 10 percent were resolved through the
legal process.
(8) According to the International Crisis Group, there are
not enough female police officers to staff all provincial
Family Response Units (FRUs). United Nations Assistance
Mission Afghanistan and the Office of the High Commissioner
for Refugees found that ``in the absence of Family Response
Units or visible women police officers, women victims almost
never approach police stations willingly, fearing they will
be arrested, their reputations stained or worse''.
(9) FRUs are a core component of strategies for how to both
strengthen the roles of women in the police force and ensure
attention to crimes of sexual and gender-based violence
(SGBV). However, FRUs have been under-resourced and under-
utilized, making it difficult for them to fulfill their
mandate.
(10) The Government of Afghanistan, with support from
United States-led coalition forces, recruited, trained, and
contracted over 13,000 female searchers for the 2014
presidential election thereby ensuring many women-only
polling centers would be operational on election day.
(11) The Presidential election on April 5, 2014, saw
unprecedented levels of female voter participation. According
to the SIGAR quarterly report published on April 30, 2014,
approximately 35 percent of those votes were cast by women.
(b) Sense of Congress on Promotion of Security of Afghan
Women.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) it is in the United States Government's national
security interests to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming
a safe haven and training ground for international terrorism;
(2) as an important part of a strategy to achieve this
objective and to help Afghanistan achieve its full potential,
the United States Government should continue to regularly
press the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
to commit to the meaningful inclusion of women in the
political, economic, and security transition process and to
ensure that women's concerns are fully reflected in relevant
negotiations, such as the upcoming NATO summit and the
Afghanistan Development Conference of 2014 in London;
(3) the United States Government and the Government of
Afghanistan should reaffirm their commitment to supporting
Afghan civil society, including women's organizations, as
agreed to during the meeting between the International
Community and the Government of Afghanistan on the Tokyo
Mutual Accountability Framework (TMAF) in July 2013; and
(4) the United States Government should continue to support
and encourage efforts to recruit and retain women in the
Afghan National Security Forces, who are critical to the
success of NATO's Resolute Support Mission.
(c) Plan to Promote Security of Afghan Women.--
(1) Reporting requirement.--The Secretary of Defense, in
conjunction with the Secretary of State, shall include in the
report required under section 1227--
(A) an assessment of the security of Afghan women and
girls, including information regarding efforts to increase
the recruitment and retention of women in the ANSF; and
(B) an assessment of the implementation of the authority
under section 1531 of the National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 127 Stat. 937), as
extended by section 1523 of this Act, for the recruitment,
integration, retention, training, and treatment of women in
the ANSF, including the challenges associated with such
implementation and the steps being taken to address those
challenges.
(2) Plan to promote security of afghan women.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall, to the
extent practicable, support the efforts of the Government of
Afghanistan to promote the security of Afghan women and girls
during and after the security transition process through the
development and implementation by the Government of
Afghanistan of an Afghan-led plan that should include the
elements described in this paragraph.
(B) Training.--The Secretary of Defense, working with the
International Security Force (ISAF) and NATO Training
Mission-Afghanistan (NTM-A), should encourage the Government
of Afghanistan to develop--
(i) an evaluation of the effectiveness of existing training
for Afghan National Security Forces on this issue;
(ii) a plan to increase the number of female security
officers specifically trained to address cases of gender-
based violence, including ensuring the Afghan National
Police's Family Response Units (FRUs) have the necessary
resources and are available to women across Afghanistan;
(iii) a plan to address the development of accountability
mechanisms for ANA and ANP personnel who violate codes of
conduct related to the human rights of women and girls,
including female members of the ANSF; and
(iv) a plan to develop training for the ANA and the ANP to
increase awareness and responsiveness among ANA and ANP
personnel regarding the unique security challenges women
confront when serving in those forces.
(C) Enrollment and treatment.--The Secretary of Defense, in
cooperation with the Afghan Ministries of Defense and
Interior, shall seek to assist the Government of Afghanistan
in including as part of the plan developed under subparagraph
(A) the development and implementation of a plan to increase
the number of female members of the ANA and ANP and to
promote their equal treatment, including through such steps
as providing appropriate equipment, modifying facilities, and
ensuring literacy and gender awareness training for female
recruits and male counterparts.
(D) Allocation of funds.--The $25,000,000 allocated from
the Afghan Security Forces Fund pursuant to section 1523(b)
for the recruitment, integration, retention, training, and
treatment of women in the ANSF, may be available for
activities, including the provision of--
(i) appropriate equipment for female security and police
forces;
(ii) modification and refurbishment of facilities to
support the recruitment and retention of women within the
forces;
(iii) security provisions for high-profile female police
and army officers;
(iv) mechanisms to address sexual harassment within the
forces;
(v) support for ANP Family Response Units; and
(vi) training to include literacy training for women
recruits as well as gender awareness training for male
counterparts.
(3) Staffing at polling stations.--The Secretary of Defense
should assist the Afghan MOD and MOI in maintaining the
female searcher capabilities that were established for the
April 2014 presidential elections for the 2015 parliamentary
elections, which may include--
(A) providing assistance in the development of a
recruitment and training program for female searchers and
security officers to staff voting stations during the 2015
parliamentary elections;
(B) working with the Ministry of Interior to ensure that
female ANP officers and previously recruited searchers'
training is maintained and that those searchers already
recruited and trained are reassigned to provide security for
polling stations; and
(C) allotting the appropriate amount of funds from the
funds allocated to the Afghan Security Forces Fund to hire
any additional temporary female personnel required to staff
polling stations.
______
SA 3716. Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Flake, and Mr. Barrasso)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
2648, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on 16, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 23, line 10, and insert the following:
CHAPTER 2--FLAME ACT AMENDMENTS
SEC. 2201. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) over the past 2 decades, wildfires have increased
dramatically in size and costs;
(2) existing budget mechanisms for estimating the costs of
wildfire suppression are not keeping pace with the actual
costs for wildfire suppression due in part to improper budget
estimation methodology;
(3) the FLAME Funds have not been adequate in supplementing
wildland fire management funds in cases in which wildland
fire management accounts are exhausted; and
(4) the practice of transferring funds from other agency
funds (including the hazardous fuels treatment accounts) by
the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior
to pay for wildfire suppression activities, commonly known as
``fire-borrowing'', does not support the missions of the
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior with
respect to protecting human life and property from the threat
of wildfires.
SEC. 2202. FLAME ACT AMENDMENTS.
(a) Funding.--Section 502(d) of the FLAME Act of 2009 (43
U.S.C. 1748a(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``shall consist of'' and all that follows
through ``appropriated to'' in
[[Page 13611]]
subparagraph (A) and inserting ``shall consist of such
amounts as are appropriated to''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(2) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5).
(b) Use of Flame Fund.--Section 502(e) of the FLAME Act of
2009 (43 U.S.C. 1748a(e)) is amended by striking paragraphs
(1) and (2) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Amounts appropriated to a FLAME Fund, in
accordance with section 251(b)(2)(E) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
902(b)(2)(E)), shall be available to the Secretary concerned
for wildfire suppression operations if the Secretary
concerned issues a declaration and notifies the relevant
congressional committees that a wildfire suppression event is
eligible for funding from the FLAME Fund.
``(2) Declaration criteria.--A declaration by the Secretary
concerned under paragraph (1) may be issued only if--
``(A) an individual wildfire incident meets the objective
indicators of an extraordinary wildfire situation,
including--
``(i) a wildfire that the Secretary concerned determines
has required an emergency Federal response based on the
significant complexity, severity, or threat posed by the fire
to human life, property, or a resource;
``(ii) a wildfire that covers 1,000 or more acres; or
``(iii) a wildfire that is within 10 miles of an urbanized
area (as defined in section 134(b) of title 23, United States
Code); or
``(B) the cumulative costs of wildfire suppression and
Federal emergency response activities, as determined by the
Secretary concerned, would exceed, within 30 days, all of the
amounts otherwise previously appropriated (including amounts
appropriated under an emergency designation, but excluding
amounts appropriated to the FLAME Fund) to the Secretary
concerned for wildfire suppression and Federal emergency
response.''.
(c) Treatment of Anticipated and Predicted Activities.--
Section 502(f) of the FLAME Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 1748a(f))
is amended by striking ``(e)(2)(B)(i)'' and inserting
``(e)(2)(A)''.
(d) Prohibition on Other Transfers.--Section 502 of the
FLAME Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 1748a) is amended by striking
subsection (g) and inserting the following:
``(g) Prohibition on Other Transfers.--The Secretary
concerned shall not transfer funds provided for activities
other than wildfire suppression operations to pay for any
wildfire suppression operations.''.
(e) Accounting and Reports.--Section 502(h) of the FLAME
Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 1748a(h)) is amended by striking
paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the following:
``(2) Estimates of wildfire suppression operations costs to
improve budgeting and funding.--
``(A) Budget submission.--Consistent with section 1105(a)
of title 31, United States Code, the President shall include
in each budget for the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior information on estimates of
appropriations for wildfire suppression costs based on an
out-year forecast that uses a statistically valid regression
model.
``(B) Requirements.--The estimate of anticipated wildfire
suppression costs under subparagraph (A) shall be developed
using the best available--
``(i) climate, weather, and other relevant data; and
``(ii) models and other analytic tools.
``(C) Independent review.--The methodology for developing
the estimates of wildfire suppression costs under
subparagraph (A) shall be subject to periodic independent
review to ensure compliance with subparagraph (B).
``(D) Submission to congress.--
``(i) In general.--Consistent with the schedule described
in clause (ii) and in accordance with subparagraphs (B) and
(C), the Secretary concerned shall submit to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives an
updated estimate of wildfire suppression costs for the
applicable fiscal year.
``(ii) Schedule.--The Secretary concerned shall submit the
updated estimates under clause (i) during--
``(I) March of each year;
``(II) May of each year;
``(III) July of each year; and
``(IV) if a bill making appropriations for the Department
of the Interior and the Forest Service for the following
fiscal year has not been enacted by September 1, September of
each year.
``(3) Reports.--Annually, the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report that--
``(A) provides a summary of the amount of appropriations
made available during the previous fiscal year, which
specifies the source of the amounts and the commitments and
obligations made under this section;
``(B) describes the amounts obligated to individual
wildfire events that meet the criteria specified in
subsection (e)(2); and
``(C) includes any recommendations that the Secretary of
Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior may have to
improve the administrative control and oversight of the FLAME
Fund.''.
SEC. 2203. WILDFIRE DISASTER FUNDING AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
901(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Flame wildfire suppression.--
``(i)(I) The adjustments for a fiscal year shall be in
accordance with clause (ii) if--
``(aa) a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for
a fiscal year is enacted that--
``(AA) specifies an amount for wildfire suppression
operations in the Wildland Fire Management accounts at the
Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior;
and
``(BB) specifies a total amount to be used for the purposes
described in subclause (II) in the Wildland Fire Management
accounts at the Department of Agriculture or the Department
of the Interior that is not less than 50 percent of the
amount described in subitem (AA); and
``(bb) as of the day before the date of enactment of the
bill or joint resolution all amounts in the FLAME Fund
established under section 502 of the FLAME Act of 2009 (43
U.S.C. 1748a) have been expended.
``(II) The purposes described in this subclause are--
``(aa) hazardous fuels reduction projects and other
activities of the Secretary of the Interior, as authorized
under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C.
6501 et seq.) and the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004
(25 U.S.C. 3115a); and
``(bb) forest restoration and fuel reduction activities
carried out outside of the wildland urban interface that are
on condition class 3 Federal land or condition class 2
Federal land located within fire regime I, fire regime II, or
fire regime III.
``(ii) If the requirements under clause (i)(I) are met for
a fiscal year, the adjustments for that fiscal year shall be
the amount of additional new budget authority provided in the
bill or joint resolution described in clause (i)(I)(aa) for
wildfire suppression operations for that fiscal year, but
shall not exceed $1,000,000,000 in additional new budget
authority in each of fiscal years 2015 through 2021.
``(iii) As used in this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `additional new budget authority' means the
amount provided for a fiscal year in an appropriation Act and
specified to pay for the costs of wildfire suppression
operations that is equal to the greater of the amount in
excess of--
``(aa) 100 percent of the average costs for wildfire
suppression operations over the previous 5 years; or
``(bb) the estimated amount of anticipated wildfire
suppression costs at the upper bound of the 90 percent
confidence interval for that fiscal year calculated in
accordance with section 502(h)(3) of the FLAME Act of 2009
(43 U.S.C. 1748a(h)(3)); and
``(II) the term `wildfire suppression operations' means the
emergency and unpredictable aspects of wildland firefighting
including support, response, and emergency stabilization
activities; other emergency management activities; and funds
necessary to repay any transfers needed for these costs.
``(iv) The average costs for wildfire suppression
operations over the previous 5 years shall be calculated
annually and reported in the President's Budget submission
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for
each fiscal year.''.
(b) Disaster Funding.--Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
901(b)(2)(D)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'' and inserting
``plus'';
(B) in subclause (II), by striking the period and inserting
``; less''; and
(C) by adding the following:
``(III) the additional new budget authority provided in an
appropriation Act for wildfire suppression operations
pursuant to subparagraph (E) for the preceding fiscal
year.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) Beginning in fiscal year 2016 and in subsequent
fiscal years, the calculation of the `average funding
provided for disaster relief over the previous 10 years'
shall not include the additional new budget authority
provided in an appropriation Act for wildfire suppression
operations pursuant to subparagraph (E).''.
CHAPTER 3--FOREST TREATMENT PROJECTS
SEC. 2301. DEFINITIONS.
In this chapter:
(1) Covered project.--The term ``covered project'' means a
project that involves the management or sale of national
forest material within a Forest Management Emphasis Area.
(2) Forest management emphasis area.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Forest Management Emphasis
Area'' means National Forest System land identified as
suitable for timber production in a forest management
[[Page 13612]]
plan in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``Forest Management Emphasis
Area'' does not include National Forest System land--
(i) that is a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System; or
(ii) on which removal of vegetation is specifically
prohibited by Federal law.
(3) National forest material.--The term ``national forest
material'' means trees, portions of trees, or forest
products, with an emphasis on sawtimber and pulpwood, derived
from National Forest System land.
(4) National forest system.--
(A) In general.--The term ``National Forest System'' has
the meaning given the term in section 11(a) of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1609(a)).
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``National Forest System'' does
not include--
(i) the national grasslands and land utilization projects
administered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm
Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.); or
(ii) National Forest System land east of the 100th
meridian.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
SEC. 2302. PROJECTS IN FOREST MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS AREAS.
(a) Conduct of Covered Projects Within Forest Management
Emphasis Areas.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may conduct covered projects
in Forest Management Emphasis Areas, subject to paragraphs
(2) through (4).
(2) Designating timber for cutting.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 14(g) of the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(g)),
the Secretary may use designation by prescription or
designation by description in conducting covered projects
under this chapter.
(B) Requirement.--The designation methods authorized under
subparagraph (A) shall be used in a manner that ensures that
the quantity of national forest material that is removed from
the Forest Management Emphasis Area is verifiable and
accountable.
(3) Contracting methods.--
(A) In general.--Timber sale contracts under section 14 of
the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a)
shall be the primary means of carrying out covered projects
under this chapter.
(B) Record.--If the Secretary does not use a timber sale
contract under section 14 of the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) to carry out a covered project
under this chapter, the Secretary shall provide a written
record specifying the reasons that different contracting
methods were used.
(4) Acreage treatment requirements.--
(A) Total acreage requirements.--The Secretary shall
identify, prioritize, and carry out covered projects in
Forest Management Emphasis Areas that mechanically treat a
total of at least 7,500,000 acres in the Forest Management
Emphasis Areas during the 15-year period beginning on the
date that is 60 days after the date on which the Secretary
assigns the acreage treatment requirements under subparagraph
(B).
(B) Assignment of acreage treatment requirements to
individual units of the national forest system.--
(i) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act and subject to clause (ii), the
Secretary, in the sole discretion of the Secretary, shall
assign the acreage treatment requirements that shall apply to
the Forest Management Emphasis Areas of each unit of the
National Forest System.
(ii) Limitation.--Notwithstanding clause (i), the acreage
treatment requirements assigned to a specific unit of the
National Forest System under that clause may not apply to
more than 25 percent of the acreage to be treated in any unit
of the National Forest System in a Forest Management Emphasis
Area during the 15-year period described in subparagraph (A).
(b) Environmental Analysis and Public Review Process for
Covered Projects in Forest Management Emphasis Areas.--
(1) Environmental assessment.--The Secretary shall comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) by completing an environmental assessment that
assesses the direct environmental effects of each covered
project proposed to be conducted within a Forest Management
Emphasis Area, except that the Secretary shall not be
required to study, develop, or describe more than the
proposed agency action and 1 alternative to the proposed
agency action for purposes of that Act.
(2) Public notice and comment.--In preparing an
environmental assessment for a covered project under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide--
(A) public notice of the covered project; and
(B) an opportunity for public comment on the covered
project.
(3) Length.--The environmental assessment prepared for a
covered project under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 100
pages in length.
(4) Inclusion of certain documents.--The Secretary may
incorporate, by reference, into an environmental assessment
any documents that the Secretary, in the sole discretion of
the Secretary, determines are relevant to the assessment of
the environmental effects of the covered project.
(5) Deadline for completion.--Not later than 180 days after
the date on which the Secretary has published notice of a
covered project in accordance with paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall complete the environmental assessment for the
covered project.
(c) Compliance With Endangered Species Act.--To comply with
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
the Secretary shall use qualified professionals on the staff
of the Forest Service to make determinations required under
section 7 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1536).
(d) Limitation on Revision of National Forest Plans.--The
Secretary may not, during a revision of a forest plan under
section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604), reduce the acres
designated as suitable for timber harvest under a covered
project, unless the Secretary determines, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior, that the reduction in
acreage is necessary to prevent a jeopardy finding under
section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1536(b)).
SEC. 2303. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW; ARBITRATION.
(a) Administrative Review.--Administrative review of a
covered project shall occur only in accordance with the
special administrative review process established by section
105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C.
6515).
(b) Arbitration.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Department of
Agriculture a pilot program that--
(A) authorizes the use of arbitration instead of judicial
review of a decision made following the special
administrative review process for a covered project described
in subsection (a); and
(B) shall be the sole means to challenge a covered project
in a Forest Management Emphasis Area during the 15-year
period beginning on the date that is 60 days after the date
on which the Secretary assigns the acreage treatment
requirements under section 202(a)(4)(B).
(2) Arbitration process procedures.--
(A) In general.--Any person who sought administrative
review for a covered project in accordance with subsection
(a) and who is not satisfied with the decision made under the
administrative review process may file a demand for
arbitration in accordance with--
(i) chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code; and
(ii) this paragraph.
(B) Requirements for demand.--A demand for arbitration
under subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) be filed not more than 30 days after the date on which
the special administrative review decision is issued under
subsection (a); and
(ii) include a proposal containing the modifications sought
to the covered project.
(C) Intervening parties.--
(i) Deadline for submission; requirements.--Any person that
submitted a public comment on the covered project subject to
the demand for arbitration may intervene in the arbitration
under this subsection by submitting a proposal endorsing or
modifying the covered project by the date that is 30 days
after the date on which the demand for arbitration is filed
under subparagraph (A).
(ii) Multiple parties.--Multiple objectors or intervening
parties that meet the requirements of clause (i) may submit a
joint proposal under that clause.
(D) Appointment of arbitrator.--The United States District
Court in the district in which a covered project subject to a
demand for arbitration filed under subparagraph (A) is
located shall appoint an arbitrator to conduct the
arbitration proceedings in accordance with this subsection.
(E) Selection of proposals.--
(i) In general.--An arbitrator appointed under subparagraph
(D)--
(I) may not modify any of the proposals submitted under
this paragraph; and
(II) shall select to be conducted--
(aa) a proposal submitted by an objector under subparagraph
(B)(ii) or an intervening party under subparagraph (C); or
(bb) the covered project, as approved by the Secretary.
(ii) Selection criteria.--An arbitrator shall select the
proposal that best meets the purpose and needs described in
the environmental assessment conducted under section
202(b)(1) for the covered project.
(iii) Effect.--The decision of an arbitrator with respect
to a selection under clause (i)(II)--
(I) shall not be considered a major Federal action;
(II) shall be binding; and
(III) shall not be subject to judicial review.
(F) Deadline for completion.--Not later than 90 days after
the date on which a demand for arbitration is filed under
subparagraph (A), the arbitration process shall be completed.
SEC. 2304. DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE.
(a) Payments to Counties.--
(1) In general.--Effective for fiscal year 2015 and each
fiscal year thereafter until the
[[Page 13613]]
termination date under section 206, the Secretary shall
provide to each county in which a covered project is carried
out annual payments in an amount equal to 25 percent of the
amounts received for the applicable fiscal year by the
Secretary from the covered project.
(2) Limitation.--A payment made under paragraph (1) shall
be in addition to any payments the county receives under the
payment to States required by the sixth paragraph under the
heading ``Forest service'' in the Act of May 23, 1908 (35
Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), and section 13 of the Act of March
1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500).
(b) Deposit in Knutson-Vandenberg and Salvage Sale Funds.--
After compliance with subsection (a), the Secretary shall use
amounts received by the Secretary from covered projects
during each of the fiscal years during the period described
in subsection (a) to make deposits into the fund established
under section 3 of the Act of June 9, 1930 (commonly known as
the ``Knutson-Vandenberg Act'') (16 U.S.C. 576b), and the
fund established under section 14(h) of the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(h)) in contributions
equal to the amounts otherwise collected under those Acts for
projects conducted on National Forest System land.
(c) Deposit in General Fund of the Treasury.--After
compliance with subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall
deposit into the general fund of the Treasury any remaining
amounts received by the Secretary for each of the fiscal
years referred to in those subsections from covered projects.
SEC. 2305. PERFORMANCE MEASURES; REPORTING.
(a) Performance Measures.--The Secretary shall develop
performance measures that evaluate the degree to which the
Secretary is achieving--
(1) the purposes of this chapter; and
(2) the minimum acreage requirements established under
section 2302(a)(4).
(b) Annual Reports.--Annually, the Secretary shall submit
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives--
(1) a report that describes the results of evaluations
using the performance measures developed under subsection
(a); and
(2) a report that describes--
(A) the number and substance of the covered projects that
are subject to administrative review and arbitration under
section 2303; and
(B) the outcomes of the administrative review and
arbitration under that section.
SEC. 2306. TERMINATION.
The authority of this chapter terminates on the date that
is 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
CHAPTER 4--FOREST STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
SEC. 2401. CANCELLATION CEILINGS.
Section 604(d) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of
2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591c(d)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) Cancellation ceilings.--
``(A) In general.--The Chief and the Director may obligate
funds to cover any potential cancellation or termination
costs for an agreement or contract under subsection (b) in
stages that are economically or programmatically viable.
``(B) Notice.--
``(i) Submission to congress.--Not later than 30 days
before entering into a multiyear agreement or contract under
subsection (b) that includes a cancellation ceiling in excess
of $25,000,000, but does not include proposed funding for the
costs of cancelling the agreement or contract up to the
cancellation ceiling established in the agreement or
contract, the Chief and the Director shall submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives a written notice that includes--
``(I)(aa) the cancellation ceiling amounts proposed for
each program year in the agreement or contract; and
``(bb) the reasons for the cancellation ceiling amounts
proposed under item (aa);
``(II) the extent to which the costs of contract
cancellation are not included in the budget for the agreement
or contract; and
``(III) a financial risk assessment of not including
budgeting for the costs of agreement or contract
cancellation.
``(ii) Transmittal to omb.--At least 14 days before the
date on which the Chief and Director enter into an agreement
or contract under subsection (b), the Chief and Director
shall transmit to the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget a copy of the written notice submitted under
clause (i).''.
______
SA 3717. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 1268. REPLACEMENT OF LOCALLY EMPLOYED STAFF SERVING AT
UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC FACILITIES IN THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
(a) Employment Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State shall ensure that,
not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, every supervisory position at a United States
diplomatic facility in the Russian Federation shall be
occupied by a citizen of the United States who has passed,
and shall be subject to, a thorough background check.
(2) Extension.--The Secretary of State may extend the
deadline under paragraph (1) for up to one year by providing
advance written notification and justification of such
extension to the appropriate congressional committees.
(3) Progress report.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on progress made toward meeting the employment
requirement under paragraph (1).
(b) Plan for Reduced Use of Locally Employed Staff.--Not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of State, in coordination with other
appropriate government agencies, shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a plan to further reduce
the reliance on Locally Employed Staff in United States
diplomatic facilities in the Russian Federation. The plan
shall, at a minimum, include cost estimates, timelines, and
numbers of employees to be replaced.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the congressional defense committees, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence
of the Senate; and
(2) the congressional defense committees, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
______
SA 3718. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 1268. INCLUSION OF RESTRICTED ACCESS SPACES IN UNITED
STATES DIPLOMATIC FACILITIES IN THE RUSSIAN
FEDERATION AND ADJACENT COUNTRIES.
(a) Restricted Access Space Requirement.--Each United
States diplomatic facility that, after the date of the
enactment of this Act, is constructed in, or undergoes a
construction upgrade in, the Russian Federation, any country
that shares a land border with the Russian Federation, or any
country that is a former member of the Soviet Union shall be
constructed to include a restricted access space.
(b) National Security Waiver.--The Secretary of State may
waive the requirement under subsection (a) if the Secretary
determines that it is in the national security interest of
the United States and submits a written justification to the
appropriate congressional committees not later than 180 days
before exercising such waiver.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the congressional defense committees, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence
of the Senate; and
(2) the congressional defense committees, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
______
SA 3719. Mr. WICKER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 2648, making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. No agency or instrumentality of the Federal
Government may expend funds or resources made available under
this Act or any other Act to consider or adjudicate any new
or previously denied application of any alien requesting
consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals, as
announced by Executive memorandum on June 15, 2012, or any
successor memorandum.
______
SA 3720. Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Inhofe,
Mr.
[[Page 13614]]
Lee, Mr. Johanns, and Mr. Boozman) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 2648, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 15, after line 22, add the following:
Sec. 1503. No agency or instrumentality of the Federal
Government may use Federal funding or resources--
(1) to consider or adjudicate any new or previously denied
application of any alien requesting consideration of deferred
action for childhood arrivals, as authorized by Executive
memorandum on August 15, 2012, or by any other succeeding
executive memorandum authorizing a similar program; or
(2) to issue a new work authorization to any alien who--
(A) was not lawfully admitted into the United States in
compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101 et seq.); and
(B) is not in lawful status in the United States on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
______
SA 3721. Mr. WHITEHOUSE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2410, to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end of subtitle D of title XVI, add the following:
SEC. 1647. PLAN FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION ON CYBER MATTERS.
(a) Plan Required.--Not later than 360 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in
cooperation with the Secretaries of the military departments,
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a plan
for the continuing education of officers and enlisted members
of the Armed Forces relating to cyber security and cyber
activities of the Department of Defense.
(b) Elements.--The plan submitted under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) A framework for provision of basic cyber threat
education for all members of the Armed Forces.
(2) A framework for postgraduate education, joint
professional military education, and strategic war gaming for
cyber strategic and operational leadership.
(3) Definitions of required positions, including military
occupational specialties and rating specialties for each
military department, along with the corresponding level of
cyber training, education, qualifications, or certifications
required for each specialty.
______
SA 3722. Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Heller) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2648, making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2014, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the end, add the following:
DIVISION B--EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION
SEC. _1. SHORT TITLE OF DIVISION.
This division may be cited as the ``Emergency Unemployment
Compensation Extension Act of 2014''.
SEC. _2. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
PROGRAM.
(a) Extension.--Section 4007(a)(2) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2014'' and
inserting ``the date that is 5 months after the date of the
enactment of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Extension Act of 2014''.
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (J), by inserting ``and'' at the end;
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following:
``(K) the amendment made by section _2(a) of the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014;''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to weeks of unemployment beginning on or after
the date of the enactment of this division.
SEC. _3. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED BENEFIT PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 2005 of the Assistance for
Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained
in Public Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), is amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2013'' each place it appears
and inserting ``the date that is 5 months after the date of
the enactment of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Extension Act of 2014''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``June 30, 2014'' and
inserting ``the date that is 11 months after the date of the
enactment of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Extension Act of 2014''.
(b) Extension of Matching for States With No Waiting
Week.--Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``June 30, 2014'' and inserting ``the
date that is 11 months after the date of the enactment of the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014''.
(c) Extension of Modification of Indicators Under the
Extended Benefit Program.--Section 203 of the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C.
3304 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking ``December 31, 2013''
and inserting ``the date that is 5 months after the date of
the enactment of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Extension Act of 2014''; and
(2) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``December 31, 2013''
and inserting ``the date that is 5 months after the date of
the enactment of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Extension Act of 2014''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to weeks of unemployment beginning on or after
the date of the enactment of this division.
SEC. _4. EXTENSION OF FUNDING FOR REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND
REEMPLOYMENT AND ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Extension.--
(1) In general.--Section 4004(c)(2)(A) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended by striking ``through fiscal year 2014'' and
inserting ``through fiscal year 2015''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-240).
(b) Timing for Services and Activities.--
(1) In general.--Section 4001(i)(1)(A) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
sentence:
``At a minimum, such reemployment services and reemployment
and eligibility assessment activities shall be provided to an
individual within a time period (determined appropriate by
the Secretary) after the date the individual begins to
receive amounts under section 4002(b) (first tier benefits)
and, if applicable, again within a time period (determined
appropriate by the Secretary) after the date the individual
begins to receive amounts under section 4002(d) (third tier
benefits).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply on and after the date of the enactment of this
division.
(c) Purposes of Services and Activities.--The purposes of
the reemployment services and reemployment and eligibility
assessment activities under section 4001(i) of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26
U.S.C. 3304 note) are--
(1) to better link the unemployed with the overall
workforce system by bringing individuals receiving
unemployment insurance benefits in for personalized
assessments and referrals to reemployment services; and
(2) to provide individuals receiving unemployment insurance
benefits with early access to specific strategies that can
help get them back into the workforce faster, including
through--
(A) the development of a reemployment plan;
(B) the provision of access to relevant labor market
information;
(C) the provision of access to information about industry-
recognized credentials that are regionally relevant or
nationally portable;
(D) the provision of referrals to reemployment services and
training; and
(E) an assessment of the individual's on-going eligibility
for unemployment insurance benefits.
SEC. _5. ADDITIONAL EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE
RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.
(a) Extension.--
(1) In general.--Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 352(c)(2)(D)(iii)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``June 30, 2013'' and inserting ``June 30,
2014''; and
(B) by striking ``December 31, 2013'' and inserting
``December 31, 2014''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to weeks of unemployment beginning on or after
the date of the enactment of this division.
(b) Clarification on Authority To Use Funds.--Funds
appropriated under either the first or second sentence of
clause (iv) of section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act shall be available to cover the
cost of additional extended unemployment benefits provided
under such section 2(c)(2)(D) by reason of the amendments
made by subsection (a) as well as to cover
[[Page 13615]]
the cost of such benefits provided under such section
2(c)(2)(D), as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of this division.
(c) Funding for Administration.--Out of any funds in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated
to the Railroad Retirement Board $250,000 for administrative
expenses associated with the payment of additional extended
unemployment benefits provided under section 2(c)(2)(D) of
the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a), to remain available until
expended.
SEC. _6. FLEXIBILITY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENTS.
(a) Flexibility.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (g) of section 4001 of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26
U.S.C. 3304 note) shall not apply with respect to a State
that has enacted a law before June 30, 2014, that, upon
taking effect, would violate such subsection.
(2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) is effective with
respect to weeks of unemployment beginning on or after the
date of the enactment of this division.
(b) Permitting a Subsequent Agreement.--Nothing in title IV
of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-
252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) shall preclude a State whose
agreement under such title was terminated from entering into
a subsequent agreement under such title on or after the date
of the enactment of this division if the State, taking into
account the application of subsection (a), would otherwise
meet the requirements for an agreement under such title.
SEC. _7. ENDING UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS TO JOBLESS MILLIONAIRES
AND BILLIONAIRES.
(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no Federal funds may be used for payments of
unemployment compensation under the emergency unemployment
compensation program under title IV of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) to an individual whose adjusted gross income in the
preceding year was equal to or greater than $1,000,000.
(b) Compliance.--Unemployment Insurance applications shall
include a form or procedure for an individual applicant to
certify the individual's adjusted gross income was not equal
to or greater than $1,000,000 in the preceding year.
(c) Audits.--The certifications required by subsection (b)
shall be auditable by the U.S. Department of Labor or the
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
(d) Status of Applicants.--It is the duty of the States to
verify the residency, employment, legal, and income status of
applicants for Unemployment Insurance and no Federal funds
may be expended for purposes of determining whether or not
the prohibition under subsection (a) applies with respect to
an individual.
(e) Effective Date.--The prohibition under subsection (a)
shall apply to weeks of unemployment beginning on or after
the date of the enactment of this division.
SEC. _8. GAO STUDY ON THE USE OF WORK SUITABILITY
REQUIREMENTS IN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
PROGRAMS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the use of work suitability
requirements to strengthen requirements to ensure that
unemployment insurance benefits are being provided to
individuals who are actively looking for work and who truly
want to return to the labor force. Such study shall include
an analysis of--
(1) how work suitability requirements work under both State
and Federal unemployment insurance programs; and
(2) how to incorporate and improve such requirements under
Federal unemployment insurance programs; and
(3) other items determined appropriate by the Comptroller
General.
(b) Briefing.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this division, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall brief Congress on the ongoing study
required under subsection (a). Such briefing shall include
preliminary recommendations for such legislation and
administrative action as the Comptroller General determines
appropriate.
SEC. _9. DESIGNATION OF AMOUNTS.
Amounts made available in this division are designated by
the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 and section 4101 of this Act shall apply
to such amounts.
SEC. _10. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
(a) Paygo Scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this
division shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard
maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(d)).
(b) Senate Paygo Scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this
division shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard
maintained for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21
(110th Congress).
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on commerce, science, and transportation
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 July 30, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing
entitled, ``Cramming on Wireless Phone Bills: A Review of Consumer
Protection Practices and Gaps.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on environment and public works
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 July 30, 2014.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on July 30, 2014, at 2 p.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The African
Growth and Opportunity Act at 14: The Road Ahead.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 July 30, 2014, at 10:15 a.m.,
in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a
hearing entitled ``Paid Family Leave: The Benefits for Businesses and
Working Families.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on homeland security and governmental affairs
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 July 30, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on indian affairs
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on July 30, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``When
Catastrophe Strikes: Responses to Natural Disasters in Indian
Country.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committte on the judiciary
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``VAWA Next
Steps: Protecting Women from Gun Violence.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy, and consumer rights
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition
Policy, and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate, on July 30, 2014, at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-226 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pricing
Policies and Competition in the Contact Lens Industry: Is What You See
What You Get?''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 13616]]
subcommittee on housing, transportation, and community development
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 Wednesday, July 30, 2014, at
10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Flood Insurance Claims
Process in Communities After Sandy: Lessons Learned and Potential
Improvements.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on public lands, forests, and mining
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
special committee on aging
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on July 30, 2014, in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office
Building, at 2:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Admitted or Not?
The Impact of Medicare Observation Status on Seniors.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Akunna Cook be
granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the
Bring Jobs Home Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua Wolff,
a fellow with the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, be
granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session and that
Aly Boyce and Kate Kollars, interns with the committee, also be granted
floor privileges for today's session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 2709
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2709, introduced
earlier today by Senator Manchin, is at the desk and I ask for its
first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the
first time.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2709) to extend and reauthorize the Export-
Import Bank of the United States, and for other purposes.
Mr. CASEY. I now ask for a second reading and object to my own
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The bill will be read for
the second time on the next legislative day.
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2014
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on
Thursday, July 31, 2014; 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 resume
consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2648, the emergency
supplemental appropriations bill, postcloture, with the time until 10
a.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with
Senator Sessions controlling the time from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., and the
majority controlling the time from 11 a.m. to 12 noon; and finally,
that the time during the adjournment count postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, Senators will be notified when any votes
are scheduled.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:26 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, July 31, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate July 30, 2014:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
CYNTHIA H. AKUETTEH, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A CAREER
MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-
COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE GABONESE REPUBLIC, AND
TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF SAO TOME AND
PRINCIPE.
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
RICHARD A. KENNEDY, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS
AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 30, 2016.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ERIKA LIZABETH MORITSUGU, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO
BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
[[Page 13617]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, July 30, 2014
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Stewart).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
July 30, 2014.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Chris Stewart 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 7, 2014, 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, but in no
event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
____________________
MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, with the stroke of a pen 49 years ago
today, several weeks after I finished high school, then-President
Lyndon Johnson signed into law two of the largest and most important
health-related programs the country had ever seen, Medicare and
Medicaid. Those programs were created nearly half a century ago because
our Nation's leaders saw, time and time again, the hopelessness of
people who had no way to provide the most basic level of health care
for themselves and their families.
It was President Harry Truman who initially conceived of a health
care safety net for struggling Americans. Nearly 70 years ago, Truman
said: ``Millions of our citizens do not now enjoy good health. Millions
do not have security against the economic effects of sickness . . . and
the time has arrived for action to help them get that protection.''
Since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, no achievement has been
as significant and consequential as the Affordable Care Act. In
addition to providing affordable health insurance, to some for the
first time ever, the ACA has also provided for significant expansion of
states' Medicaid programs so that individuals with incomes less than
138 percent of the poverty level could finally have access to basic
care.
A Supreme Court case would make Medicaid expansion voluntary. Now,
nearly half a century after Medicaid was created to help the least
among us, 24 States in this country, 24 States believe it best to
disenfranchise millions and deny them access to Federal dollars they
rightfully deserve by not expanding their programs.
States that have refused to expand point to the increased costs as a
main reason for their decision. But, Mr. Speaker, the Federal
Government has committed to pay 100 percent--that is, 100 percent of
the cost of expansion--for the first 3 years and then 90 percent beyond
the first 3. Nationally, the States would see only a 1.6 percent
increase in their share of Medicaid spending, a 1.6 percent increase to
provide health care for millions of deserving individuals.
The benefits of expansion far outweigh the costs. In my home State of
North Carolina alone, expanding Medicaid will save the State more than
$65 million over the next 8 years and would benefit its economy by
adding nearly $1.5 billion to the State's revenue. It would not only
help to save jobs, but help to create them, too. That is just in North
Carolina. And this same scenario is playing out in nearly half of all
the States in our country.
The cost of not expanding is simply too great. Pungo Hospital,
located just outside of my congressional district in Belhaven, has
closed its doors, closed its doors because North Carolina refuses to
expand Medicaid.
The decision by Governor Pat McCrory and the Republican-led State
legislature has cost a woman her life. Portia Gibbs was 48 years old.
She had a heart attack and died on her way to the nearest open
hospital, which was an hour away.
Providing care to the sick and injured is a moral imperative that
Harry Truman saw nearly 70 years ago when he first spoke about it.
Congress and President Lyndon Johnson believed caring for the least
among us was a moral necessity when Medicare and Medicaid were passed
and signed into law.
At the signing ceremony 49 years ago, former President Harry Truman
said of the people that would benefit from Medicare and Medicaid:
``These people are our prideful responsibility, and they are entitled,
among other benefits, to the best medical protection available. We
don't want them to have any idea of hopeless despair.'' That was
President Harry Truman.
In response to Truman, President Lyndon Johnson said improving the
health of all Americans ``calls upon us never to be indifferent to
despair. It commands us never to turn away from helplessness. It
directs us never to ignore or to spurn those who suffer untended in a
land that is bursting with abundance.''
Those elected officials standing in the way of Medicaid expansion
should simply reflect on President Johnson's words. In a country that
has come so far--so far--Americans who struggle financially deserve
better than that. They deserve better than to have their elected
officials tell them that their worth in this world is tied to their
ability to afford health insurance.
____________________
ISRAEL HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Brooks) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak strongly
and unequivocally in support of Israel's right to self-defense, the
same right to self-defense we would assert if America were attacked and
Americans killed by rockets and other weaponry.
Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in response to relentless
and unprovoked rocket attacks launched from Gaza by Hamas, a brutally
ruthless terrorist organization. In just the last 3 weeks, more than
2,500 rockets have rained down on Israel, and the targets of these
rockets are not military but civilian.
2,500 rockets fired at any country is a lot. It is an act of war that
triggers self-defense military responses. But 2,500 rockets fired at a
country as small as Israel is even worse. To put the size of Israel in
perspective, Israel is smaller than the Tennessee Valley of north
Alabama that I represent. If anyone dared to fire even a single rocket
at the people of the Fifth District of Alabama, much less if 2,500
rockets rained down on the Tennessee Valley, you can be darn sure that
we would demand an overwhelming military response.
In Israel, Hamas fires at communities, at schools, at daycare
centers,
[[Page 13618]]
all with the same goal: to invoke terror by injuring and killing as
many innocent Israeli citizens as possible.
Fully 80 percent of the Israeli population is living under the
constant threat of missile attacks, having to run into the shelters
constantly at a moment's notice, in the middle of the night, at all
times of the day with mere seconds of warning. No country on Earth
would tolerate such a situation.
So that we are clear, Hamas consistently places and fires its rockets
within heavily populated areas, including schools and hospitals. Hamas
does this to use their own civilian population as human shields. This
means that every time they fire a rocket, they are committing not one,
but two, war crimes: targeting civilians in Israel while using human
shields in Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it very well in
describing the juxtaposition of Hamas firing from civilian areas in the
hope of drawing fire and the use by Israel of the Iron Dome missile
defense system: ``We use missiles to protect our people. Hamas uses
their civilians to protect their missiles.''
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize how truly
miraculous the Iron Dome missile and mortar defense system is. It is
like hitting a bullet with a bullet.
I thank the Tennessee Valley's incomparable defense workers who,
working hand-in-hand with very bright Israeli engineers and scientists,
made hitting a bullet with a bullet possible. Untold Israeli citizens'
lives have been saved as a result of the Tennessee Valley's
technological contributions to Israel and the Iron Dome defense system.
Since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge, Israel has
discovered more than 30 offensive Hamas terrorist tunnels dug from Gaza
under the border and into Israel. These tunnels have 60 different
access points, and the entrances have been found in houses and mosques.
The purpose of the tunnels is to allow armed Hamas terrorists to
emerge in Israeli communities to murder and kidnap civilians--
defenseless mothers, fathers, and children, it makes no difference to
Hamas. Hamas kidnaps, tortures, and murders, and seemingly enjoys it.
Israel's only solution, the only path to peace in the face of those
who kill in the name of religion, is Israel's disarming of Hamas and
the demilitarization of Gaza.
Israel is the only democracy in the tumultuous and dangerous Middle
East. Israel is unquestionably America's most reliable ally in the
Middle East. The people of Israel are engaged in a fight to protect
their home, a fight for survival, and America must stand with Israel
without hesitation.
____________________
THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is the most fundamental
right in any democracy since it is the right from which all others
meaningfully derive.
Deny someone the right to vote, and you may deny them the right to
speak, to associate with whom they choose, or to freely exercise their
faith. For if these other rights are infringed, how may we seek redress
but at the ballot box?
Not even the courts can secure our rights in the absence of an
effective franchise. Congress established the inferior courts, and
Congress may abolish them. The right to vote alone is foundation to all
of the others.
So it is deeply disturbing to see the right to vote being diminished
in many States. These new State laws restrict voter registration
drives, eliminate same-day voter registration, reduce the early voting
period, and require photo identification and proof of citizenship to
vote.
In total, 34 States have passed laws now requiring voters to show
some kind of identification at the polls. For many Americans who
already are registered to vote and can provide this documentation,
these new requirements may not sound burdensome. But although these new
laws apply to all Americans, they disproportionately impact young,
elderly, minority, low-income, and disabled voters.
Eleven percent of American citizens do not have a photo ID; 7 percent
do not have citizenship documents. That means a significant number of
eligible voters have been disenfranchised by these new laws.
It has been argued that it is appropriate to put a significant burden
on people who simply want to cast their vote because voter fraud is
widespread, but it is not. It is true that in jurisdictions which allow
people to pay a bounty for new voter registration cards that voter
registration fraud exists. But voter registration fraud is not the same
as voter fraud, since these false registrations do not result in
nonexistent people voting.
The fraud artists should be prosecuted for violating the law and
cluttering up the voter registration rolls, but legitimate voters
should not be disenfranchised. Rather, we should crack down on the
bounty system that incentivizes this kind of misconduct.
These new and stringent voter ID laws will not stop voter
registration fraud, but they will prevent legitimate voters from
casting their ballots. Indeed, in many places, this is their very
intention. They are the worst form of voter suppression, not voter
protection.
The backward movement on voting rights is not confined to the States.
The Supreme Court has also made it more difficult to ensure adequate
protection from disenfranchisement.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required that nine States and many
other counties and municipalities around the country with histories of
voter discrimination obtain Federal preclearance before changing voter
laws. However, the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, ruled
that the formula to determine which jurisdictions must get preclearance
is out-of-date.
Immediately thereafter, Texas announced that a previously blocked
voter identification law would go into effect and that redistricting
maps would no longer need Federal approval, actions that could severely
undermine minority voting rights in that State.
{time} 1015
In January, the Voting Rights Amendment Act was introduced to restore
and strengthen the protections of the VRA that were dismantled by the
Supreme Court. This bill was introduced by Congressman John Conyers and
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, demonstrating the bipartisan support for
restoring a crowning achievement of the civil rights movement. I am a
strong supporter of the Voting Rights Amendment Act, and I am
encouraged that Members of both parties see the need for this
legislation.
As a country, we have made incredible progress in expanding the right
to vote to previously disenfranchised populations. Now is not the time
to turn the clock back. We should, instead, be moving forward, ever
forward, and encouraging legal, eligible voters to fully participate in
their government, in democracy, and in voting--not working to exclude
them.
Congress must commit to passing the Voting Rights Amendment Act and
ensuring that the ballot boxes in our States, in our Nation, and in our
democracy remain open to all.
____________________
CENTRAL ALABAMA VETERANS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Mrs. Roby) for 5 minutes.
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with this Congress and
with this Nation a story of mismanagement, malfeasance, negligence, and
coverup at the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System, or CAVHCS.
I know most of my colleagues can point to at least some problems at
the VA systems in their State. But what has transpired in my hometown
of Montgomery, Alabama, and central Alabama rises to a level of
misconduct and mistrust I am not sure many other systems can match. And
I do this not
[[Page 13619]]
simply just to disparage the system for no reason. I do this to shine a
light on some truly disturbing practices so we can finally clean up the
mess. I do this so that the 50,000-plus veterans that depend on the
Central Alabama VA can one day have confidence in the health care
system we promised them.
After Phoenix, when the scheduling scheme began to unravel, it was
revealed in early June that the Central Alabama VA had one of the worst
wait times in the country. It was particularly bad for mental health
patients.
I actually met with our local VA director, who acknowledged the
discrepancies and tried to reassure me by leading me to believe that
action had been taken to remove those responsible. It turns out that
wasn't true. No one was fired. Mr. Speaker, if a Member of Congress
can't get a straight answer from the VA, imagine what our veterans go
through every single day.
In the wake of this clear breach of trust, we began digging deeper to
find out what was really going on at the Central Alabama VA. The
information that we received from sources who came forward was
alarming. It is also consistent with reports gathered by independent
inspectors and some great investigative reporters.
Here is what is being uncovered:
A Montgomery VA pulmonologist manipulated more than 1,200 patient
records to show tests that never occurred. After being caught, the
doctor was never fired or suspended. He actually was caught
manipulating records again but somehow went on to receive a
``satisfactory'' performance review;
At least 900 unread patient X-ray tests, many showing malignancies,
were lost over a 5-year period. When the tests were discovered
recently, top hospital administrators tried to cover up the problem;
Email records show the Central Alabama VA director was alerted to the
concerns over patient scheduling practices more than 8 months before
taking action;
And finally, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the strongest evidence yet has
emerged that the rampant scheduling manipulation at Central Alabama
wasn't a misunderstanding at all but, rather, a facility-led standard
operating procedure. More than 57 percent of staff surveyed at Central
Alabama said they received ``instruction'' to manipulate patient wait
times, 57 percent. Mr. Speaker, that is off the charts. The national
average is 12.7 percent, and other systems near Montgomery aren't even
close.
There is clearly a systematic problem in Montgomery, and it needs to
be corrected. That is why I have joined with Senator Richard Shelby to
write the new Secretary of Veterans Administration, Robert McDonald, to
call his attention to the Central Alabama VA. Specifically, Senator
Shelby and I are asking Secretary McDonald to review these instances of
mismanagement, visit CAVHCS with us, and develop a plan of action to
reform the Central Alabama system.
It is so important to remember that thousands of doctors, nurses, and
public servants at the VA work very hard every day to give veteran
patients the best health care that we can offer. Their service is
honorable, and it is a shame that it is overshadowed now by a system
that too often fails those it was created to help.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the American people to forget about
this. We cannot allow the news media to move on to the next story. I
hear from veterans every day who are depending on us to make this
right. This will be an uphill battle. I know that. But it is a fight we
have to fight. We have to change this culture of complacency. That
starts with new leadership, and I look forward to working with
Secretary McDonald.
____________________
THE BORDER CRISIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks, many of
us have visited my home State and have gone to places where I have gone
over the decades of service and living in Texas, and that is to our
great neighbors who live on the border. Many great citizens of the
State of Texas and of the great country in which we live, they have
lived and worked and played, and they have created an economic engine,
cities like Brownsville, Laredo, Harlingen, McAllen, and many others.
And they have, in fact, experienced over the years an influx of
individuals coming to do harm.
As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and a member
who has served as chairwoman and ranking member on a number of
subcommittees, we have made great strides.
I am reminded of the low number of Border Patrol agents some many
years ago, and now we are upwards to 25,000 hardworking Americans who
serve on both the northern and southern borders.
They have met the challenge of a serious influx. First, the drug
cartels. The violence on the Mexican side of the border. We have come
together with Mexican Presidents and have worked with the Mexican
national defense forces, and we have quashed, to a certain extent, the
extensive violence. But yet, our Federal agents of the ATF, the DEA,
FBI, and certainly other collaborative efforts have worked to bring
this violence down.
We take note of the fact that El Paso is noted as the safest city in
the United States, and it is on the border. We note that a great deal
of commerce comes through the southern border, as it does the northern
border.
Over the last couple of weeks, beginning maybe in 2013, we saw a new
phenomenon, an unplanned phenomenon, a phenomenon driven by the
devastating and destructive elements found in Honduras, El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Central America, none of which were driven by a pointed
pronouncement from the United States or the President of the United
States, President Barack Obama. But elements who wanted to misuse and
abuse the need for comprehensive immigration reform decided to
misrepresent the laws of the United States of America.
Every Member of Congress has adhered to a particular theme. I started
using it in the 1990s. We are a Nation of laws and a Nation of
immigrants. And the laws are intended to be used to instruct how we
guide our hearts and our laws. We still have the Statue of Liberty in
the harbor of New York that says, we welcome the forlorn and those who
are in need.
Unfortunately, bad information was given to desperate people. Let me
say that again, Mr. Speaker: desperate people. Desperate mothers and
fathers who saw the beheading of young people, or people in their
neighborhood threatened by MS-13 and other horrific gangs who say, if
your child does not join, your child will be killed, or your little
girl will be raped. Or maybe the 3-year-old that I saw down in
Brownsville with a diaper on was given to someone just to save her
life.
That is the misnomer and the abuse that has been going on in the
debate here. These are the real lives of children who fled with a more
than credible fear of the loss of life. I am so disappointed sometimes
in how we can reinvent truth, and that is that these children are
fleeing because of what President Obama represented. That is not true.
And it is important to tell the American people the truth.
They were fleeing because of the sheer unbelievable violence, insane
violence, mixed in with the mistruths and misrepresentations of those
who just wanted to make money and abuse the system. So now we have the
surge, maybe 50,000 plus here in the United States. And we have to do
something about it.
I listened to three young people yesterday. Most of us have not heard
from the children because we were protecting the children's privacy.
But these youngsters explained the arduous journey that they took and
how they came here for nothing more than a better life, and that
violence was all around them.
Yes, we need to work with Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador. But
we started out trying to do what was right. The President offered a
supplemental. He knew it was right to have
[[Page 13620]]
funding for the wilderness funding. He knew it was right to give the
Border Patrol agents their appropriate moneys, and he knew it was right
for enforcement to add more judges.
But what I would say is, what we have on the floor now, Mr. Speaker,
is a pitiful example in H.R. 5230. This is a bad emergency
supplemental. It is not even that. It is not worth voting for. America
is better than this, and we need to do better than this with the
supplemental to help these children and help America.
____________________
AFGHANISTAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, to begin my short statement today, I would
like to read you a recent headline from The Washington Times: ``Golden
Hammer: U.S. squandered $34 million on failed Afghan soybean project.''
The first few sentences of this report read: ``Call it the great
American soybean heist, the latest tale of U.S. taxpayer abuse to
emanate from Afghanistan. Despite clear evidence that Afghanistan's
arid soil was a bad place to grow soybeans, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture spent $34.4 million tying to establish the crop in that
country, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghan
Reconstruction.''
Mr. Speaker, here we go again, talking about the waste, fraud, and
abuse of American resources in Afghanistan.
Yesterday I spoke on the House floor in memory of three members of
the United States Army who died as a result of their service in
Afghanistan. The deaths of these three men represent my greatest
concern with our servicemembers continuing to remain in Afghanistan:
that more and more of our men and women in uniform will be killed and
wounded.
The loss of life and limb is far more important than the money that
is being wasted. However, Mr. Speaker, our country is in a dangerous
financial situation.
In addition to the soybean report, I want to read three more
headlines that accentuate the waste of our taxpayer money in
Afghanistan. From CBS News: ``Is the Pentagon wasting taxpayer money in
Afghanistan?'' From the Center for Public Integrity: ``The U.S.
military was no match for Afghanistan's corruption.'' And from the
World Affairs Journal: ``Money pit: The monstrous failure of U.S. aid
to Afghanistan.''
Mr. Speaker, how much more can the poor American taxpayer continue to
spend on a failed policy in Afghanistan? I cannot emphasize enough that
we have children, senior citizens, and veterans here at home that
desperately need our assistance, yet we run out of money for their
programs because we refuse to make cuts to the funds that are being
funneled overseas, and especially in Afghanistan.
I say to the administration and to Congress that it is time to fix
America's problems, not Afghanistan's problems, and not the world's
problems.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want, again, to mention the three Army
soldiers who were killed last week on July 25: Staff Sergeant Benjamin
G. Prange, PFC Keith M. Williams, and PFC Donnell A. Hamilton, Jr.
{time} 1030
Mr. Speaker, beside me, I have poster after poster of the cost of
war. As a young kid named Tyler Jordan--this is actually from 2003, our
early days in Iraq, a very unnecessary war--his father was a gunny
sergeant named Phillip Jordan, and he was killed, and here is Tyler
being given the flag that was folded after it was taken off his
father's grave.
I don't know how many of these three names I just mentioned--I know
one family, he had two little girls, maybe they got a folded flag--but
it is time for Congress to wake up.
There is no need to have our young men and women overseas giving
their life and limb and to see the money wasted overseas in fraud,
waste, and abuse when we can use it right here to fix America's
problems.
Please, God, continue to bless our men and women in uniform; and
please, God, continue to bless America.
____________________
THE FUTILITY OF LITIGATING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) for 5 minutes.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, with just 1 day before the recess and many
pending issues before us, the majority has focused on one issue and one
issue alone: suing the President of the United States for essentially
doing what they seem incapable of.
The lawsuit focuses solely on a small part of the ACA, one that
Republicans themselves wanted to roll back. I am going to list my
objections to this monumental waste of time on this poster.
First is standing. The S is for standing because the Speaker is
trying to sue the President, and he does not have standing. He must
show that there is some concrete harm to him that goes beyond the
general interest in seeing the law enforced.
In fact, he should listen to conservative legal minds like Justices
Roberts, Scalia, and Rehnquist, all of whom have expressed skepticism
about a court granting standing to the House to sue the President.
It is absurd to think that the House of Representatives, as an
institution, has been harmed by President Obama's attempting in good
faith to implement the ACA. I understand their feelings might be hurt,
but acting out only gets them negative attention, and the Americans
agree that this is a waste of time.
The next reason that I object is the taxpayer waste of money. The
last time the Republicans sued the President, it was over the
implementation of DOMA, which went nowhere and cost the taxpayers $2.3
million. Like this previous fruitless lawsuit, this will bounce around
the courts for years, making rich lawyers rich. That is the only jobs
program the Republicans will have passed in Congress this year.
The next reason I object to it is that it is useless. Just what are
the Republicans trying to accomplish with this circus? It is certainly
not governing. As of June 30, this Congress has only enacted 125 bills
into law--the lowest number of any Congress in history since 1973, when
they started keeping data.
Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say, well, it
is all about the Senate, but in five previously divided Congresses
before this one, the average number of bills enacted at the same time
period was 254--almost twice as many.
The next reason I object to this lawsuit is P, political stunt aimed
at appeasing the fringe elements in the Republican Party that want to
impeach the President. The same people calling for this lawsuit shut
down the government last fall because they wanted to delay the
Affordable Care Act, and it cost us over $24 billion. Now, they are
suing the President over the fact that he did something they wanted him
to do in the first place.
The only other group of people I know who scream that they want
something and then throw a tantrum when they get it are toddlers.
The next reason I object to this lawsuit is that it is inconsistent.
It is inconsistent because when George Bush was proposing the
prescription drug benefit and we were trying to implement that, he
asked to have it delayed for 1 year--and guess what? The Republicans
didn't object then.
Then the final reason that I object to this lawsuit is because it is
a distraction. The Republicans are trying to distract Americans from
the fact they have ruled over a do-nothing Congress.
While we are frittering away our last few days in session in this
pointless and childish exercise, we are not creating jobs, fixing
immigration, renewing the Export-Import Bank, doing tax reform, or even
completing a full appropriations process.
Words fail me in describing the petulance of the other side. This
toddler is more adult than some of my colleagues. She has figured it
out. I suppose I will have to let her express her feelings.
[[Page 13621]]
____________________
GENOCIDE IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to share two pictures showing the tomb
of the prophet Jonah in Mosul, Iraq. The first shows Jonah's tomb as it
looked for centuries prior to last week. The second shows the site
after it was destroyed by ISIS last week. Thousands of years of
Biblical cultural history were erased in a matter of moments by
Islamist terrorists.
This ancient site had once been the location of a church and then a
mosque famous for its architectural beauty which stood there since the
14th century. The mosque of the prophet Yunus--built around Jonah's
tomb--honored a figure who is sacred to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Jonah, who was sent by God to preach repentance to the people of
Nineveh, is the subject of a book in the Hebrew Tanakh--the Old
Testament--and multiple passages in the Koran.
While ISIS has targeted Christians for elimination in its destructive
rampage through Syria and Iraq, this atrocity is an offense not just to
Christians, but to all humanity. This is more than fundamentalism or
extremism. It is nihilism. It is genocide. It is genocide of an entire
people of faith in this region.
The world should be outraged at the crime against our shared cultural
heritage, including the Islam that ISIS claims to represent. ISIS has
destroyed millennia of history by detonating an explosive charge and
turning this ancient site of pilgrimage to rubble.
However, it is not just Biblical sites and Christian churches that
are targeted by ISIS extermination. It is exterminating the Christian
people of this region. The Christian people of this region are being
exterminated.
I want to share another picture. Do you see this spray-painted symbol
on the wall to the right of the gate? That is the Arabic word ``nun''
which stands for nasara, a pejorative name for Christians. They are
singling out Christians. ISIS has been marking the homes of Christians
to symbolize their ultimatum: convert to Islam or die.
Similarly, ISIS has used the letter ``raa'' for rawafidh, a slur
against Shiites that they also expelled from Mosul.
This is the sixth time in a week that I have appeared on this floor
to call attention to the genocide that is taking place right before our
eyes. The media is starting to pay more attention, but where is the
Obama administration?
It has to make protecting this ancient community a priority. It needs
to encourage the Kurds to do more of what they can to protect those
fleeing ISIS and provide safe refuge. It needs to ensure that of the
resources going to the region, that a portion should be guaranteed to
help the Christian community. It needs to have the same courage as
President Bush and former Secretary of State Colin Powell had when they
called it genocide in Darfur because this is genocide.
For the sake of these communities and for the sake of the ancient,
tangible heritage that is being destroyed daily by ISIS and Iraq,
President Obama must speak.
President Reagan consistently made human rights and religious freedom
a hallmark of American diplomacy. He famously described the U.S.
Constitution as ``a covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but
with all of mankind.'' He understood that the promises enshrined in
that document transcended time and place.
There is no more urgent time and place to speak out than now, given
what is happening to Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq.
We are seeing, during this Congress where everyone here is serving and
during this administration, we are seeing the end of Christianity in
Iraq, and soon, we will see the end of Christianity in the Middle East,
where it all began.
____________________
HOUSE DEMOCRATS' ECONOMIC AGENDA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. Esty) for 5 minutes.
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, I held my Congress on Your
Corner at the Litchfield Public Library, and there, I had conversations
with folks young and old, and we talked about what matters to them and
to their families, and I heard about their concerns with the pressing
issues facing our country right now.
How can Washington jump-start our economy again? When will we rebuild
our aging bridges and roads? What is Congress doing about our broken
immigration system?
Here we are, 2 days before the Speaker's August recess, and there is
a vote to sue the President. Yes, that is right, we are wasting time
and taxpayer money voting on politically-motivated attacks against the
President, rather than this House taking action to help the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, we should be debating a long-term, sustainable solution
to fund the dwindling highway trust fund, fix our infrastructure, and
create jobs. We should work together to fix our broken immigration
system and to address the humanitarian crisis at the border, and we
should vote to enact Make It In America legislation that supports good-
paying jobs right here at home.
Mr. Speaker, moms in my district and across this country ask me every
day: When will this House allow a vote on commonsense gun violence
prevention? Coming from a State that is working to regain jobs that
were lost during the recession, I believe that we should cancel this
recess to extend emergency unemployment for jobseekers in my State of
Connecticut and all across America.
No; instead, we are wasting time and taxpayer money on a frivolous
lawsuit, rather than working together--working together--to stop
corporate tax inversions or close tax loopholes for companies that are
shipping our jobs overseas.
The folks I listened to in Litchfield last Saturday morning deserve
better. The American people deserve better. It is time to put
partisanship aside and to put middle class families first. We should
cancel recess. We should stay here and work together on policies to
jump-start our economy and get the job done for all of the people we
represent.
____________________
THE ORDEAL OF FIRST LIEUTENANT NADIYA VIKTORIVNA SAVCHENKO OF THE
UKRAINIAN ARMY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gibson) for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a solemn and
pressing issue that unfortunately has not received the attention that
is warranted. This issue is the illegal capture, transport, ongoing
detainment, and upcoming trial of First Lieutenant Nadiya Viktorivna
Savchenko of the Ukrainian Army by pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists
and, now, the Russian Government.
Lieutenant Savchenko, whose first name Nadiya means ``hope'' in
Ukrainian, is a true patriot and hero. She was born in 1981 in what was
then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and grew up in that Soviet
Union-aligned Republic.
At the early age of 16, 1 year younger than myself when I joined the
United States military, Nadiya joined the Ukrainian Army as a radio
operator and started an incredible and groundbreaking career in service
to a free and independent Ukraine.
Now 33, she has not only been trained as an elite paratrooper, she
also became the first female air force pilot in the Ukrainian military.
Her exemplary time in uniform includes service in Iraq between 2004 and
2008 as a member of Ukrainian peacekeeping troops, during which time
she served alongside and earned the respect of U.S. personnel,
including Special Operations Forces.
In fact, her tour in Iraq overlapped with part of my own time serving
in that theater. I personally know the hardships and exemplary work
done by our coalition forces during that difficult period, including
Nadiya's Ukrainian contingent.
[[Page 13622]]
She has since become a national hero and icon, serving in the 3rd
Army Aviation Regiment and being recognized by Ukrainian defense forces
and the United Nations. Nadiya also became a leading national figure in
the Euromaidan demonstrations, which led to the fall of President
Viktor Yanukovych.
{time} 1045
After Yanukovych, pro-Russian forces began stoking anger and violence
across Ukraine's eastern provinces and the Crimean Peninsula.
Lieutenant Savchenko then joined one of many volunteer, pro-government
units that were organized to supplement deployed government forces. As
the leader in the Aidar Battalion, she served alongside Ukrainian
military personnel and civilians alike to quell the Russian-supplied, -
trained, -supported, and -supplemented separatist forces.
On June 28, Nadiya was captured by the separatists. After several
days of unknown whereabouts, she resurfaced in Russia in the custody of
the Russian Government on charges of murdering two Russian journalists.
Access to her by family and Ukrainian officials has been very limited,
and calls for her release based on her illegal capture, transport,
transfer, and detention have gone unanswered. This is unacceptable. As
Americans, we must recognize those who have fought alongside us and
those who have stood up for democracy and freedom across the globe.
Furthermore, we cannot let international law and due process be
violated by any entity or nation.
For these reasons, I call on the United States Government and the
United Nations to take immediate action to seek release of First
Lieutenant Nadiya Viktorivna Savchenko. If she, a citizen of the
sovereign state of Ukraine and a war hero, is to face trial, she must
be granted the full ability to do so in an open, transparent, and
unbiased venue such as through the international court system or be
granted the privilege of a full and proper investigation by her own
country. Lieutenant Savchenko deserves due process of law. I further
call on Russia to comply with its international obligations and
immediately release Nadiya Savchenko to her family or appropriate
authorities.
____________________
MEDICAID EXPANSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a cochairman of the State
Medicaid Expansion Caucus, I rise this morning to talk about how
important expanding Medicaid is for my State and for every State in
this great Nation.
It gives me great pride to be in the well of the House this morning
speaking on the topic of expanding the Medicaid program today, the 49th
anniversary of the date when the legislation creating the Medicaid
antipoverty program was signed into law by President Lyndon Baines
Johnson. More than 30 Members of Congress have joined the State
Medicaid Expansion Caucus because we know that opening the way to
health care for the poor is good, it is righteous, it is just, it is
merciful. It is the right thing to do because, according to Matthew
25:40:
Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and
sisters of mine, you did for me.
And for those who have not a care about the poor, then you should
know also that expanding Medicaid to more poor people will stimulate
the economy by creating jobs in the burgeoning health care and other
ancillary industries. More jobs mean more spending, which leads to more
profits. For those of you who are only concerned about your bottom
line, then you should also know:
Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will
reward them for what they have done.--Proverbs 19:17.
The stimulation of economies is exactly what expanding Medicaid has
accomplished in the 27 States that have expanded eligibility. It is
exactly what will happen in every recalcitrant State when their
political leaders finally come to their senses and choose to accept the
Federal funds to expand their Medicaid systems, the funds having
already been paid into the system by their own taxpayers.
So 27 States, a majority of the States of this great country, looked
at the facts and made the choice to help their people be healthier and
therefore lead more productive lives. Expanding Medicaid in those
States provided health care coverage to approximately 10.5 million
people who otherwise would not have had it, according to Families USA.
Despite the politics, this is a bipartisan issue, as we see when
Republican Governors in Arizona and Ohio, for example, expanded
Medicaid. As a result of their action, almost a million people will
have access to affordable health care. States led by Republicans and
Democrats that expanded Medicaid should be commended for their actions.
In California, almost 3 million people have benefited by getting access
to health care when their State expanded Medicaid. These are just some
of the success stories.
The Federal Government will cover 100 percent of the costs of
expanding Medicaid today, and 90 percent of the cost for the duration
of the program in every State. Expanding Medicaid will bring billions
of Federal tax dollars back into States that will help develop the
health care infrastructure and improve the economy.
It will also help low-income Americans access health care. We must
remember that the people who will benefit from expanding Medicaid are
no less deserving of health care than anyone else.
In my home State of Georgia, expanding Medicaid would mean access to
health care for 684,000 poor people, according to the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities. The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute
estimates that expanding Medicaid will bring $65 billion in new
economic activity to Georgia over 10 years, which will support more
than 56,000 new jobs throughout the State. My Governor reacted to this
news by signing a bill eliminating his own authority to expand
Medicaid. I can't think of a time that a chief executive has willingly
given away some of his authority.
We know why Governors and State legislators are choosing to deny
access to health care for their people. It is politics, pure and
simple.
I am here today to urge every State to expand Medicaid. I urge my
colleagues and those watching at home to contact their Governor and
their State legislator in support of expanding Medicaid.
____________________
CONGRESS LEAVES WITH WORK UNDONE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) for 5 minutes.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am concerned about
and I think every American is concerned about is the reputation of the
Congress of the United States in the eyes of the American people. We
know what our approval ratings are, and we are well aware of it; but we
often don't take a moment and pause and say what are the things that we
could do to have the American people once again view this Chamber, the
people's House, as a place of honor, as a place that is actually doing
the people's business.
Here we are, 48 hours away from a recess. We are going to be going
back and talking with the people in our districts. Each one of us
represents around 700,000 American citizens. We are going to go home
and we are going to spend some time talking with those citizens, and I
think that is appropriate. However, I also think it is appropriate for
us to get our work done, and I want to talk this morning, Mr. Speaker,
about a key fundamental requirement of the law of this Congress, and
that is to provide the Nation and the American people with a budget
that is fiscally secure and to provide for spending bills under the law
so that the money that the taxpayers are sending to Washington, D.C.,
they are aware of how that money is being spent.
This is 2014, Mr. Speaker. Leaving for the entire month of August was
a tradition, as I have read, brought to this
[[Page 13623]]
Chamber because of the extreme heat of Washington, D.C., prior to air-
conditioning. But here we are in 2014, the building is air-conditioned
and the lights are on. It is a relatively comfortable place to work. We
could stay here and actually finish up some of the work of the people.
For example, in 1974, four decades ago, the Congress of the United
States passed a budget act and the President signed into law a budget
act that required the Congress to actually pass a budget and to do its
spending bills and complete them by September 30. In four decades, here
we are on the 40th anniversary of that law. In four decades, it has not
happened even one time when the Congress did its work and completed its
spending bills within the amount of time allotted under the law. The
American people are struck by that.
How can the Congress of the United States ignore the law? How can the
Congress of the United States say we are going to find ourselves in
agreement, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate and the
President, and we are going to agree to do these things? Well, quite
frankly, the law had one weakness: it had no enforcement trigger in it.
A few years ago, a good friend of mine, a gentleman from across the
aisle, Congressman Jim Cooper from Nashville, Tennessee, wrote a piece
of legislation called No Budget, No Pay. A couple of years ago, we
finally signed that bill into law--a part of it into law--and for the
first time since I have been in Congress, the Senate of the United
States actually passed a budget because they found out that if they
didn't, there would be an enforcement trigger that happened.
I have recently written a bill called the Do Your Job Act, which
would require the Congress to do all 12 of the spending bills prior to
the end of the year or they can't recess for more than 24 hours. They
have to stay here and do their job so the American people can see
firsthand what our priorities are.
I came to Congress in 2011, and in the 4 years I have been here, we
have been required by law to pass 48 spending bills. The U.S. Senate,
in those 4 years' time, has passed two. The House has done quite a bit
better. They have passed 24. But they are required to pass 48. This
year, the Senate has passed zero. They have done none. The House of
Representatives has passed seven, and has referred another four out of
committee that are ready to go. We ought to stay here and pass those
bills and send them to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. We ought to be here doing
the people's business for the good of the American people. We should
stay here and do our job.
____________________
HEALTH EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for 5 minutes.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I rise to introduce the
Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2014.
The Congressional Tri-Caucus, over the past 10 years, has been
tireless in its effort to educate Congress and the country about the
disproportionate burden of premature deaths and preventable illnesses
existing in our minority communities. Towards that end, the Tri-Caucus
developed a national strategy for the elimination of racial and ethnic
health disparities. The keystone of this strategy is the Tri-Caucus
Health Equity and Accountability Act, first introduced in 2003 and
every Congress since.
HEAA, in many ways, is unique. First, the bill and its introduction
rotates each Congress among the three caucuses. This year, as chair of
the CHC Health Task Force, I have the distinct honor of carrying on the
tradition by introducing the bill for the 113th Congress.
Second, and most importantly, HEAA outlines the collective
institutional knowledge of a diverse group of policymakers, health
professionals, and advocacy organizations from throughout the country
on what policies are needed to halt, reduce, and eliminate health
disparities.
At the beginning of each new Congress, the HEAA working group
convenes and several hundred minority and health advocacy organizations
meet on a regular basis to discuss the bill and update it based on new
research and recommendations to meet the ever-changing needs of our
Nation's most vulnerable populations.
Also, just as the bill introduction rotates each Congress between
Member offices, the leadership of the HEAA working group rotates among
advocacy organizations. In the 113th Congress, this effort was
spearheaded by the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health,
whose members I commend for their deep commitment to social justice and
for their tireless work on this bill, which included coordinating the
input of over 350 health and minority advocacy groups.
The HEAA is a principled living road map that can be used by
policymakers and providers alike. For example, the Affordable Care Act
contains many groundbreaking policies first introduced in HEAA,
including expansion of Medicaid eligibility, increased resources for
community health centers, and institutionalizing Federal efforts to
achieve health equity.
Nevertheless, while the ACA has made a significant impact on access
to quality health care, many inequities and obstacles remain that
prevent the elimination of health disparities in our country. That is
why the HEAA of 2014 provides Federal resources and advanced policies
to improve health outcomes in all populations regardless of race,
ethnicity, immigration status, age, ability, sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or English proficiency.
{time} 1100
The HEAA is made up of ten titles proposing a wide spectrum of health
initiatives that address disparities and mental health and specific
high impact minority diseases.
The bill also provides guidelines for improving the health outcomes
for women, children, and families, and targets resources to communities
striving to overcome negative social factors.
Finally, the bill includes recommendations to enhance data
collection, technology, accountability, and evaluation; increase
workforce diversity; and ensure access to culturally and linguistically
appropriate care.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Tri-Caucus and members of the HEAA
working group believe no one's health or life expectancy should be
determined by the color of their skin or the Zip Code in which they are
born.
The Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2014 is a consensus
blueprint of the most comprehensive and strategic plans to eliminate
health disparities in our country.
I urge my colleagues to support the Health Equity and Accountability
Act of 2014.
____________________
RISE OF ISLAMIC FASCISM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, we are watching the rise of Islamic
fascism on a scale unprecedented in modern times. It may be wrapped in
different symbols and trace genealogy through a different line, but at
its core, it is fascism. Listen to its virulent anti-Semitism, the
explicit promise of genocide against Israel, the utter rejection--
indeed, disdain--for fundamental principles of democracy and human
rights and justice. There can be no doubt what is happening.
European fascism might have consumed all of Europe except for one
gritty holdout: for more than a year Great Britain stood in the breach.
Had it fallen, the consequences would have been unthinkable.
Today, one gritty holdout stands against the rise of Islamic fascism
in the Middle East. Israel is the only island of democracy and
civilization left in that region, and it is standing alone and in the
breach.
[[Page 13624]]
The current conflict between Israel and Hamas offers a clear
distinction between good and evil.
Israel took control of the Gaza Strip as a result of the Six-Day War
in 1967. It granted self-governance to the region in 1994, and in 2005,
unilaterally withdrew its forces.
The resulting Hamas government has since militarized Gaza and used it
as a launching site for continuing and escalating attacks against the
civilian Israeli population, with the avowed objective of wiping Israel
off the map.
The Arab Spring welcomed by the Obama administration brought the
Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt. During its brief tenure, it
opened a road for the mass importation of weapons to Hamas. These
weapons, and others smuggled in by sea, were strategically placed in
schools and hospitals and fired upon Israeli cities without
provocation.
As Churchill once said of Britain: Israel did everything it could to
secure peace. Perhaps it did too much.
The result was thousands of rocket attacks and many terrorist
incursions by Hamas aimed solely at the civilian population. Israel
finally did what any civilization must do under such circumstances: it
finally fought back.
Hamas has deliberately staged its attacks from hospitals, schools,
and mosques, using children as human shields, leaving the Israelis the
Hobson's choice of enduring the killing of their own population or
taking out the instruments of destruction that are deliberately sited
in schools and hospitals. They have chosen to defend themselves.
There is absolutely no doubt of Hamas' objectives and that of its
allies: they have been crystal clear and unwavering on their intention
to destroy Israel and kill every Israeli. They seek to eradicate the
Jewish homeland, whose history in the region stretches back more than
3,000 years.
Their allies have been intent on annihilating every Christian and Jew
in the Middle East, and they are well on their way toward achieving
this goal. It would be the height of naivete to believe that it will
stop. Yet, this administration, and many on the Left, seem to view the
two sides as moral equivalents. Many on the Left even portray Israel as
the aggressor.
Israel has made the decision to by force demilitarize Gaza for its
own survival. It is now making serious progress and degrading Hamas'
ability to make war. That is the only true path to peace.
Yet, the Obama administration is now working to halt Israel's
progress and allow Hamas the time to resupply and regroup and resume
its attacks. This serves only the objectives of Hamas and is a
prescription for prolonged war and bloodshed.
Hamas has broken every cease-fire it has agreed to, and Israel has
abided by every cease-fire, often holding return fire for hours after
Hamas has broken these accords. There is no reason to believe that
Hamas will abide by future cease-fires the moment it has recovered its
war-making capabilities.
Why would this administration interfere in this manner, the effect of
which is to take sides against the only pro-Western regime left in the
Middle East?
Today, all that stands between a peaceful and free world and a
fanatical fascist caliphate stretching from the Bosphorus to North
Africa is the state of Israel and the influence of the Western
democracies, particularly that of the United States.
In 1929, Churchill warned of Britain's irresolution in the Middle
East. He said: ``Any appearance of lack of willpower on the part of the
British government or of lack of confidence in its mission in these
countries blows like a draught of air on the dull, fierce embers.''
Mr. Speaker, at this perilous hour, let us not repeat the mistakes of
history.
____________________
ADDRESS OUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS NOW
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, I stood at the back
of the Senate Chamber and watched a critical debate. Under the
leadership of Chairman Ron Wyden of the Senate Finance Committee, his
partner, Ranking Member Hatch; Chairwoman Barbara Boxer from
California, Chris Murphy from Connecticut, Bob Corker from Tennessee,
and Senator Tom Carper from Delaware held forth on critical legislation
to be able to help America deal with our infrastructure crisis.
America--it is no secret--is falling apart and is falling behind. It
is well overdue for us to have a robust, important 6-year
reauthorization to deal with our transportation needs.
We can't do that unless we resolve the funding conundrum. We have
been limping along. We can't even get through the current 27-month
extension without a summer slowdown, cutting back on critical Federal
funding for contracts around the country.
What the Senate did was tackle this issue head on. They had a funding
proposal that was fairly debated, where they were able to provide
enough funding to get us through the end of the year, but not so much
that it allows this Congress off the hook to slide into the next
Congress, and probably the Congress after that, but instead, face up to
our responsibilities now.
Mr. Speaker, the presentation of Senator Corker from Tennessee urging
us to be grownups and move forward, and Senator Boxer talking about the
critical needs and not to be waylaid by this fantasy that somehow the
Federal Government should abandon its commitment to a National
Transportation Highway System that we initiated under President
Eisenhower, that somehow that is a thing of the past, turn our back on
it, slash transportation funding, and just kind of wait and see what
happens around the country--she was eloquent and forceful. Again, we
have watched Senator Murphy and Senator Carper be focused on that which
we need to do.
Mr. Speaker, we need to address and embrace the bipartisan Senate
vote yesterday: 79 bipartisan votes to be able to do our job, avoid the
summer shutdown, and do so in a way with a funding approach that is
much more sustainable and reasonable, not the so-called pension
smoothing that is ill-advised on so many levels.
Two weeks ago, Democrats in the House of Representatives were united:
99 percent supported what is, essentially, the Senate outcome. That
didn't prevail on the floor of the House in a motion to recommit that I
offered. But Democrats didn't pick up our marbles and quit. We actually
provided the votes necessary to keep the issue alive and send the
suboptimal Republican approach across to the other body. There weren't
enough Republican votes to pass it, but we kept it alive hoping that we
could see what happens on the Senate side, that we might have a
stronger more reasonable proposal.
That optimism and cooperation on the part of the Democrats in the
House was rewarded because we have this bipartisan proposal, which is,
in fact, better, supported by 79 Senators.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the House to be able to address this
bipartisan approach from the Senate. Allow us to vote on it. It ought
to be the first step in our being able to avoid the summer shutdown and
be able to get on with the 6-year bill.
Rarely have we seen the stakeholders so united. The American Trucking
Association, the road builders, the U.S. Chamber, building and
construction trades, the bicyclists, and the engineers. We watch across
the country the people who build, who maintain, and depend on our
infrastructure united, supportive of the approach that has emerged from
the United States Senate. Even as we speak, they are contacting
congressional offices, urging Members support the bipartisan Senate
approach.
I respectfully urge the Republican leadership to allow those voices
to be heard, to heed the stakeholders, heed the American people, give
them a bill worthy of voting on. It will pass overwhelmingly, and we
will be doing our job.
[[Page 13625]]
____________________
SPURRING TEACHER EDUCATION MOVEMENT FOR STEM ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, every country must deal with and answer the
question: What does it take to be prosperous and to have prosperity for
future generations?
There are many answers to that question, but one of the keys is
science, technology, engineering, and math--the STEM fields--in our
educational system.
The United States needs to be able to compete in these fields on a
global scale, and children of all schools should have the opportunity
to develop these skills no matter where they live.
Recently, teachers in the Second District of New Mexico brought up
the question: What about us? Can we use funds that are set over here in
the Education Department to develop better skills in the STEM areas?
Those questions were not answered in a completely positive way--that
maybe it was not possible. Therefore, the teachers put forward an idea
that maybe we should just get the flexibility in, a practical
suggestion for an important concept.
Teachers and educators in the Second District provided firsthand
experience and developed the idea into a concept. Several teachers
formed an ad hoc working group. Brian Claar from White Sands Schools,
Lindsey Guerrero and Marci Hearn from Gadsden Independent School
District, Marci Behrens from Las Cruces Public School District, as well
as Susan Brown, Nicole Delgado, and Christina Abeyta from the New
Mexico State University STEM Outreach Center, all came together and
developed that concept into a proposed legislation.
Working with my staff, they actually got the bill written, and on
June 25 of this year, I introduced H.R. 4973, titled: Spurring Teacher
Education Movement for STEM Act, also known as the STEM for STEM Act.
H.R. 4973 increases flexibility for teacher development funds under
the Rural and Low Income title of the Elementary and Secondary School
Act of 1965. It allows the funds to be used for teacher development in
teaching STEM.
The STEM for STEM Act also expresses the need for the U.S. to compete
on a global scale. A teacher should have the high-quality professional
development opportunities in STEM to increase their content knowledge
and improve student learning.
Professional development is essential for providing teachers and
educators with growth opportunities that then are presented to our
children.
{time} 1115
Teacher professional development enriches the learning environment
for students and educators alike. It is important for us to say thank
you to those teachers who make it possible for America to compete into
the next generation.
Hopefully, this bill, H.R. 4973, will provide a small element of help
for the rural areas that stretch across the Western part of this
country.
____________________
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa) for 5 minutes.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the importance of
comprehensive immigration reform and the growing humanitarian crisis we
are facing at our southern border.
It is the job of the Congress to face and resolve challenging issues
like our broken immigration system. We ought to pass the bipartisan
Senate bill that would provide commonsense solutions to address not
only reforming our immigration system, but to deal with this immediate
humanitarian crisis at our border.
Instead, the Republican House leadership refuses to allow a vote on
comprehensive reform and has come up, instead, with a plan that would
change the law passed in 2008 to combat human trafficking. In addition,
this partisan bill will provide limited funding for this fiscal year.
Again, House leadership plans to pass a short-term fix, so that they
can go back to their districts next month and say: well, we tried to
fix this crisis that we are facing.
This is not how we should be solving our Nation's problems. Each day
that our immigration system remains broken, jobs are lost, and our
economy suffers. It is time to set politics aside and focus on fixing
our current immigration system. In fact, failure to address reform is
making it more difficult to deal with the thousands of unaccompanied
children arriving at our southern border in hopes of finding safety.
The humanitarian crisis that we are facing is in part a result of the
increasing turmoil in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, where drug
trafficking, human trafficking, and violence is rampant. Families have
been tortured and killed, and today, there are people who are literally
running for their lives.
Atrocities are being committed in those countries, and they must bear
the responsibility of addressing and resolving their issues. Mexico
also has a role to play.
We in the United States must now face the humanitarian crisis this
violence is causing at our southern border. In a joint statement,
President Obama, along with Presidents from El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras, pledged to reduce criminal activity in Central American
countries by promoting greater social and economic opportunity.
It is my hope that these leaders stay true to their word and
demonstrate leadership by addressing the humanitarian crisis taking
place within their own countries.
These young unaccompanied children must be treated in a humane and
dignified way. Ultimately, these children's fate rests in the hands of
our immigration judges, and those children who are not granted asylum
must return to their countries. Playing politics with this grave
crisis, as some are doing, is not productive.
It is the height of hypocrisy that Republicans want more border
security, but have refused to allow a vote on a comprehensive
immigration reform bill that would in fact provide more funding to
secure our borders. That makes no sense. We have spent billions of
dollars on border security, but clearly, our border is not yet secure.
The comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in a
bipartisan fashion requires that a long-term plan be developed and
executed with an initial $8.3 billion in funding to focus on securing
the borders today and an additional $6.5 billion in funding to be spent
over the next 6 years to in fact secure our border.
What we need now, more than ever, is an open and honest discussion on
the House floor about the relationship between immigration reform and
this humanitarian crisis. Therefore, I urge my Republican colleagues to
join together, in a bipartisan fashion, like they did in the Senate, to
find an effective and humane short- and long-term solution to this
crisis, which is directly related, in my opinion, to fixing our broken
immigration system.
____________________
ABLE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I want to bring attention to
proposed legislation known as the ABLE Act, or Achieving a Better Life
Experience. It is something that is important to me and to a lot of
Members of the House.
I first filed this legislation 7 years ago. Since then, we have come
a long way. Today, 377 Members of the House and 74 United States
Senators are cosponsors of this legislation. There is no piece of
legislation in the Congress today that enjoys more bipartisan,
bicameral support than the ABLE Act. Tomorrow, the Ways and Means
Committee in the House will take up this legislation, and I hope that
they will pass it with a favorable vote.
Just what is the ABLE Act? It is a piece of legislation that attempts
to help those individuals with disabilities
[[Page 13626]]
achieve their full potential. How does it do that? Well, it allows
individuals with disabilities to set up a tax-free savings account.
They take that account, it grows tax free, and they can use the
proceeds, as long as they meet qualified expenses.
Those individuals face challenges that you and I can sometimes hardly
imagine. They might be medical, transportation, education, or housing
needs. We already allow other individuals to use tax-exempt savings
accounts to help them.
If you want to save for retirement, you can set up a tax-free savings
account called a 401(k). If you want to set up a tax-free savings
account to help you go to college, you can do that through what is
called a 529. If you want to help with your health care, you can set up
a health savings account. It seems only fair that we level the playing
field and allow those individuals the same opportunity.
Let me introduce you to someone by the name of Sydney Leach. She
lives in Jacksonville, Florida. Today, she is a fifth-grader at Crown
Point Elementary School. She has Down syndrome. When she was born, her
proud mom and dad, Stacy and Jeff Leach, made a commitment to make sure
that she would not only have a happy life, but that she would be able
to realize her hopes and her dreams and her full potential.
Soon they realized that when you raise a child with Down syndrome,
you face challenges that a lot of people can't imagine. Unlike her
classmates, she had to have special behavioral counseling. She had to
have special medical care. She needed individual counseling. So it was
difficult.
Her parents then found out that if you have Medicaid, you are limited
to $2,000 for the amount of assets that you can have in your name. If
her parents or loved ones wanted to give her a gift, they jeopardized
the care that she needed.
So the ABLE Act seeks to correct those inequities. It says that you
can, number one, set up a tax-free savings account and let those
proceeds grow. Number two, it won't count against your $2,000
limitation on assets.
This is America, home of the American Dream. Individuals with
disabilities ought to be able to live the American Dream, just like you
and I. They ought to be able to have an education and work on their
own, if they can. They ought to be able to save for the future. The
ABLE Act allows them to do just that.
We live in a great, prosperous country. Sometimes, we are called upon
to speak out for the people that can't speak out, to stand up and seek
justice for those that can't seek justice on their own.
The ABLE Act will have a positive impact on millions of people with
disabilities all across this land. That is worth fighting for. I hope
soon the ABLE Act will become the law of the land.
____________________
HEALTH EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) for 5 minutes.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, last
September, I was honored to welcome the Tri-Caucus Health Disparities
Summit to my home State of New Mexico. The Center for Health Policy at
the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque brought experts from all
over the country together to talk about what they are seeing as
providers, researchers, and patients; and we heard that communities of
color continue to face substantial cultural, social, and economic
barriers to obtaining quality health care and achieving equitable
health outcomes.
Several of my colleagues in fact joined me at that summit, and we all
pledged not to just acknowledge these disparities, but to act to
provide the tools and resources necessary to achieve health equity.
That is what the Health Equity and Accountability Act does.
It is a comprehensive bill, developed with significant stakeholder
input, that would build on the gains of the Affordable Care Act and put
in place the policies and the infrastructure needed to eliminate health
disparities.
The bill sets national standards for culturally and linguistically
appropriate care and includes programs to address diseases that
disproportionately impact minority communities. It also provides grants
and scholarships to build diversity in the health care workforce and
extends funding to strengthen the health IT infrastructure in minority
communities.
These provisions are just part of a larger strategic approach because
problems like this really are more systemic. We can't just add some
funding here or make a policy change there and walk away. This takes
thoughtful, comprehensive policy to make a substantial long-lasting
difference on issues like this.
I would like to commend my colleague, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-
Allard from California, for her leadership on this bill. It is not easy
to put together a bill of this size in consultation with dozens of
Members' offices and more than 300 stakeholder groups, but she managed
to do just that, and I thank her for putting together one of the best
versions of this bill I think Congress has had before it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
____________________
CHAPLAIN JENNIFER NIELSON
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
life and work of Chaplain Jennifer Nielson of the 108th Sustainment
Brigade. I believe it is important that we recognize and value the work
performed by our country's military chaplains.
Following an initial deployment as an enlisted soldier, Jennifer
Nielson became a chaplain while waiting to fulfill a second deployment
in Kuwait. As a resident of the capital city of Springfield, Illinois--
which I am proud to represent--Jennifer has served as a Wounded Warrior
chaplain, providing support for our Nation's veterans, and has
organized yellow ribbon events welcoming home our returning veterans.
Currently, Chaplain Nielson is working with the National Guard's
Family Program Division, providing support and counsel in Illinois.
Because of her unyielding support and compassion, I am proud to
recognize her service today.
As we take time this week to recognize the chaplains who have bravely
provided spiritual guidance to their fellow servicemen and -women
throughout history, it is important that we also acknowledge those who
carry on their traditions and thank them for their service.
Chaplain Nielson has faithfully served her country for the Illinois
Army National Guard, and I am proud to honor her and the rest of the
dedicated chaplains supporting our troops across the globe.
Honoring Teacher Cynthia Dipert
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss today if
I weren't able to honor a former teacher of mine who made an impact in
my life that she may never have known.
When I was 7 years old, my family moved from Des Moines, Iowa, to
Taylorville, Illinois, and almost a week later, I was sitting in a
brand-new classroom as a second-grader at South Elementary School in my
hometown of Taylorville, Illinois.
A young graduate student teacher who was doing some work in that
classroom came up to a very shy boy who was determined not to talk to
anybody in class that day. That was me. When she knelt down beside my
desk, all the heads of my classmates around me turned and welcomed me
as one of the new kids in that second grade class.
{time} 1130
That confidence that Mrs. Cynthia Dipert gave me that day was
confidence that built up throughout my elementary school career, junior
high, and high school. Frankly, maybe that instance--maybe that gesture
of compassion that Cynthia gave me that
[[Page 13627]]
day--helped lead me here to this great institution we call the House of
Representatives.
Now, Mrs. Dipert went on to teach my daughter. I always enjoyed going
to parent-teacher conferences when my daughter was in Cynthia's class.
Then we saddled her with my twin boys in the exact same class, and I
thought I would enjoy going to parent-teacher conferences then, too.
However, I walked in one day, along with my wife, and we asked Cynthia,
Why is a bloody hand hanging from the ceiling? It was fake, of course.
She said, Oh. Your son sits there, and I am reminding him that he needs
to raise his hand before he talks.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we might need to have props like that here in
the House of Representatives sometimes.
It is hard for me today to stand here and think about those fun times
I had and the impact that Cynthia Dipert had on so many kids--my own,
me, and those of so many people in my hometown of Taylorville--as she
is not going to be able to have that impact any longer because, just
under 2 weeks ago, Cynthia passed away.
I stand here on the floor of this great institution to tell her thank
you and to tell her thank you for the service that she has provided so
many people in central Illinois.
Rest in peace, Cynthia Dipert.
God bless you all.
____________________
THE CANCER OF ANTI-SEMITISM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jeffries) for 5 minutes.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King,
Junior, once insightfully and eloquently observed that injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
In the wake of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, there
has been a disturbing outbreak of the cancer of anti-Semitism in many
parts of the world.
In France, there have been firebombs directed at synagogues, a radio
station, and a library, amongst other incidents that have taken place
in a country which is home to the third-largest Jewish community in the
world.
In Germany, there has been hate speech permeating rally after rally
all throughout the country, including at one where the chant was:
``Hamas. Hamas. Jews to the gas.'' This is disturbing language in any
location, but it is particularly disturbing given the context of what
we know occurred in Germany.
In England, there has been an epidemic of violent crime directed at
the Jewish community, an exponential increase rivaled in recent times
only by a similar outbreak of hate crime that took place in 2009 during
the last conflict in that region.
Now, in a civil society, reasonable people should be able to disagree
without being disagreeable, but anti-Semitism is not a legitimate form
of criticism. It is a cancer that needs to be stamped out in the same
way that racism and sexism and homophobia--whenever and wherever it
might be found--need to be crushed to the ground.
I urge this Congress to speak out to condemn and to do everything
possible to eradicate this outbreak. As Dr. King observed, injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois) laid before
the House the following communication from the Clerk of the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2014.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
The Speaker, U.S. Capitol, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on July 30, 2014 at 8:56
a.m.:
That the Senate passed with an amendment, H.R. 5021.
That the Senate agreed to without amendment, H. Con. Res.
108.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Karen L. Haas.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2014.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
The Speaker, U.S. Capitol, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on July 30, 2014 at 9:31
a.m.:
That the Senate passed without amendment, H.R. 4028.
That the Senate agreed to without amendment, H. Con. Res.
106.
That the Senate agreed to without amendment, H. Con. Res.
103.
That the Senate passed, S. 2577.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Karen L. Haas.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 35 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 Dr. Alphonso Jackson, Second Baptist Church of Richmond
Heights, Miami, Florida, offered the following prayer:
Hast thou not known? Has thou not heard, that the everlasting God,
the Lord, the Creator of the Earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?
There is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the
faint; and to them that have no might, He increases their strength.
Even the youth shall faint and be weary. The young men shall utterly
fall. But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. They
shall mount up with wings as eagles. They shall run and not be weary.
They shall walk and not faint.
Dear Heavenly Father, I thank Thee for this day.
I thank You for the privilege to stand in this hallowed place and
invoke Thy presence. I pray now that You would bless these men and
women that serve in the House of Representatives. Please grant them
with a double portion of wisdom and understanding as they seek Your
will in the affairs of this great Nation.
I pray that they accomplish what Moses instructed the leaders to do
in Deuteronomy 1:16: ``Hear the disputes between the people, and judge
them fairly.'' I ask these blessings in the name of my Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ.
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 gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. BONAMICI 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.
[[Page 13628]]
____________________
WELCOMING REVEREND DR. ALPHONSO JACKSON
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Garcia) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize today guest chaplain,
Reverend Alphonso Jackson, Sr., of the Second Baptist Church of
Richmond Heights in my district. I hope you will all join me in
thanking him for honoring us with today's opening prayer.
For over 30 years, Reverend Jackson has dedicated himself to serving
God, his family, and our community in Richmond Heights, a community
created for African American World War II veterans so that they could
use the GI bill.
Founded 50 years ago by Reverend Ferguson, the Second Baptist Church
of Richmond Heights has grown to more than 4,000 members and continues
to flourish under his leadership.
Reverend Jackson also helps strengthen his community outside his
church by serving as moderator for the Seaboard Baptist Missionary
Association of Florida, second vice president to the Florida Baptist
State Convention, and president of the Richmond Heights Community
Alliance.
We can all look to his words today for guidance as we work to resolve
our country's most pressing issues, and I invite you to join me in
honoring the words of his prayer.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The Chair will entertain up to
15 further requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
EBOLA
(Mr. PITTENGER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Nancy Writebol,
a dedicated Christian missionary from Charlotte who chose to run toward
danger.
Ms. Writebol and her husband, David, serve as missionaries with SIM
at a hospital in Monrovia, Liberia. They turned down the opportunity to
evacuate when Ebola struck Liberia. Instead, Nancy volunteered to help
sanitize the medical personnel and their equipment as they worked in
the Ebola isolation ward.
This week, Nancy learned that she, too, has contracted Ebola. Like
the people she volunteered to help, Nancy is now in isolation. Although
stable, she is battling an illness that kills 60 percent of the
victims. Nancy and David could have chosen the easy route. Instead,
they chose a higher calling of sacrificial love and service.
Please join me in praying for Nancy's complete recovery and giving
thanks for the Writebols, Samaritan's Purse, and the SIM mission agency
for working tirelessly to help Ebola victims and others in need in
Liberia.
____________________
DEMOCRATS' MIDDLE CLASS AGENDA
(Ms. BONAMICI asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, the economy is rebounding, but many of our
constituents are still feeling the effects of the recession. Millions
of people are still unemployed after losing jobs that never came back
during the recovery.
The recently passed Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is a
step that will help prepare Americans for in-demand jobs based on the
needs of local businesses, resulting in a more skilled workforce and
greater business productivity. But our failure to fully embrace and
address this challenge is unacceptable. So today I rise to highlight
the importance of investing in the true engine of our economy, the
American worker.
We have a great opportunity to build the middle class with a jump-
start agenda that focuses on American workers. This agenda incentivizes
U.S. job creation, increases infrastructure investments, and raises the
minimum wage, all of which will help workers find quality, stable
employment. We still have a lot of work to do to rebuild our economy,
but investing in American workers is the right path forward.
____________________
TONY GELDENS: DUTCH RESISTANCE FIGHTER, AMERICAN PATRIOT
(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, Tony Geldens was a Dutch boy when on
May 10, 1940, the Nazis invaded and occupied the Netherlands.
Persecution of the Jews began immediately by the occupiers. Jews were
required to wear yellow Stars of David on their clothing. Jews were
shot, beaten, and sent to concentration camps.
Tony and a few of his Boy Scout friends joined the Dutch resistance.
Tony began a 4-year career of being the Robin Hood of the Netherlands.
He would steal supplies and food from the Nazis and give them to local
Jews and citizens, much to the risk of his own safety. He hid Jews and
helped rescue American and Allied pilots that had been shot down over
the Netherlands. He would help the pilots through the Dutch underground
and help get them safely to England.
Tony was arrested, beaten, and imprisoned numerous times by the
Nazis, only to escape. He was on trial by the Nazis when the Canadians
liberated his hometown. Numerous Jews and Allied pilots lived because
of Tony Geldens.
Tony moved to America in 1967, married Anna, had five kids, and
finally became a U.S. citizen in 2000. He wore the American flag lapel
pin every day of his life.
He was an architect and political and community activist. My very
good and personal friend Tony Geldens died yesterday in Kingwood,
Texas, at the age of 90. Tony will be missed deeply. He was quite an
individual.
And that is just the way it is.
____________________
REPUBLICAN LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
(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, with just 2 days left until the Congress
leaves for a 5-week recess, I rise today to urge my colleagues to take
the little time we have left to address the issues that are most
important to the American people.
As we speak, Republicans in Congress are wasting taxpayer money and
time on a lawsuit against the President. Over what? Because they
disagree with his political ideology. From the very day he was elected,
the Republicans have been determined to delegitimize this President,
even at the cost of their constituents not receiving their unemployment
insurance extension and other things. What is it, Mr. Speaker, about
this President that will have our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle resort to anything to delegitimize him?
He is the President of the United States, elected by the majority of
the people in this Nation. And I say that he should be respected, as
every other President in this great Nation has been.
____________________
STOP DISABILITY FRAUD ACT OF 2014
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, every worker in America pays a
portion of their hard-earned wages into the Social Security Disability
Insurance program for promised benefits if he or she becomes too
disabled to work.
While providing a vital safety net, the disability program is plagued
by major fraud. This fraud reveals significant weaknesses in the
program that put at risk not only billions of taxpayer dollars but also
the benefits on
[[Page 13629]]
which millions of disabled Americans rely.
At a time when the program revenues will cover only 81 percent of
benefits in 2016, not one dime should be lost to fraud, waste, or
abuse. That is why as chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, I
am introducing the Stop Disability Fraud Act which makes fair,
commonsense changes to combat fraud and better protect taxpayers and
beneficiaries. Americans want, need, and deserve no less. I urge my
colleagues to support this effort.
____________________
DO YOUR JOB
(Mr. DEUTCH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the GOP majority, our immigration
system is still broken, offshore tax loopholes are still open,
criminals can still buy guns on the Internet, and corporations can
still pay workers poverty wages.
When you have no record to run on, when you have destroyed what
little faith Americans have left for this institution, what do you do?
You sue the President for doing his job, when the problem is that you
refuse to do your own.
Mr. Speaker, the GOP is guilty of recklessly abandoning 3.5 million
job seekers who need unemployment insurance to feed their families,
guilty of putting gun industry interests ahead of public safety, and
guilty of willfully neglecting the priorities of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, in the condominiums of south Florida, my constituents
sometimes turn to Yiddish to find the perfect word. They have a message
for the GOP majority: Stop this mishegas--craziness--and do your jobs.
____________________
EXECUTIVE OVERREACH
(Mr. LAMBORN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, article I of the Constitution vests the
power to make laws in the United States Congress. The President is
given the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws passed by the
Congress. President Obama has failed to understand this vital
distinction. The President is not able to unilaterally bend the law to
his own goals and desires.
Take, for example, the latest news reports indicating that he plans
to expand amnesty and extend work permits and visas for millions of
illegal aliens, all by using executive orders. These are not lawful
actions. These are the power-hungry actions of a President who refuses
to work with Congress.
By suing President Obama for failing to faithfully execute the laws
of the land, we are saying, stop. The people's representatives will not
turn a blind eye to the lawlessness of this President. We will do
whatever it takes to hold him and future occupants of the Oval Office
accountable. We must make it clear that the U.S. Congress is a coequal
branch of government and one that represents we, the people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
improper references to the President.
____________________
THE BUFFALO BILLS
(Mr. HIGGINS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, in my western New York community, there is
no shortage of pride for our NFL Buffalo Bills. Taxpayers are currently
investing millions into the existing stadium, and the community is
engaged in discussions about future ownership and potential
construction of a new stadium.
Despite this, outside interests are making moves to pull the team out
of Buffalo, and antiquated rules turn TV screens black on game day.
Both threaten to take the team away from its loyal fan base.
Our legislation, the Furthering Access and Networks for Sports Act,
eliminates the antitrust exemption that gives NFL teams the ability to
black out home games that haven't sold out and ensures that local fans
will be able to watch their teams from home.
The people of Buffalo have stood by our team. And the next owner of
this franchise, the Buffalo Bills, must be one that will stand with
this community for generations to come.
{time} 1215
PRESIDENT'S UNLAWFUL ACTION
(Mr. HARRIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, article I of our Constitution says Congress
makes the laws, article II says the President enforces them, and
according to article III, the judicial branch resolves conflicts
between Congress and the executive. That is the system the Founders
gave us. That is why the House of Representatives is taking the
President to court to stop his unlawful actions.
According to legal experts, legislators sued the executive branch 41
times. Sixty-eight percent of the time, they were brought by Democrats,
including the Rules Committee ranking member, who joined a 2006
Democratic lawsuit against President Bush. Now, you would think the
Democrats could have better spent that time working to avoid the Great
Recession of 2008.
President Obama unilaterally delayed the legislative mandate in the
Affordable Care Act without consulting Congress. This is only one of
many areas he has abused his executive authority, with the latest abuse
leading up to the current border crisis.
No President of either party should ever abuse their power. That is
why this lawsuit is so necessary.
____________________
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, Democrats overwhelmingly
supported a sustainable solution to the current shortfall in the
highway trust fund, but when the entire House didn't adopt it, the
Democrats provided the votes to move the issue on to the Senate,
confident that with more time and discussion, we can do better,
especially working with the vast army of stakeholders who build,
maintain, and use our Nation's transportation system.
Our cooperation and confidence yesterday was rewarded as the Senate
overwhelmingly passed what was essentially the Democratic motion of 2
weeks ago. With the artful and strong leadership of Chairman Wyden,
Chairwoman Boxer, Ranking Member Hatch, Senators Carper, Corker, and
Murphy, they carried the argument, and they carried the day. The result
was 79 votes for a sustainable solution.
Mr. Speaker, the stakeholders are united. They are out now across the
country, arguing that we allow the House to vote on the Senate
proposal. Let's commit to working together to solve this transportation
problem.
____________________
RECOGNIZING HOBE AND SUE WILLIAMS FOR THEIR WORK IN THE DAILY BREAD
COMMUNITY KITCHEN
(Mr. ROE of Tennessee asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hobe and
Sue Williams for their service to the people of the great State of
Tennessee.
Hobe and Sue founded the Daily Bread Community Kitchen in Morristown,
Tennessee, in November of 1994 in response to what they saw as a
growing need for feeding the poor. Upon opening, the Daily Bread
managed to feed around 50 people a day.
Today, the nonprofit feeds over 350 people a day, every day except
Sundays, and has just renovated their building, providing them with an
even greater opportunity to serve their east Tennessee neighbors.
Twenty years later and staffed with 150 volunteers, the Daily Bread
continues to provide for those most in need.
At age 89, Hobe Williams, with his wife, Sue, by his side, have no
immediate plans to retire and continue to
[[Page 13630]]
work hard for the people of east Tennessee. East Tennessee is a better
place to live and our community is stronger because of the dedication
of people like Hobe and Sue Williams.
God bless you, Hobe and Sue, for your service and friendship, and I
wish you all the best with the newly-renovated building.
____________________
ANOTHER LOST SUMMER
(Mr. CONNOLLY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican House is about to go out
for 5 weeks, but first, they are going to sue the President and hope
that we don't pay attention to the unfinished business of this country.
I only have 1 minute, so I am going to have to read it fast.
Let me list for you some of the bills they are not going to address:
comprehensive immigration reform, propping up the highway trust fund,
funding the Federal Government, reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, providing
additional resources to fight wildfires in the West, bipartisan Federal
IT procurement reform, raising the minimum wage, extending emergency
unemployment insurance, reauthorizing terrorism risk insurance,
comprehensive tax reform, modernizing the Voting Rights Amendment Act,
and ensuring equal pay and nondiscrimination of the workplace.
I have run out of time, but our constituents have run out of patience
with this majority.
____________________
MAJORITY LEADER ERIC CANTOR AND ISRAEL
(Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Majority Leader Eric Cantor and to support a country I know is so dear
to his heart.
Yes, Leader Cantor has been focused on making life better for the
American people, and his recent contributions in the areas of workforce
training and pediatric research will have a lasting impact on
generations to come.
He has also been a mentor and a friend to many new Members of the
House. He and his wife, Diana, have led several freshman trips to
Israel for many years, and I was very fortunate my husband and I were
able to participate on one of those trips last summer.
Seeing this innovative nation and preeminent ally is truly a life-
changing experience. In Israel, I found a people that craves peace for
all of its citizens of all faiths, even when faced with enemies who
want nothing more than to erase Israel from the map.
I want to say, loud and clear, that Members of this body are
committed to Israel. We stand together with Israel and its obligation
to defend its people from attacks from the terrorist group Hamas.
We are so grateful we have had a member of our leadership team so
committed to a strong and thriving Israel. Leader Cantor's efforts in
Congress have lived up to the title he holds. He is a true leader. This
is a tribute to that strong leadership for Israel.
____________________
VETERANS DESERVE CARE AND BENEFITS
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the recent revelations of
corruption and scandal at the VA have cast a dark cloud over a
Department that should be held to the highest possible standard.
We cannot forget the cost of war does not stop when the last bullets
are fired. We have an obligation to make sure that every last veteran
gets the care and benefits that he or she earned on the battlefield.
The compromise that is before us today is an important step forward.
It provides emergency funding for access to timely care and invests in
the VA's long-term capacity to address veterans' needs, but still,
there is more to be done.
I regularly meet with young veterans in San Diego who are having
trouble adapting to civilian life. These are some of the brightest,
hardest-working men and women in the United States, and yet they often
find it hard to prove that the skills they developed in the military
have prepared them for work or school.
To help them, we need to take a broader look at the challenges
veterans face entering the workforce, getting an education, and
managing their finances as they transition out of the service.
I certainly look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that
our veterans have the tools they need to succeed. It is the least we
can do.
____________________
RECOGNIZING NAVAL CHAPLAINS
(Mr. WITTMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our military
chaplains. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the
Congressional Prayer Caucus, I am blessed to often witness firsthand
the importance of a strong chaplain corps.
Two chaplains I have encountered recently are prime examples: Navy
Commander Roy Hoffman and Navy Captain Michael Gore.
Commander Hoffman serves as the senior chaplain aboard USS Ronald
Reagan, an aircraft carrier with over 4,000 sailors, most of whom work
long, exhausting hours, only to return to cramped racks for a brief
rest.
Commander Hoffman and his staff support these sailors through
traditional prayer and worship, as well as counseling, mentorship, and
community outreach.
As senior chaplain at the Naval Academy, Captain Gore is a valuable
resource for the thousands of midshipmen facing rigorous academics and
training as they prepare to be leaders in our military.
Serving in our All-Volunteer Force can be challenging, and the
presence of chaplains like Commander Hoffman and Captain Michael Gore
is critical for maintaining strong morale across our military.
Please join me in showing support and gratitude toward all of our
military chaplains.
____________________
MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, too many middle class families are still
struggling to make ends meet. Income inequality continues to grow, and
unemployment remains unacceptably high, particularly in my home of
State of Rhode Island. Our constituents deserve solutions that will
promote job creation and increase economic opportunities for everyone.
One of the most important things that we can do for our country is to
ensure that our workers have 21st century skills for a 21st century
economy. In particular, I have been proud to work across the aisle to
expand career and technical education, securing a $52 million increase
for funding for Perkins Act career training programs this year alone.
However, skills training is only one piece of the puzzle. We must
incentivize companies to bring jobs back home, increase the minimum
wage so that full-time workers aren't living in poverty, and invest in
infrastructure to ensure safety, boost commerce, and create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, economic opportunity should not be subject to partisan
politics. It is time to act on these commonsense policies and provide
all Americans with the means to make it in America.
____________________
VETERANS EMPLOYMENT
(Mr. MULLIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to an
ongoing
[[Page 13631]]
employment challenge facing our Nation's veterans. When I go back home
to Oklahoma, I speak with a lot of local veterans who can't find jobs.
It is unfortunate because these men and women are some of the
hardest-working individuals you will ever find. I know because I have
hired veterans in my private sector business, and I currently have two
congressional team members who are veterans.
So I can tell you they are motivated and they are ready to work, but
we must remember that serving our Nation is no easy task, and these men
and women are facing transitional challenges. On top of that, our
wounded warriors battle a whole host of adversities, but with the right
training, I have seen our veterans do amazing things.
In my district, companies like Baker Hughes--one of the world's
largest oil field service companies--are training and hiring veterans
and seeing tremendous results.
So I stand here today to encourage both the private and public sector
to come together to give our Nation's heroes a fighting chance for
their incredible service to this great Nation.
____________________
GOP LAWSUIT TO NOWHERE
(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 denounce the
baseless, misguided, and partisan lawsuit that our Republican
colleagues have brought to the floor for a vote today. This lawsuit is
just a continuance of the outright disrespect and disdain that the
House Republicans have given President Barack Obama since he was
elected.
While millions of Americans are waiting for Congress to renew
emergency unemployment insurance and raise the minimum wage, we are
here debating a senseless lawsuit. I am disappointed by the shameful
partisan politics that is being played.
In contrast, I am proud of the work that we are doing as House
Democrats trying to put the American people first with our Make It In
America agenda and working to jump-start the middle class. With a long
laundry list of things we need to get done, it is time to promote the
people's business, not our political parties' business.
Enough is enough. With only 2 days left before our 5-week recess, we
need to be doing the business of the American people, not the business
of our political parties.
____________________
COMMENDING SAMARITAN'S PURSE
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the dedicated work
undertaken by Samaritan's Purse, an international Christian aid group
based in Boone, North Carolina. Specifically, I want to bring to your
attention Dr. Kent Brantly, who has been heading up Samaritan's Purse
work with Ebola patients in Monrovia, Liberia.
Tragically, Dr. Brantly, along with fellow American missionary Nancy
Writebol, has contracted the Ebola virus. Both are currently fighting
for their lives in an isolation ward in an African hospital.
Mr. Speaker, today, I ask my colleagues and all who hear this to join
me in prayer for Dr. Brantly, Mrs. Writebol, and the more than 1,000
other patients who have contracted Ebola in this outbreak, which has
already claimed over 600 lives.
The disease continues to spread, and Dr. Brantly, true to the
selfless spirit of his missionary calling, has asked that his case not
be treated differently from any other. Let us keep all those affected
in our prayers.
____________________
DO-NOTHING GOP
(Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the Republican Speaker John
Boehner will adjourn the House, and Congress will leave town for 5 full
weeks. I rise to urge Speaker Boehner to cancel this recess and keep us
in session, so we can address the urgent issues facing the American
people.
Democrats have a clear list of priorities that will jump-start the
middle class. We want to renew emergency unemployment benefits, raise
the minimum wage, fix our broken immigration system, reauthorize the
Ex-Im Bank, invest in repairing and rebuilding America's
infrastructure, and make sure women earn equal pay for equal work.
We have an opportunity to lift millions of hardworking Americans out
of poverty, create jobs, and grow the economy by passing these bills
that will help the middle class.
It is a complete dereliction of duty for Speaker Boehner to adjourn
the House and leave town without addressing any of these issues, but
what is even worse, instead of getting these things done for the
American people, the Republicans will take up a bill to sue the
President for moving too slowly to enact a bill that they oppose, that
they have tried to stop over 50 times.
You can't make this stuff up. The American people deserve better, and
the American people cannot afford 5 weeks of inaction.
____________________
{time} 1230
ALARMING SITUATION ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER
(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the situation on our
southern border and the influx of unaccompanied migrant children is
both tragic and alarming. Even more concerning is the lack of
leadership coming from the White House.
We also know that a law passed in 2008--the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization--has further complicated
the administration's response. The law guarantees minors from Central
America a court date and assistance for temporary relocation as they
wait out their pending appeal. Unfortunately, a large number of these
individuals evade attending these proceedings. Few minors are sent
home, and most are able to stay for years, if not permanently.
The current situation is a stark reminder of just how flawed the
Senate's immigration reform bill is. Granting amnesty to millions would
merely reinforce the perception that, if you come to the United States
illegally, you will be rewarded. Unfortunately, billions in new
spending will not reverse the perception of a lenient enforcement
environment in the United States.
What we need is for the White House to enforce the laws, secure the
borders, and put aside political games and start working with Congress
in a bipartisan manner.
____________________
NOTARIO VICTIM RELIEF ACT
(Mr. VEASEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, while America waits for House Republicans in
Washington to bring immigration reform to a vote, we cannot forget
about the invisible casualties of our broken immigration process,
notario fraud victims.
While there are many communities and religious organizations that are
providing legitimate immigration-related services, there is also a
growing number of nonlawyers posing as legal consultants, and they are
known as ``notarios,'' and they are not licensed to give legal advice.
Notarios are basically scam artists who prey on immigrant communities.
This week I introduced H.R. 5228, the Notario Victim Relief Act,
which would allow victims of notario fraud to reopen their cases and
immigrate lawfully. The bill is just the first step toward stopping
fraudulent immigration services in our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 5228 and help
the victims of our broken immigration system.
[[Page 13632]]
____________________
THANKING JAY KROEZE
(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, I rise to recognize and thank a constituent
from the wonderful little town of Biglerville, Pennsylvania, for his
service and sacrifice to spread the cooperative principle of concern
for community.
Jay Kroeze, a lead lineman at Adams Electric Cooperative, volunteered
for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association's International
Foundation in Haiti as part of the Caracol Community Electrification
Project. He spent 2 weeks in northern Haiti building and upgrading more
than a mile and a half of power lines to help communities receive
affordable, safe, and reliable electricity.
To date, more than 4,800 consumers in the northern part of Haiti now
have access to electricity. Some now have TVs. A few have water
treatment plants. Doctors can provide better care to patients, and
residents have opened their own small businesses.
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association International
currently is providing support to USAID in Haiti to bring safe,
reliable, and affordable electricity to areas in northern Haiti.
On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District of Pennsylvania, I
commend Jay Kroeze and the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association International Foundation for their tireless efforts in
Haiti and around the world.
____________________
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SUCCEEDS IN KENTUCKY
(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Kentucky has been a
national model for how the Affordable Care Act can succeed. Through
Kynect, our State exchange, more than 413,000 Kentuckians have gotten
health insurance, nearly 310,000 of them for the first time.
These two maps show how health reform has reduced the rate of the
uninsured in the Commonwealth's 120 counties. The orange and red in the
top map show counties with pre-Affordable Care Act uninsured rates of
14 percent to more than 20 percent. Some of the most impoverished
areas, such as eastern Kentucky, also had the highest uninsured rates.
The bottom map shows Kentucky today under the health care law. Only
one county still has an uninsured rate of more than 14 percent. In
three counties in the heart of Appalachia, the uninsured rate plummeted
from more than 20 percent to less than 5 percent, as shown in blue.
Mr. Speaker, overall, in just 6 months, the Affordable Care Act
reduced the total number of uninsured Kentuckians by nearly a half.
Behind every number, behind every red county turned blue or green are
the stories of a person or family getting the health care they need.
That is success by any standard, but most importantly, Kentucky
standards.
____________________
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
(Mr. WESTMORELAND asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, some of our military have been sent
emails telling them not to eat or drink in front of their Muslim
brothers who are with them during Ramadan. I have never heard the
military come out and say don't eat leavened food in front of your
Jewish colleagues during Yom Kippur or Passover. I have never heard the
military put out something such as be careful what you are eating in
front of your Christian brothers during Lent because they may have
chosen to do without.
Last Christmas, soldiers at Camp Shelby in Mississippi were told
during a diversity briefing that they could not use the word
``Christmas.'' A VA hospital in Texas refused to accept holiday cards
from boys and girls because the cards mentioned ``Christmas'' or ``God
bless you,'' and a nativity scene near a lake on Shaw Air Force Base in
South Carolina was removed after someone complained.
So you might understand why Ron Crews, executive director of the
Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, is a bit surprised by the
Pentagon's recent behavior.
There is a good Biblical word for this: hypocrisy.
____________________
CLIMATE CHANGE
(Mr. LOWENTHAL asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Natural Resources Committee
here in the House, and through our investigations into our treasured
national parks, my colleagues and I have discovered a number of tragic
choices and changes that are in store for all of us and our children.
Mr. Speaker, because of a changing climate, Glacier National Park's
glaciers will melt and be no more.
Mr. Speaker, because of a changing climate, Joshua Tree National
Park's Joshua trees will disappear from the park named after them.
Mr. Speaker, because of a changing climate, Rocky Mountain National
Park's forests are dying because mild winters cannot kill pine beetles,
which are devastating the park's trees.
Climate change is upon us now. We are paying for its effects today,
regardless of the number of votes this body takes to deny what is
happening before our eyes.
____________________
COMPETING FOR JOBS
(Mr. RICE of South Carolina asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, counties and States around
this country compete every day for jobs. How they do it is not
complicated. They adjust their tax and their regulatory burdens to
attract businesses, and those that do the best job attract the most
jobs. The problem is that they are competing for a declining pool of
jobs in America because Washington is not competitive. We need to adopt
that competitive attitude right here.
In times of war, we forget partisanship and pull together. In truth,
we are in an economic war. Countries around the world have teams of
people that work every day to beat us economically. The House has
passed 39 jobs bills in this Congress which are gathering dust in the
Senate. Surely Harry Reid and the President can find one among these 39
bills they can work with to make our country more competitive and put
our people back to work.
____________________
COMMEMORATING 49TH ANNIVERSARY OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, thank you President Johnson, and happy
birthday to Medicaid and Medicare. I am excited about the lives that
have been saved, and I am looking forward to the full expansion in all
50 States of Medicaid in 2015, its 50th birthday.
I will tell you, when President Johnson signed Medicare into law,
less than 50 percent of our seniors had health insurance and 35 percent
lived in poverty. Now, over 52.4 million Americans are given health
care benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, regardless of their
condition, and then for some also when their income is very low.
Mr. Speaker, 43.6 million Americans age 65 and above have Medicare
and Medicaid, including 8.8 million disabled. Our seniors are able to
be in long-term living because of Medicaid. By the time the baby
boomers reach 65, it is expected that 80 million people will be covered
by Medicare.
What is the common sense and lack thereof of the States that have not
accepted expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act? Mr. Speaker,
[[Page 13633]]
Medicare and Medicaid together save lives. I am interested in saving
lives. Let's stand up for the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and
Medicaid to save the lives of Americans.
____________________
ISSUES CONGRESS NEEDS TO ADDRESS
(Mr. SCHRADER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I rise deeply disappointed in Congress
this week. There are real issues that Congress needs to address for the
American people. But instead of addressing the long-term issues of
comprehensive immigration reform, comprehensive tax reform, our debt
and deficit, getting our economy going, we are considering suing the
President of the United States and beating the drum of impeachment.
Where were my Republican colleagues when President Bush was issuing
his egregious executive orders? The hypocrisy here is appalling.
We need to provide long-term funding for the highway trust fund, the
Export-Import Bank to keep the American businesses competitive, Federal
education programs to prepare our people and children for the next
generation and workforce. We need to pass a long-term solution for our
doctors. We need to provide funding to address the wildfires that are
ravaging the Western United States, including my home State of Oregon.
We need to get the unregulated amount of money out of politics.
We need to get back to work.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 676, AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE
LITIGATION FOR ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 935, REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 1, 2014, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 5,
2014
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 694
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 676) providing
for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the
President or other executive branch officials inconsistent
with their duties under the Constitution of the United
States. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Rules
now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution, as amended, to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 935) to
amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify
Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of
pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from
August 1, 2014, through September 5, 2014,--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 5. Each day during the period addressed by section 3
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 6. Each day during the period addressed by section 3
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
the ranking member, 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. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 964 provides for consideration of
H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013.
On Monday, the House had a full and thorough debate on H.R. 935.
While the bill did not gain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass
by suspension, it did receive 253 bipartisan votes.
{time} 1245
It is important we pass this bill in order to reduce the regulatory
burden that has been placed on the nearly 365,000 pesticide users, and
this rule allows us to do that.
The rule also allows the House to consider H. Res. 676.
This resolution will allow the Speaker to initiate litigation for
actions by the President--or other executive branch officials--
inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution.
The fact that we have to sue the President simply to ensure that he
is working within the constraints of the Constitution, to me, Mr.
Speaker, is troubling, but that is the situation we are facing.
While there have always been disagreements between the legislative
and executive branches about how expansive the President's authority
is, the Constitution is explicit that Congress writes the laws and the
President's role is to ``take care'' that those laws are faithfully
executed. No President may have both powers.
Our Founding Fathers understood the danger of having a President who
not only enforced the laws, but made them. An executive with those
powers would easily infringe on citizens' liberty. Our Founders saw
this firsthand. That is why they were fleeing to come to this country
and form this country. They knew the Executive would try to exceed the
power afforded under the Constitution, even when it is occupied by
someone who previously taught the limits the Constitution puts on
Presidential power. That is why they were so careful in delegating
among the three branches.
This system of checks and balances has served America so well for so
long. Now, I am sorry for the civics lesson, but it is clear that some
on the other side of the aisle have temporarily lost sight of how
important these checks and balances are to the functioning of this
House and to the legislative branch in general.
But that wasn't always the case. When Representative Conyers, for
instance, was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he remarked:
We are coequal branch of government, and if our system of
checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative
that we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or
ignoring the bills that are signed into law.
Representative Nadler, for his part, cautioned:
And I hope that anyone who thinks that inquiring into the
excesses of the executive branch and into what appears to be
a concentrated effort in every different aspect of law to
destroy the power of the Congress and the judiciary and to
limit our power to protect the liberties of the American
people against encroachments by the Executive are a waste of
time, I hope they will rethink what they are doing here.
[[Page 13634]]
Mr. Speaker, I read these quotes to illustrate the concern of the
executive branch overstepping its authority isn't confined to just one
party or one President. This is a legislative versus executive issue;
it is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. And, to be frank, the
legislative branch has been on the losing end of this for quite some
time.
But my point is that we shouldn't be so callous or shortsighted as to
not defend our article I powers simply because the President in
question happens to belong to one party.
If we don't take action now, what stops future Presidents--Republican
or Democrat--from eroding our powers further? Congress, itself, has
shown little opposition to the harm it has done to the separation of
powers over the years. That is why it is critical that we take action
now. This should be a cause that the legislative branch can unite
around, not divide over.
Instead, we have Members of Congress standing in applause when the
President says he will bypass Congress to enact his agenda. Mr.
Speaker, half of this body stood up in applause. It should be done in
defiance. Here we have Members of Congress cheering for the President
for basically saying he is going to eliminate their purpose here.
This isn't the first President whose actions have raised the alarms
of an overreaching executive, and it is clear if we do nothing, it will
not be the last.
I urge my colleagues to defend our role in government, and to stop
the assault on the separation of powers.
Let's finally say to the Executive: ``Enough is enough.'' Let's
finally say: ``Support the Constitution, support the separation of
powers, and support this rule.''
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Today, we are taking up the very serious issue of the
constitutionality of separation of powers, but the rule also covers the
deregulation of pesticides. I think that should be noted here as well,
because one is as ridiculous as the other.
This is a ridiculous lawsuit of one House of Congress seeking to sue
the President for not implementing a law they have tried everything to
kill.
The majority has wasted time, money, and energy on legislative
proposals designed to distract us from the real problems of the United
States.
Instead of tackling climate change, ensuring that college is
affordable, and modernizing our crumbling infrastructure, the majority
wants to sue the President for doing his job. The record is clear. This
has been judged the most recalcitrant and useless Congress in history.
This lawsuit will be a monumental waste of time, energy, and funds.
This is a political maneuver timed to peak as Americans go to the polls
in November for the midterm elections. This lawsuit is a drumbeat
pushing Members of the Republican Party to impeachment.
Last week in the Rules Committee, Democrats attempted to amend this
resolution. In the pursuit of transparency and accountability, we
offered several amendments that addressed the cost of this lawsuit.
The majority in the Rules Committee voted down every amendment that
the minority offered. With this closed rule, we have set a new record,
by the way, for the most closed rules in a single Congress. On the
committee level, on the House floor, and in the minds of our citizens,
this is a closed process, a partisan maneuver, and nothing but a
political messaging opportunity.
This lawsuit is a gimmick, which even legal scholars of the
majority's own party say will fail, including the conservative writer
and former Justice Department official Andrew C. McCarthy. He wrote
about this lawsuit and said it is:
A classic case of assuming the pose of meaningful action
while in reality doing nothing.
Democrats in the House and the American people could not agree more.
The House minority has three main concerns about this lawsuit: first,
the cost; second, the partisan nature; and third, the lack of legal
standing and the implications for our constitutional separation of
powers.
First, the cost. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which
not a single Republican voted for, the majority has mounted a Herculean
effort trying to repeal, dismantle, and discredit it. It seems that
they will spare no expense attempting to take health care away from
millions of Americans.
Not only did they shut down the government to deny Americans health
care, it took from this economy $24 billion to pay for that shutdown.
In addition, with over 50 votes on the House floor to undermine the
Affordable Care Act, the majority has spent more than $79 million on
that voting effort.
When the minority of the Rules Committee requested from the majority
the proximate costs of this lawsuit, we got a response that read: ``A
lawsuit is a small price to pay.''
Cost is not a hypothetical question, because there are real
consequences for our country.
The minority and the American people still would like to know how
much will this cost and where will the money come from. We asked
directly through letters and by offering amendments to the resolution,
and we have gotten no clear answers.
What cuts will come from what programs that Americans depend on to
pay for this ridiculous lawsuit? The majority will spend money on more
than 13 hearings, 50 briefings, 25,000 pages of documents produced, and
allocated $3.3 million for a Select Committee on Benghazi. All that
money for Benghazi, but they won't give us a concrete answer on where
the funds will originate to pay for the lawsuit.
In a similar lawsuit, when Republicans defended the discriminatory
Defense of Marriage Act, they paid their lawyers $520 an hour. I choke
over that figure. At that rate, we would have paid over $1 million a
year for a 40-hour workweek. If we are spending that kind of money, we
ought to do it out in the open, and that amendment was defeated on
party lines.
The majority does not intend to make this lawsuit anything but
another opportunity to attack the President, which leads me to our
second concern: its partisan nature.
As I said, no Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act. After
strenuous efforts to take health care away from millions of Americans,
the majority plans to file a lawsuit that, if successful, would result
in the faster implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The
inconsistency is breathtaking. Let me reiterate that. After not a
single vote for health care, with over 50 votes to kill it, they are
suing the President of the United States because he did not implement
it faster. I don't know if anybody can make sense out of that, but all
this effort to derail a law that is working. Just 2 days ago, The
Washington Post reported in an article, titled ``Medicare finances
improve partly due to ACA, hospital expenses, trustee report says,''
that the Affordable Care Act has extended the life of Medicare by 4
years because of the savings, and that will only get better.
I would like to insert this article from The Washington Post dated
July 28, 2014, into the Record.
[From the Washington Post, July 28, 2014]
Medicare Finances Improve Partly Due to ACA, Hospital Expenses, Trustee
Report Says--Outlook for Social Security, However, Remains the Same
(By Amy Goldstein)
Medicare's financial stability has been strengthened by the
Affordable Care Act and other forces that have been subduing
health-care spending, according to a new official forecast
that says the fund covering the program's hospital costs will
remain solvent until 2030--four years later than expected a
year ago.
The annual report, issued Monday by trustees overseeing the
government's two largest entitlement programs, found little
change overall in the finances of Social Security. The
trustees warned, however, that the part of Social Security
that pays monthly benefits to people with disabilities is
especially fragile and, without changes, will start to run
short of money for benefit checks in 2016.
Taken together, the findings provide a nuanced portrait of
the fiscal future of these two programs, which act as
cornerstones of social insurance--and a buffer against
poverty--for older people and other vulnerable
[[Page 13635]]
Americans. The trustees welcomed the improved financial
prospects for Medicare but acknowledged that the underlying
reasons are not yet entirely understood. At the same time,
they exhorted Congress to take steps to prevent both programs
from collapsing in the long term.
``Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain
projected long-run program costs,'' the trustees said in a
message accompanying their reports.
For the past few decades, Democrats and Republicans have
fretted about the unsustainability of the Medicare and Social
Security programs. They have appointed high-level
commissions, proposed legislation and tried to stoke public
fears that benefits might not be available for their
parents--or themselves. But Congress has not restructured
either program to withstand long-term fiscal pressures, and
the issue has been absent lately from the agendas of both
parties.
At a news briefing Monday, Cabinet secretaries and two
public trustees reiterated the call for Congress to act.
``[We] must make manageable changes now, so we do not have to
make drastic changes later,'' Treasury Secretary Jack Lew
said.
``It is getting very late in the game'' to find a
bipartisan consensus, said the trustees' only Republican,
Charles P. Blahous III, who worked on Social Security and
other economic issues as an aide to President George W. Bush.
``A solution much further delayed is a solution much less
likely to occur.''
Both programs are being strained by the nation's
demographics. As more baby boomers reach retirement age,
people 65 and older are making up an increasing percentage of
the country's population, with proportionally fewer working-
age Americans chipping in payroll taxes.
Medicare's finances are facing other pressures, too,
including from scientific advances that lead to new treatment
and therapies, the report said.
The trustees' forecast said that the trust fund that pays
for hospital care--Medicare Part A--has been strengthened
significantly, with the date when it is predicted to start
running short of money extended by 14 years since the
Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010. The report also
predicted that the insurance premiums that older Americans
pay for the portion of Medicare that covers doctors' visits
and other outpatient care would probably remain the same for
a third year in a row.
Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell
said that it is impossible so far to gauge how much of that
trust fund's improved fiscal health was due to the health-
care law as opposed to other changes in the health-care
system that are slowing cost increases. She said both had a
role. The ACA, for instance, is slowing payments to Medicare
Advantage, the part of the program in which older Americans
join private health plans, while other provisions focus on
curbing hospital readmissions.
The report said that spending on hospital stays last year
was less than expected, although trustees noted that analysts
have not determined whether this trend reflected broad
economic trends or stemmed from specific changes in the
practice of medical care.
If Medicare is unchanged by 2030, the year it is projected
to become insolvent, it would then be able to pay 85 percent
of its beneficiaries' hospital bills, a proportion that would
slip to 75 percent by 2047, the forecast said.
For Social Security, the trustees predicted that the
program's two separate trust funds will, combined, have
enough money to pay all the retirement and disability
benefits it owes until 2033, the same time horizon as in the
last two annual forecasts. They forecast that Social Security
will be able to afford checks for retirees and workers'
survivors until 2034--nearly two decades longer than the part
of the program that pays disability benefits.
Social Security's expenditures last year exceeded its
income from payroll taxes, as it has each year since 2010,
the report says, although interest so far is making up the
difference.
This year, President Obama backed away from an idea he
broached in his budget last year to save money for Social
Security by changing the basis on which inflation is
calculated for the program. But his 2015 budget proposal
reprises the idea of charging more for care under Medicare to
older Americans who are relatively well-off--an idea that
Congress has not touched this year.
In calculating Medicare's future finances, the trustees for
the first time acknowledged that Congress has each year
overridden scheduled reductions in Medicare doctors' fees--
cuts that, if adopted, would lower payments for doctors'
services by 21 percent in 2015. In the latest report, the
trustees assumed that such cuts would continue to be waived.
The trustees noted that their new forecast was released 49
years to the week that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the
law that enacted Medicare, a major component of the Great
Society programs of the mid-1960s. Social Security was a
response to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Last year, Medicare insured 52 million Americans, including
43.5 million age 65 and older and nearly 9 million younger
people with disabilities. Social Security last year provided
benefits to 41 million retired workers and their families, 6
million survivors of workers who died, and 11 million
working-age people with disabilities.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, a recent poll from the Commonwealth Fund
found 77 percent of people were pleased with their new coverage.
Republicans themselves have a 74 percent satisfaction rate with the new
plan that they have bought.
The House majority is going to spend unknown millions of dollars
coming from somewhere to stymie a law their own party Members support.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert this article from Talking Points
Memo, citing a survey from July 10, 2014, entitled: ``Survey: Most
Republicans Who Bought ObamaCare Coverage Like Their Plans,'' into the
Record.
[From Talking Points Memo Livewire, July 10, 2014]
Survey: Most Republicans Who Bought Obamacare Coverage Like Their Plans
(By Dylan Scott)
About three-quarters of Republicans who obtained health
insurance under Obamacare are satisfied with their coverage,
according to a survey published Thursday by the Commonwealth
Fund.
The survey found that 74 percent of Republicans said they
were very or somewhat satisfied with their new coverage.
Overall, 78 percent of Americans said they were satisfied: 73
percent of those enrolled in a private plan and 84 percent of
those enrolled in Medicaid.
There was a minimal difference between the previously
uninsured and the previously insured: 79 percent of the
former were satisfied and 77 percent of the latter were,
according to the survey by the group, which is generally
supportive of Obamacare.
Those surveyed also reported being better off: 58 percent
said that they were better off now than they were before,
while 9 percent said they were worse off. And 81 percent said
that they were optimistic that their new coverage would help
them get the health care they need.
Some of the survey's broader findings, on the overall drop
in the number of uninsured and the percentage of Obamacare
enrollees who were previously uninsured, generally fell
within other findings. It found that the uninsured rate for
adults under 65 fell from 20 percent to 15 percent since
Obamacare enrollment began. It also found that 63 percent of
Obamacare enrollees had been previously uninsured.
The survey, conducted from April 9 to June 2, covered 4,425
U.S. adults.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is also obvious to the American people
that this is a political stunt. A recent poll, commissioned by CNN,
shows 57 percent of us oppose this lawsuit. That is right: the majority
of this country recognizes it for what it is: a political scheme. They
recognize that there is no basis for this lawsuit.
And our third concern is the legitimacy of standing, in the legal
sense, as well as the constitutional principles that the Supreme Court
has said limit the kind of disputes that a court can consider.
Perhaps the best authority for the inadequacy of the majority's claim
to standing is one of the majority's own witnesses at our Rules
hearing, the Florida International University College of Law professor,
Elizabeth Price Foley. Professor Foley wrote in a February article:
When a President delays or exempts people from a law--so-
called benevolent suspensions--who has standing to sue him?
Generally, no one. Benevolent suspensions of law don't, by
definition, create a sufficiently concrete injury for
standing.
That's why, when President Obama delayed various provisions
of ObamaCare, his actions cannot be challenged in court.
Congress probably can't sue the President, either.
If the majority's own witness doesn't think that Congress has
standing, what judge will?
Finally, one of the most dangerous possible consequences of this
lawsuit would be an unprecedented transfer of powers from the
legislative to the judicial branch.
This concern for maintaining the separation of powers as it was
written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers is exactly why
courts have established what is called the ``political question
doctrine.''
It says that courts should stay out of fights between the other two
branches of the Federal Government and should defer to the other
branches when the Constitution says the matter to be resolved is the
responsibility of the
[[Page 13636]]
President or the Congress. That couldn't be clearer, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1300
The mismanagement of our Nation's funds is deplorable, the partisan
nature of the stunt is a abundantly clear, and our constitutional
balance of powers is in jeopardy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the closed rule which, yet again, distorts the legislative process
and stifles debate even on the most important issues.
Mr. Speaker, we will ask the House to defeat the previous question.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to bring
up four bills: first, the Bring Jobs Home Act; second, the Paycheck
Fairness Act, which pays women equal to men for the same job; third, a
bill to increase the minimum wage to $10.10; and finally, the Students
Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which makes it easier for young people
to pay their college loans.
These are the priorities of the American people, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and align themselves
with those priorities instead of this lawsuit, which is surely a waste
of time, money, and resources.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
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
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller), chairman of the House Administration Committee.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the ultimate law of our great Nation is not just the
important work that we undertake here in the House. Above all else, it
is the Constitution that we all swear to preserve, protect, and defend.
Above everything, it is the Constitution.
The first words of the Constitution, article I, section 1, are the
following:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives.
It doesn't just say ``some.'' It says all legislative powers are
vested in the Congress of the United States. No other entity of our
Federal Government has the power to write law, not the executive branch
or the judicial branch--only Congress.
Article I, section 7 states the following:
Every bill which shall have passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate shall, before it becomes a
law, be presented to the President of the United States; if
he approves, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return
it.
So if he approves, it shall become law. If not, he vetoes the law and
sends it back to Congress. Nowhere is the President given the authority
to rewrite the law on his own.
Article II, section 3 places the following responsibilities with the
President:
He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution asks the third branch of government, the
judicial branch, to solve problems arising from the President's failure
to faithfully execute the law and, specifically, aspects of the
Affordable Care Act, as he is required in article II, section 3 and to
have exercised power expressly given to Congress to write the law under
article I.
Mr. Speaker, the Founders, in their genius, put in place this system
of checks and balances for a very, very important purpose, which is to
make certain that no one person could both impose and then enforce the
law--because that type of action amounts to tyranny, Mr. Speaker. In
short, we have no king in this Nation. In America, we have a President.
We do not have a king.
Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the people of the 10th District
of Michigan and someone who is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution, I believe strongly that I have a responsibility to
support this resolution, so that the courts can affirm that legislative
power is vested in this House--the people's House--and not in the White
House.
As the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I will have
the responsibility to verify that any contracts with those who will
litigate this case comport with the rules of the House. That is a
responsibility I take very, very seriously.
As such, many on the minority side have asked how much this will
cost. My answer is that we don't know yet because no contracts have
been negotiated. We don't know how long such litigation will take to
conclude, but the questions I would ask are: What price do you put on
the adherence to the rule of law? What price do you place on the
continuation of our system of checks and balances? What price do you
put on the Constitution of the United States? My answer to each is:
priceless, Mr. Speaker.
I am certain that this process will move forward with due diligence,
will be conducted within the rules of this House, and it is my firm
hope that in the end the courts will uphold the constitutional
principles that are the bedrock upon which our great Nation has been
built.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we remember why we
are here today. We are here today not because of the majority's
commitment to the rule of law, but because of politics. We are here
because the Republican leadership of this House is trying desperately
to placate the far rightwing of their base.
They are trying to placate a vocal and organized faction that refuses
to accept the fact that the American people elected Barack Obama twice
as President of the United States. They are birthers and Tea Partiers
and minutemen militia members and supporters of nullification, but here
is the problem: they will never, ever, ever be satisfied.
Listen to this finding from a poll taken just this month: 41 percent
of Republicans surveyed believe that President Obama is not really an
American citizen. That is percent. That is the base of the modern-day
Republican Party, and it is ugly. If you are really concerned about the
balance of power between the executive branch and the Congress, there
are ways to address it.
Just last week, I worked with the Republican and Democratic
leadership of the House and of the Foreign Affairs Committee to
reaffirm the proper role of Congress in matters of war and peace. I
brought a resolution to the floor under the rules of the House, and it
passed by a vote of 370-40. That is the way we should do our work
around here, not this nonsense about lawsuits.
It is the same with the Affordable Care Act. I know my Republican
friends are devastated that the bill they hate so much is actually
working. Millions of people who didn't have health insurance are now
covered. Millions of people can now get preventive care. Millions of
young adults can now stay on their family's insurance plan.
Being a woman is no longer considered a preexisting condition.
Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against the sick, and as
we learned just yesterday, the Affordable Care Act has already helped
to extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by 4 years.
The entire Republican majority in this House was built on opposition
to the Affordable Care Act, and yet it stands. The fact that it stands
makes the Republican leadership do desperate and irrational things. It
makes them vote to repeal the ACA over 50 times. It makes them decide
it is somehow a great idea to sue the President for the way he is
implementing the law.
It saddens me to see how low a once great party--the party of Abraham
Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt--has sunk. Instead of addressing the real
and pressing needs of our country--passing an immigration reform bill,
[[Page 13637]]
raising the minimum wage, passing a long-term highway bill--they have
been reduced to government shutdowns and lawsuits and partisan stunts
and gimmicks.
This is show business at its worst. Enough of this stupidity. I say
to my Republican friends: Do your job, do the people's work, this is
shameful.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, my distinguished colleague on the Rules
Committee.
Ms. FOXX. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding, and I want to
commend my colleague from Michigan, Congresswoman Miller, for
explaining our motivation on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, in support of the
underlying resolution, and in support of this effort to restore every
branch of this government to its proper constitutional bounds.
This is not about politics. If there were a Republican President
doing the same thing, I would feel just as strongly. This is about the
Constitution.
Our Constitution was drafted deliberately to ensure that the greatest
power in our government resided closely with the people. That is why
the portion dealing with Congress was placed first.
In article I, the Framers placed the ultimate power of creating and
changing laws with the Congress, and they particularly empowered the
House of Representatives, the people's House.
Every 2 years, Members of this House face the voters, and our actions
in this body are judged. No other member of this government must submit
to the people more regularly.
For too long, this body, under the leadership of both Democrats and
Republicans, has ceded parts of our constitutional authority to the
executive branch and the agencies that are, at best, remotely
accountable to voters. It is time for that to stop. Today, we take a
step to make it stop.
This lawsuit is about actions--the actions of an administration that
has claimed more power than it has been given, even when we have
already given it more authority than we should have.
I bear no animus to this President, but I strongly disagree with many
of his policies, his stated priorities, and, ultimately, his actions.
This lawsuit is not entered into lightly. It is not our first response,
but rather, it is our last resort.
I will vote ``yes'' on this rule and this resolution, not for
electoral gain, but rather to preserve our Constitution and the
separation of powers enshrined therein.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up
H.R. 1010, the minimum wage increase, to jump-start the middle class,
instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking President Obama.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Does the gentleman from Florida yield for the purpose of the
unanimous consent request?
Mr. NUGENT. I do not, Mr. Speaker. I want to reiterate my earlier
announcement that all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only,
and we are not yielding for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, hasn't it been the tradition of this
House that the Speaker yields to Members who want to make unanimous
consent requests during the course of debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On the pending resolution, all time has been
yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
4582, the Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, to jump-start the
middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
377, the Paycheck Fairness Act, to jump-start our middle class, instead
of this partisan lawsuit attacking our President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
1010, the minimum wage increase, in order to jump-start the middle
class, instead of this partisan lawsuit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
377, the Paycheck Fairness Act, to jump-start the middle class, instead
of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
{time} 1315
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 4582, the Students
Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, to jump-start the middle class, instead
of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 377,
the Paycheck Fairness Act, to jump-start the middle class, instead of
this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 851, the Bring Jobs
Home Act, to jump-start the middle class, instead of this partisan
lawsuit against the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up the Students Emergency
Loan Refinancing Act, H.R. 4582, to strengthen the middle class,
instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
[[Page 13638]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 1010, the minimum
wage bill, to give America a pay raise and to jump-start the middle
class, instead of this partisan attack on the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to consider H.R. 4582, the Students
Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which would help the middle class,
instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the
gentlewoman's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 1010. America
deserves a raise by raising the minimum wage, which will jump-start the
middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President
of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-
Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 851, the
Bring Jobs Home Act, to jump-start the middle class, instead of this
partisan lawsuit attacking the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 377, the Paycheck
Fairness Act, to jump-start the middle class, instead of this
unprecedented, partisan lawsuit against our President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up--and I am pleading
to bring up--H.R. 377, the Paycheck Fairness Act, to jump-start the
middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President
of the United States of America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up the Paycheck Fairness
Act--for men and women, same job, same pay--to jump-start this middle
class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President of the
United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 851,
the Bring Jobs Home Act, to jump-start the middle class, instead of
this partisan lawsuit, which we don't need, attacking the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the
gentlewoman's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up the Paycheck Fairness
Act and a minimum wage increase, which would jump-start the middle
class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the
gentlewoman's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 1010, a
minimum wage increase, to jump-start the middle class, instead of the
partisan lawsuit attacking the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the
United States of America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the
gentleman's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the
minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise to bring up H.R. 851, the Bring Jobs Home Act. Surely, Mr.
Speaker, the gentleman from Florida would want to yield time for that--
to jump-start the middle class--instead of this partisan, pointless
lawsuit attacking the President of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded time for that purpose. Therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to immediately bring up H.R. 377, the
Paycheck Fairness Act, which would jump-start the middle class, instead
of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Florida has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the
gentleman's unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the resolution authorizing the Speaker
to bring a legislative branch lawsuit against the President.
Never before in the history of the Congress has there been
institutional litigation between two coequal branches of government--
never.
Don't my Republican friends understand that the House's acting alone
cannot by itself enforce a legislative enactment? It must be bicameral.
This resolution will establish a precedent unknown in our
jurisprudence. It is an abuse of power. It will threaten the separation
of powers principle and the checks and balances that we have long
cherished in this country.
Do you want the judiciary to become the arbiter of disputes between
Congress and the President? Our branches are coequal.
Do you really want to cede to the courts the authority to resolve
disputes between the branches?
Would you want the President to sue the House for missing a budget
deadline? Where does it end?
How do you plan to pay for this litigation? This resolution would
give the
[[Page 13639]]
Speaker a blank check to pay legal costs and expert costs, which would
add to the deficit.
I call on House Republicans to talk to objective legal scholars, to
read the literature and court decisions, to protect the integrity of
our Federal system, and to reject this dangerous legislation.
This is a very sad day in the House. I know what you are doing, and
the American people know what you are doing. You are using this
legislation in your constant effort to discredit President Obama. Every
day that President Obama has occupied the Oval Office, you have
attacked him. You have attacked his ideas, and you have attacked those
who surround him and his Cabinet. You are denying the American people a
functioning government.
I sincerely believe that you are trying to set the stage for a
despicable impeachment proceeding should you hold the majority in the
House and gain the majority in the Senate. Shame on you, House
Republicans. Shame on you.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on final passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Rice).
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the only people I hear talking about impeachment in this
Chamber are the Democrats. The Democrats must want the President
impeached as far as I can tell.
My favorite piece of art in this Capitol Building is a picture in the
rotunda of a group of our forefathers, who gathered together because
they could no longer bear living under a monarchy, and they decided
that they would fight for freedom. They signed the Declaration of
Independence, knowing full well that they were signing their own death
warrants if they were caught and tried for treason.
Our forefathers fought a Revolution against the greatest military
power on Earth in order to escape the bonds of a monarchy. At the end
of the bloody Revolution, the last thing they wanted was another king.
They wanted freedom. To protect that precious freedom, they designed a
government where power rested with the people based on the separation
of powers.
The legislative branch makes the laws. The President enforces the
laws. President Obama has decided that he cannot be bothered with the
separation of powers. He has bragged that, if Congress will not accept
his priorities, he has a pen and a phone, and he will make the law. He
may have a pen, but the people have the Constitution. Our forefathers
recognized that one man who can both make the law and enforce the law
is not a President--he is a king.
Thomas Jefferson once said that freedom does not disappear all at
once; it is eroded imperceptibly day by day.
The prosperity of our great country sprang from our freedom. Our form
of government, set forth in the Constitution by our forefathers, has
protected that very fragile freedom for 200 years.
My friends across the aisle worry about the price of a lawsuit to
protect our freedom. Our forefathers paid dearly for that freedom. Many
paid everything. Our freedom is in peril. We cannot stand by and watch
the President shred our Constitution.
I stand in support of House Resolution 676.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
the fact that only Democrats are speaking of impeachment.
Just today, The Hill newspaper announced that a most respected and
admired member of the Republican Conference said of the lawsuit,
spearheaded by John Boehner:
Theater is a show. Why not impeach instead of wasting $1
million to $2 million of the taxpayers' money? If you are
serious about that, use what the Founders of the Constitution
gave us.
He was referring to impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from the Empire
State for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this lawsuit is nothing more than a waste of time and a
coverup with respect to the House Republicans' failure to effectively
govern.
You have failed to create jobs. You have failed to increase the
minimum wage. You have failed to deal with our broken immigration
system.
{time} 1330
You have failed to extend unemployment insurance for the millions of
Americans who have been left on the battlefield of the Great Recession.
You have failed to deal with our crippling transportation and
infrastructure system.
Mr. Speaker, your majority has failed to do what is in the best
interest of the American people, and so, to cover up the mess, you are
taking us on a joyride through the article III court system. It is an
effort that will crash and burn. Yet, nonetheless, you are willing to
waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to make a down
payment on impeachment.
Instead of engaging in responsible legislative action, the majority
has chosen to act up and to act out in order to satisfy the thirst of
the blame Barack Obama caucus.
Shame on you, Mr. Speaker. It is time to get back to the business of
the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I have been kind of scratching my head as to
why it is we are filing this lawsuit. Why is it that the independent
House, the Speaker of the House, second in line for the Presidency,
instead of passing a bill, is filing a lawsuit? I think I have kind of
figured it out. The power of the majority is being used in a way to
make that power useless and impotent.
They can pass any laws they want in this House. They can repeal any
laws they want in this House, in fact, have repealed health care 55
times. But once it goes across this hall into the Senate, it dies. It
is not taken up. If it were taken up, it would never be signed by the
President.
I have got another idea. Instead of filing a lawsuit, let's do our
job. We have got some disagreements. We think--and I think the American
people believe, and I know the President agrees--we should raise the
minimum wage. You don't. Let's work it out.
We believe--and the President believes, the American people believe--
we need comprehensive immigration reform. Let's take it up and have a
vote.
We believe it is time for equal pay for equal work.
What are we afraid of? Why don't we take it up?
Is the judge going to help us decide this, or should we have an out-
of-court settlement, which, in our case, would mean we actually have a
discussion, a discussion that includes the members of the Republican
Party who have different points of view, as opposed to simply the
narrowest views from the most gerrymandered of districts. It means we
talk to Democrats on the House side of the floor. It means we work with
our counterparts in the Senate. It means we do our job.
So, Mr. Speaker, you have got a job to do that can't be done by a
judge. You have got a job to do that won't be resolved in a court of
law. It will be resolved here in the United States House of
Representatives. And the fact that we disagree and the fact that the
issues between us are difficult and contentious is no excuse for us to
not do our job.
The Republicans represent a lot of Americans, but the Democrats
represent at least half of America. And never in the history of this
country have we made progress by refusing to legislate.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members of an
essential rule of decorum in the House. Under clause 1 of rule XVII,
Members
[[Page 13640]]
are to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members in
the second person.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, just when we think the level of dysfunction
by the Republican majority in this House can't get any worse, no, they
surprise us and find a way to prove us wrong. They are going to cap off
7 months, Mr. Speaker, of the worst do-nothing Congress in this
Nation's history, and Republicans have now decided to chart a dangerous
and unprecedented path by suing the President of the United States. The
American people have to hear this. Suing the President of the United
States, Mr. Speaker. And for what? Because the President is doing his
job?
So when House Republicans are not doing their jobs, they choose to
sue the President of the United States. And the American people do see
this for exactly what it is.
So we move from one political stunt to the next, Mr. Speaker, from
shutting down the government--that is what Republicans did--to a
lawsuit, and then onward to impeachment. This do-nothing Congress, Mr.
Speaker, suing the President of the United States.
We should be working to make college more affordable, to enact
comprehensive immigration reform, equal pay for equal work, raise the
minimum wage, renew unemployment benefits, improve the Nation's
infrastructure. And instead, House Republicans are suing the President.
I thought this was a fringe element, Mr. Speaker, of the House
Republican majority, but it is not. It is the majority. But somehow,
Republicans in the House of Representatives--you know what? We get it.
The Republicans in the House don't like the President. They don't like
the President, Mr. Speaker. But they are suing the President of the
United States.
Shame, shame, shame.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question because defeating it will allow an amendment that provides for
consideration of legislation that will, in fact, create jobs, grow the
economy, support small businesses, ensure equal pay, and alleviate the
financial burdens on working families today.
There are so many things we can and should be doing right now to spur
the economy for the American people. We need to help workers. We need
to help them find opportunities. We need to achieve higher pay for
their hard work.
Instead of considering those many bills, this Republican majority
continues to waste this institution's time by pushing a partisan
lawsuit against the President. This is the first time in history that a
branch of Congress has tried to sue a President. My God, what a legacy
you leave.
Americans are tired of partisan dysfunction. They want to see us
working to solve their problems, and defeating that previous question
will allow us to have a vote today on something very important to
American families, and that is equal pay for equal work.
Women in America face overwhelming financial challenges. They are
more likely to be poor, make minimum wage, go bankrupt, less likely to
have retirement security. Women still only make 77 cents, on average,
for every dollar made by men. That is $11,000 lost wages every single
year, and over the course of a career, that adds up to $434,000 lost.
I have introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act in every Congress since
2007. It passed the House twice with bipartisan support. It would
ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
A famous American once said, and I quote: ``Mind you, I believe in
marriage and children and home, but I'm not one of the kind that think
that God made women to do nothing but to sit at home in the ashes and
tend to babies. He made her to be as good as man, and he made her
better too . . . If a woman can do the same work that a man can do and
do it just as well, she should have the same pay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, that was Buffalo Bill Cody, and he said
that in 1898, 116 years ago.
Women, Mr. Speaker, are tired of waiting.
Let us not waste our time on the partisan lawsuit against the
President. Let us defeat the previous question and today give women a
vote on equal pay for equal work.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I will place into the Record an exchange of letters between myself
and Chairman Sessions and between Ranking Member Brady and Chairwoman
Miller of the House Administration Committee. This exchange of letters
catalogs our repeated requests for an estimate of the projected cost of
this partisan enterprise and the identification of accounts that will
be cut to pay for it. As you will note, the responses to our letter
provide no information about the cost estimate and no indication from
where the funds will come.
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2014.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner: Within the draft resolution to
initiate a lawsuit against the President, we learned that you
intend to seek authorization to ``employ the services of
outside counsel and other experts.'' Such authority clearly
falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House
Administration, and as such, I am writing to express my
expectation that Republicans will be open and transparent
about the use of taxpayer money in pursuing this highly
dubious and partisan lawsuit.
As evidenced by House Republicans' conduct in the $2.3
million failed effort to defend the discriminatory and
unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in the courts,
strong bipartisan oversight is clearly necessary in any plan
to hire outside counsel. The Republican majority must not be
permitted to use taxpayer dollars as a slush fund to award a
no-bid contract to high-priced, politically connected
Republican lawyers without any transparency or accountability
to the House or the American people.
Our opposition to the deeply partisan basis of your lawsuit
in no way diminishes the need for normal oversight of the
terms of any contract signed by Republican Leadership
obligating the House to pay millions of dollars to private
attorneys. Therefore, I expect you will honor regular order
through my committee, even with this highly irregular
lawsuit.
The American people deserve to know how and where their tax
dollars are being spent, and House Administration Committee
Democrats insist on regular consultation and transparency in
the selection criteria and process, cost, and lobbying
connections of any counsel or experts hired in the name of
the House.
Sincerely,
Robert Brady,
Ranking Member,
Committee on House Administration.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC, July 15, 2014.
Hon. Robert A. Brady,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Brady: I write in response to your July
14th letter to the Speaker of United States House of
Representatives expressing concerns about the draft
resolution to initiate lawsuit against the President. As
always, the Committee, and Republicans, will be open and
transparent about the use of taxpayer money. I will, however,
note that there is no higher use of taxpayer funds than
protecting and defending the United States Constitution which
both you and I took an oath to uphold and defend.
All appropriate and applicable procurement procedures will
be followed in the award of any contract for outside counsel
for a lawsuit. Regardless of your partisan political feelings
on the lawsuit, I am sure that you would agree that the
United States House of Representatives, as an institution,
deserves full and zealous advocacy in the defense of its
prerogatives as a co-equal branch of our government and in
defense of the Constitution.
[[Page 13641]]
Rest assured that I will not unilaterally ignore or rewrite
laws passed by Congress.
Sincerely,
Candice S. Miller,
Chairman, Committee on
House Administration.
____
Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2014.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We understand that the Committee on
Rules will meet in the coming weeks to consider amendments to
the proposed resolution authorizing the Speaker of the House
to sue the President of the United States.
Before that meeting is scheduled, the Members of our
Committee must have the answers to two important questions:
1) What is the anticipated cost of the lawsuit against the
President?
The draft resolution places no limit on the amount of
taxpayer funds the Speaker may dedicate to his lawsuit
against the President. The American people have a right to
know--before the House votes to initiate such a lawsuit--how
much money will be allocated to this exercise.
We do not expect you to provide a detailed budget for the
lawsuit, and we understand that unforeseen variables will
influence the ultimate cost. But there is no reason to assume
that the House of Representatives cannot do what every
American family must do--use its best judgment to estimate
future expenditures. The President's Office of Management and
Budget must provide such estimates every day. We do not see
why the House of Representatives should be exempt from the
ordinary budget discipline of estimating the cost of its own
activities. We request that you provide to the Committee, in
advance of our markup, your best estimate of the anticipated
cost of the lawsuit to the American taxpayers.
2) Which accounts will be cut in order to pay for the
lawsuit against the President?
The draft resolution authorizes the Speaker to hire outside
lawyers to assist him in his suit against the President. Yet
the resolution does not provide any new resources. Therefore,
funding for the lawsuit must be transferred from other
Legislative Branch accounts.
Before the Members of the House cast their vote on this
resolution, they should know which of their legitimate
legislative activities will be curtailed in order to divert
funds to this entirely partisan enterprise. We request that
you provide the Committee, before the markup, your best
estimate of the legislative branch accounts that will be
reduced to cover the anticipated cost of the lawsuit.
We have learned in too many cases what happens when the
House fails to disclose the anticipated cost of such
activities in advance. The American public only learned,
after the fact, that the House had wasted $2.3 million on its
misguided intervention in the Defense of Marriage Act
litigation. Another example is the resolution to launch yet
another investigation of the Benghazi matter. When the Rules
Committee considered this partisan legislation, we asked
repeatedly--and in vain--for a cost estimate. We learned
after the vote that the House plans to spend as much as $3.3
million on this duplicative and wasteful effort this year
alone--more than the budgets of the House Committee on
Veterans Affairs and the House Committee on Ethics.
Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the anticipated cost of
the Speaker's lawsuit against our President be disclosed to
the American people before we vote on the resolution
authorizing it We are making this request so far in advance
because we want to ensure there is ample time to make the
assessments necessary for a fully informed estimate. No
meeting should be scheduled on the draft resolution until the
answers to these questions have been made public.
Sincerely,
Louise M. Slaughter,
Ranking Member.
James P. McGovern,
Member of Congress.
Alcee L. Hastings,
Member of Congress.
Jared Polis,
Member of Congress.
____
Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2014.
Hon. Louise Slaughter,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Rules, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Alcee L. Hastings,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James McGovern,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jared Polis,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mrs. Slaughter and Messrs. McGovern, Hastings, and
Polis: Thank you for your letter dated July 17, 2014,
outlining your questions regarding H. Res. 676, which
authorizes House litigation. Specifically, you asked to be
provided with information regarding the anticipated cost of a
lawsuit against the President as well as which accounts would
supply such funding. As demonstrated by our nearly five hour
hearing last week, it is my intent to conduct this process in
a thoughtful and transparent process.
In regard to your first question, it is too early in the
process to calculate an exact dollar amount that will be
spent on all elements of the litigation process. H. Res. 676
authorizes the Speaker to initiate litigation and authorizes
the Office of General Counsel to retain outside counsel or
experts, if needed. The resolution does not require either
action, nor does it authorize or appropriate any new funding.
Decisions regarding legal action and whether to retain
outside experts would occur after passage of H. Res. 676.
However, in the Defense of Marriage Act litigation
referenced in your letter, the House of Representatives
defended that law in court in close to two-dozen cases across
the country. After consultation with the interested parties,
I fully expect potential legal action brought under this
resolution to be far narrower in scope than that case, which
suggests that total litigation costs should be lower as well.
It is also important to note that I anticipate that all
contracts surrounding any litigation authorized by this
resolution will go through the approval process previously
used by the House Administration Committee for Office of
General Counsel initiated contracts. Funds spent on outside
counsel have been and would continue to be included in the
quarterly Statements of Disbursements, which are publically
available.
I can more clearly answer your second question. I do not
anticipate that any new funds would need to be appropriated
in this fiscal year. Funds spent on such litigation would
come from the account of the Office of General Counsel, which
falls under House accounts. If those previously existing
funds were found to be insufficient, the appropriate House
officers, in coordination with the Appropriations Committee,
could then transfer funds from other House accounts with
anticipated savings.
While I am confident that any use of taxpayer money will go
through an open and transparent process, we must ensure that
the House of Representatives has the flexibility necessary to
hire the most qualified experts available to defend the
Constitution. A lawsuit against the President for failing to
fulfill his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law
is a small price to pay for defending the separation of
powers and the American people.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2014.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Chairman, The Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Yesterday the Committee on Rules filed a
report to accompany the resolution (H. Res. 676) authorizing
the Speaker, on behalf of the House, to initiate or intervene
in certain litigation against the President of the United
States or other federal officials. The Committee on House
Administration (CHA) received an additional referral of the
resolution due to its implications for the operations of the
House, especially the potentially enormous depletion of
appropriations intended for other purposes.
As you know, a number of provisions in this resolution--
particularly those concerning the hiring of outside counsel
and consultants, and the spending of money on their hiring--
are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on House
Administration, where I serve as Ranking Minority Member. Our
Committee has held no hearings, meetings or markups of this
resolution.
Yesterday, with the concurrence of our chairman,
Representative Miller of Michigan, the Speaker discharged the
House Administration Committee from further consideration of
the resolution. This occurred despite the fact that all three
House Administration Democrats last week formally invoked the
extraordinary Rule XI procedure calling for a special
committee meeting to consider the legislation. So we now
confront a situation in which CHA, the ``money committee'' on
this subject due to our jurisdiction over House accounts and
officers, will not be heard.
I also know that the Speaker has not provided this
Committee with a good-faith estimate of how much this lawsuit
or lawsuits could cost taxpayers.
In my view, this mad rush to confront the President in
court represents yet another ill-conceived, ill-considered
action pursued merely for political purposes. It will cost
the American people millions and inevitably deplete the
legislative resources otherwise available to support the work
of all Members of this House. In light of the haste we have
already witnessed in this process, I urge you to allow
consideration of amendments on the floor, and also to permit
a motion to recommit with or without instructions so that we
may either have the opportunity to return
H. Res. 676 to the House Administration
[[Page 13642]]
Committee for substantive review or offer instructions
proposing changes relevant to our Committee's concerns.
Respectfully,
Robert A. Brady,
Ranking Member,
Committee on House Administration.
____
Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2014.
Hon. Robert A. Brady,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Brady: Thank you for your letter dated July 29,
2014, discussing your concerns with provisions in H. Res. 676
that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House
Administration, and requests regarding floor consideration of
the measure. Unfortunately, my office did not receive your
letter until roughly 15 minutes before the start of the Rules
Committee meeting to provide for floor consideration of the
resolution.
The provision that you specifically reference authorizes
the Speaker to initiate litigation and authorizes the Office
of General Counsel to retain outside counsel or experts, if
needed. The resolution does not require either action, nor
does it authorize or appropriate any new funding. As I stated
in my letter dated July 23, 2014 to the minority members of
the Rules Committee, I do not anticipate that any new funds
would need to be appropriated for this fiscal year. It should
also be recognized that this is a limited, targeted measure
that seeks to address an important constitutional issue.
You also expressed concerns with the process, but the
Committee on House Administration was discharged from further
consideration of the measure pursuant to an agreement between
Chairman Miller and myself, which has been the standard
practice used by both Democratic and Republican majorities.
Our exchange of letters can be found in the committee report
accompanying H. Res. 676.
While I appreciate your requests for specific elements in
the rule, I feel that the Committee adopted an appropriate
rule for consideration of this important measure. H. Res. 676
is a critical first step in an effort to defend the
Constitution and compel the President to faithfully execute
the laws passed by Congress.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if people are supposed to think that this
is really a genuine concern by the House of Representatives and not a
partisan gimmick, then why didn't the majority consult with Democrats
or the Senate beforehand and say: We want to do this on behalf of
Congress. Will you talk with us about participating?
That idea of joint participation is long gone from here, and I regret
to say that.
But that didn't happen. It was cooked up in some meeting where we
probably discussed how to win back the Senate, or whether to impeach
the President, or how the campaign fundraising is going and so forth.
You are not fooling anyone. This is about politics and the elections,
and you know it and I know it and, polling shows it, all the people in
the country know it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Slaughter, our ranking
member on the Rules Committee, for the time and also, more importantly,
for her great leadership in so many ways. In so many ways, it has been
about her advocacy for the priorities of the American people.
So today we have on the floor of the House legislation that is a
serious matter about suing the President of the United States instead
of doing the people's business, which is what Ms. Slaughter and others
have advocated for, whether it is bringing good-paying jobs home,
creating jobs by building the infrastructure of America, reducing the
cost of higher education for families, investing in our children,
raising the minimum wage, passing legislation to have equal pay for
equal work, everything that would increase the financial stability of
America's families. Instead, we are wasting the taxpayers' time and
money on the floor of the House on a matter that is serious but is a
waste of time.
There are those who have said that this initiative to sue the
President of the United States is about a step toward impeachment.
Others who say, no, it is instead of impeachment.
I told the Speaker that I had a similar situation years ago--not
similar in terms of the subject, because I think there is no basis for
this and no standing in this House on the subject of suing the
President, but similar in that there were calls by some to impeach
President Bush when we took the majority and people were very unhappy
about the Iraq war and the false claims made to draw the American
people into support of that war effort, which proved to be untrue. It
wasn't about people in your caucus clamoring for suing the President.
It was about hundreds of thousands of people in the streets objecting
to the war in Iraq and the false basis on which we went in.
But when I became Speaker, and people clamored for the impeachment of
the President, I said what I advised the Speaker to say right now:
Impeachment is off the table. If this isn't about impeachment, that
simple sentence will be a clear one: Impeachment is off the table.
Why hasn't the Speaker said that? Why are there those in your caucus
who won't deny that that is a possible end in sight for this ill-fated
legislation that you bring to the floor?
We are going to adjourn tomorrow for 5 weeks, leaving unfinished
business here. We need to solve problems for the American people, to
create opportunities for them, but that kind of legislation is nowhere
in sight, whether it is job creation, reducing the cost of higher
education, equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage, some of
which I already mentioned.
We have precious few hours remaining to act on the priorities of the
American people and finish the ``can't wait'' business before the
Congress. So much needs to be done: the humanitarian situation at the
border, which provides an opportunity for us to do the right thing; the
highway trust fund, to deal with it appropriately and give it the
proper amount of time instead of rushing it through. But once again,
Republicans are putting the special interests and the howls of
impeachment-hungry extremists before the needs of the Nation.
{time} 1345
The lawsuit is only the latest proof of House Republicans' contempt
and disregard for the priorities of the American people. It is yet
another Republican effort to pander to the most radical rightwing
voters at taxpayers' expense: $2.3 million spent defending DOMA, a
doomed case; more than
$3 million on the select committee to exploit Benghazi--by the way,
something that had been investigated again and again at the very
admission of leaders on the Republican side. Why are we doing this? And
then this, which we don't have a pricetag on that they will reveal to
us.
Again, why would you sue somebody unless you want to prove something?
And why would you go down that path unless you wanted to do something
about it?
But the fact is, Republicans in Congress have no standing in this
suit. Most constitutional scholars have admitted or do admit that. Even
the Republicans' expert witnesses have in the past said you don't have
standing on it.
Middle class families don't have time for a Republican partisan
grudge match with the President. They know that this is a funny thing
because--well, funny in the one strange interpretation of the word
``funny.'' But a couple of weeks ago on the steps of the Capitol, House
Democrats were there to launch our middle class jump-start about some
of the issues I raised--job creation here in the U.S., affordability of
college, early childhood education, all of those things, equal pay for
equal work, raise the minimum wage. We were doing that on the steps of
the Capitol. And in the Capitol buildings, the Republicans were
launching their lawsuit against the President. What could be more
different in terms of addressing the needs of the American people?
We made the point that this was all happening on the same day. But
the fact is, that difference of focusing on progress and job creation
and process and do nothing is what we live through here every single
day. And today is another one of those days on the floor of the House.
[[Page 13643]]
So let us recognize what this is. Serious, serious, on a path to
nowhere, or maybe, amongst some of your ranks, a path to impeachment.
But if we just want to talk about the lawsuit, it behooves the Speaker
of the House to say, Impeachment is off the table. I hope we can hear
that soon, and then we will see what the merits of this case are. It
has no standing. It has no merits. It has a political basis. And let
the American people judge it for what it is.
If you don't want to hear people use the word ``impeachment,'' as
your people have done, then tell them, Impeachment is off the table.
That is what I had to do. That is what this Speaker should do.
Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the managers of this legislation.
Unemployment. The deficit. Outsourcing. Higher education.
Immigration. Tax reform. Gun control. Medicare. Social Security.
Transportation. A continuing resolution. Ukraine, Syria, Nigeria,
Libya, Israel, Gaza, Iran.
Instead of talking about any one of these, what are we spending one
of the last 14 scheduled voting days before the election to discuss? We
are talking about suing the President for implementing a policy that
the majority supports. Go figure. What a colossal waste of time. What a
colossal waste of taxpayer money.
We know why the majority is focusing on this instead of trying to
solve the country's problems. It is because they have no solutions. We
haven't heard any, unless you are keeping them in a secret black box.
Their only goal is to indulge the partisan impulses within your own
party, 57 percent of whom want to impeach President Obama. The House of
Representatives is apparently taking its marching orders from Sarah
Palin. Good for us.
The fact of the matter is that the American people are tired of the
relentless partisanship that has led the Congress to having a lower
approval rating than head lice.
Our constituents want us to solve problems. That is one of the
reasons we get paid. Our colleagues in the Senate today are voting on
legislation I put forward to end tax breaks. We can't even get a
hearing on this side of the building. These are commonsense solutions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. I want to conclude by reading something, Mr. Speaker.
And if you don't know where this came from, that is part of the
problem:
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught
us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;
Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,
Let us march on till victory is won.
Your problem is, most of you don't even know where it came from.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair again would remind all Members of
the House of an essential rule of decorum in the House. Under clause 1
of rule XVII, Members are to direct their remarks to the Chair and not
to others in the second person.
Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
ask: Why did the majority shut off all amendments to this resolution?
And more importantly, why have they even blocked a traditional motion
to recommit? That is something that we generally always give to the
minority on both sides of the aisle, a motion to recommit.
Now, I think the reason is--you know, being somewhat cynical, and I
will admit to that after what we have been through here--but the cynic
would say that they don't want us to have a motion to recommit because
our side might bring up a motion, which it would be our privilege to
do, that might put the Republican Members on record on impeachment.
Now, I don't know that. We got no answer as to why we were not given
the privilege of a motion to recommit.
But there is one thing we do know. We know that this lawsuit is going
to cost unknown millions and will be an unconscionable waste. We know
that that cost is going to come out of programs that have already
suffered grievous cuts over the last few years and on which people
oftentimes depend for their very lives.
We know that it is pretty partisan because the Democrats were never
consulted at any point on this issue, and we know that it is flawed
because experts have told us that there is no way in the world that the
House of Representatives has any standing on this issue and that a good
Federal judge will send it back to us almost immediately.
We know it is a distraction, and we know that what it distracts us
from are the serious, serious issues that all of us hear about every
day from our own constituencies.
Do you think anybody ever calls me up and says: Why don't we impeach
the President or go after the President because it is raining today and
it surely is his fault? No, we don't hear that.
I hear about, I am having a hard time getting a new job. I need help
to pay for my child's education. I hear a lot of times, my daughter's
unemployment benefits have run out. She is facing eviction. I don't
know what I am going to do. I hear from people who talk about the
children who have come to this country--many of them unaccompanied, by
themselves--in an absolute inhumane wave of human suffering that we
need to pay some attention to.
I know that out there today, we have had floods in my part of the
country in upstate New York that have devastated entire water projects
and sewer projects, and something needs to be done. But we won't do
that.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to
defeat the previous question and please vote ``no'' on the rule. This
is one of the most important issues that we have ever faced during our
time in Congress.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have heard a lot here today. A lot of it, I don't know exactly
where they are coming from. But we have heard a lot of things today.
Democrats would like to believe--or would like the American people to
believe, or go to that narrative--that Congress hasn't done its job.
Well, you have to remember that the House of Representatives is one-
half of that. The Senate is the other half.
Now, if you think about it, we have sent 40 jobs bills over to the
Senate, where they are gathering dust on Leader Reid's desk. We have
passed seven of the appropriations bills here in the House. The Senate,
zero. We have passed important tax legislation to ensure our economy
continues to grow and that companies continue to hire.
We will be voting today on a veterans package to help our veterans.
And tomorrow, for the second time, we are going to consider a bill as
it relates to the highway trust fund.
So perhaps the Republicans in the House are getting the job done with
support of Members on the other side of the aisle. How many bipartisan
bills are sitting there in the Senate just languishing away because
there is a decision made just not to move anything forward from the
House? That is unfortunate because that hurts the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of things that are supposedly what we want
to do. But here is what I believe we are trying to do today. It is
about defense of the Constitution. It is pure and simple. It is about
the protection that is given by the Constitution to the two houses of
the legislative branch and to the President of the United States and
the executive branch and to the judiciary, and that separation of
powers is within the Constitution. That is what we are fighting for.
Forget about all this other stuff that has been thrown up as a
smokescreen. We are fighting to defend the Constitution.
[[Page 13644]]
And people say, well, you know, it could cost money. Well, thank
goodness. Thank God that our Founding Fathers didn't say, well, you
know what? It is a reach too far. It will cost too much. It could cost
our lives. They didn't make that decision. What they said was, it is
important for the future of this country that we live by the
Constitution, that we design a Constitution that will endure into the
future.
And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this Constitution has
endured and has provided the guidance for this country to move forward
every day. It is not by happenstance. It is by the fact that we are
supposed to live by and defend the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, when I was a deputy sheriff, if we just said, You know
what, I don't agree with the free speech portion of the Constitution,
we would have stopped free speech. I had to defend people, stand there
and put my body in front of people who were opposed to what the people
behind me were saying that was repugnant to us and to most Americans.
But I had to put my safety at risk for their free speech. And you know,
I could have said, You know what, I don't agree with that. That is just
part of the Constitution. Let's not worry about free speech. But we
didn't do that. We didn't rewrite the law. We didn't rewrite it.
You know, yesterday or the day before--I am not sure which day it
was--but in the Rules Committee, we heard an impassioned description
from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster), who was the speaker of
the house in Florida, who was sued by the Governor in regards to the
implementation of law. And guess what? That body won.
And thank goodness that the house won in the Supreme Court of Florida
and that they just didn't say, You know what, you don't have standing.
So forget about that.
A lot of people are trying to presuppose what the Supreme Court is
going to say or do. I would suggest to you that I am willing to go
along with whatever the Supreme Court says. Now, I may not like it. But
I am willing to go along with it because I do believe they are the
ultimate arbitrators as to what is constitutional and what isn't.
{time} 1400
It is amazing that this document that we are talking about, that
there is a question about it, that there is a question about the
separation of powers.
I would like to read a quote from then-Senator Barack Obama:
We have got a government that was designed by the Founders
with checks and balances. You don't want a President that is
too powerful, a Congress that is too powerful, or a Court
that is too powerful. Everybody has got their own role.
Congress' job is to pass legislation.
The President can veto it or sign it, but what George Bush
has been doing as part of his effort to accumulate more power
in the Presidency, he has been saying, well, I can basically
change what Congress passed by attaching a letter that says I
don't agree with this part or that, I'm going to choose to
interpret it this way or that way.
It is not part of his power, but it is part of the whole
theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along.
I disagree with that.
Once again, quoting then-Senator Obama, Senator Obama says:
I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the
Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United
States.
Now, I don't know what happened on the trip from the Capitol down to
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, how that changed, but I guess the Presidency
can change your view of the world. It may not be an accurate view of
the world, but it can change it.
I think what then-Senator Obama said rang true then and rings true
today. It is about the separation of power, and let me tell you
something, my friends on the other side of the aisle should be standing
there with us because, for too long, this House has now become
irrelevant. Congress in general is becoming irrelevant.
When I got elected just over 4 years ago, I came up here with a
purpose. I came up here with a belief in the Constitution and that
there is separation of powers between the executive branch, the
legislative branch, and the judicial branch, but now, I hate to say it,
in my 4 years, I have become disenchanted with the fact that this House
for way too long has just had a ``cooperate and graduate'' kind of
attitude, and I don't think we should do that.
That is why, today, the buck stops here. We have got to make a stand
in regards to is the Constitution relevant, is this House relevant. If
not, we should just all go home. There is no reason to be here.
I have three sons that serve their country and that have put their
lives on the line for this country, not by their own choice--I mean,
they serve their country at their choice--but when they go off into
war, it is at the direction of the President.
It is a direction to protect this country, and they do so willingly.
They raised their hand to say they are going to support and defend the
Constitution. I raised it as a police officer outside of Chicago, I
raised it as a deputy sheriff, I raised it as sheriff, and I raised it
here when I got sworn in as a Member of this body.
I take that seriously, and I take it seriously when anybody thinks
they can trample on the Constitution. I take it seriously when anybody
thinks that they are above where we need to be.
This legislation is about empowering the Speaker of the House, if he
so deems it, to sue the President. I happen to agree with that. Mr.
Speaker, we can talk all day--at least I could--in regards to why it is
important that this House protect its prerogative in regards to passing
legislation and reminding the executive branch as to what their duties
are.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Let me tell
you something, I wasn't here before this. I got here 4 years ago. I
don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat or Independent or
whatever. I believe in this institution. I believe in the Constitution
of this country, and I believe we should do everything in our power to
defend it no matter who is trying to usurp it.
So I encourage my colleagues for the last time to support this rule,
to support this institution, and to support this Constitution. It is
about are we really serious about the checks and balances that our
Founding Fathers so rightfully created.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 694 Offered by Mrs. Slaughter of New York
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That 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 Bring Jobs
Home Act (H.R. 851). 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. 2. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 851, 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 Paycheck
Fairness Act (H.R. 377). 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 Education and the Workforce. 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
[[Page 13645]]
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. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 377 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 Fair Minimum
Wage Act of 2013 (H.R. 1010). 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 Education and the Workforce. 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. 4. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 1010 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 Bank on
Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act (H.R. 4582). 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 Education and
the Workforce. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 851, H.R. 377, H.R. 1010, or H.R. 4582.
____
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 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. NUGENT. 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule
XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to
suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are
ordered, or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule
XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.
____________________
EXTENSION OF AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT PROGRAM
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5195) to provide additional visas for the Afghan Special
Immigrant Visa Program, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5195
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.
Section 602(b)(3) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of
2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(E) Special rule for end of calendar year 2014.--
``(i) In general.--During the period beginning on the date
of the enactment of this subparagraph and ending on December
31, 2014, an additional 1,000 principal aliens may be
provided special immigrant status under this section. For
purposes of status provided under this subparagraph--
``(I) the period during which an alien must have been
employed in accordance with paragraph (2)(A)(ii) must
terminate on or before December 31, 2014;
``(II) the principal alien seeking special immigrant status
under this subparagraph shall apply to the Chief of Mission
in accordance with paragraph (2)(D) not later than December
31, 2014; and
``(III) the authority to provide such status shall
terminate on December 31, 2014.
``(ii) Construction.--Clause (i) shall not be construed to
affect the authority, numerical limitations, or terms for
provision of status, under subparagraph (D).''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY FEE INCREASE FOR CERTAIN CONSULAR SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of
[[Page 13646]]
State, not later than January 1, 2015, shall increase the fee
or surcharge authorized under section 140(a) of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995
(Public Law 103-236; 8 U.S.C. 1351 note) by $1.00 for
processing machine-readable nonimmigrant visas and machine-
readable combined border crossing identification cards and
nonimmigrant visas.
(b) Deposit of Amounts.--Notwithstanding section 140(a)(2)
of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 8 U.S.C. 1351 note), the
additional amount collected pursuant the fee increase
authorized under subsection (a) shall be deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury.
(c) Sunset Provision.--The fee increase authorized under
subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is 5.5 years
after the first date on which such increased fee is
collected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Holding) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
General Leave
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5195, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5195 makes available through the end of calendar
year 2014 1,000 visas for the Special Immigrant Visa program created by
the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009. The 1,000 visas are in
addition to 3,000 that Congress already allocated for fiscal year 2014.
The main eligibility requirement, Mr. Speaker, to receive a Special
Immigrant Visa under this program is that the Afghan principal
applicant must have worked for or on behalf of the U.S. Government for
at least 1 year in Afghanistan.
The State Department has indicated that it will issue all 3,000 of
their originally allocated visas by the beginning of August, and the
Department currently has around 300 approved applications simply
waiting for additional visas to be allocated. That number will rise as
State continues to process applications over the next few months.
We must remember that simply because a visa cap is reached does not
mean that Congress must automatically allocate additional visas. In
fact, Congress rarely does so in immigration programs.
I understand that proponents of this legislation claim that
individuals waiting on a visa are in harm's way due to their work for
the United States Government and the drawdown of U.S. forces in the
region, but as with any immigration program, Mr. Speaker, we must also
be cognizant of our duty to ensure the safety and security of the
United States by making sure that anyone issued a visa is not a threat
to our public safety or national security.
So when there are calls for this program to be extended once again
before the balance of fiscal year 2015, the Judiciary Committee will be
conducting oversight over the program. Such oversight will allow us to
make educated decisions on how many, if any, special immigrant visas
should be allocated for fiscal year 15.
I look forward to that oversight and urge my colleagues to support
this bill that we have under consideration. I reserve the balance of my
time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2014.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your consultation with the
Foreign Affairs Committee on H.R. 5195, a bill to provide
additional visas for the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa
Program, which involves the legislative jurisdiction of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs under House Rule X. As a result
of those consultations, I agree that the Foreign Affairs
Committee may be discharged from further consideration of
that bill, so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House
floor.
I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding that, by
forgoing consideration of H.R. 5195, the Foreign Affairs
Committee does not waive jurisdiction over the subject matter
contained in this, or any other, legislation. Our Committee
also reserves the right to seek an appropriate number of
conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this bill,
and would appreciate your support for any such request.
I ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter
be included in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration of H.R. 5195.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Royce,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2014.
Hon. Ed Royce,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Royce: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 5195, a bill to provide additional visas for the Afghan
Special Immigrant Visa Program
It is my understanding that the Committee on Foreign
Affairs has Rule X jurisdiction over portions of H.R. 5195. I
am, therefore, most appreciative of your decision to forego
consideration of the bill so that it may move expeditiously
to the House floor. I acknowledge that although you are
waiving formal consideration of the bill, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over
the subject matter contained in the bill. In addition, if a
conference is necessary on this legislation, I will support
any request that your committee be represented therein.
Finally, I am pleased to include your letter and this reply
letter memorializing our mutual understanding in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 5195.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5195 accomplishes the important goal of allowing
these additional 1,000 Afghan Special Immigrant Visas to be issued
before the end of the calendar year.
As has been mentioned, this program was established in 2009 to
protect Afghan nationals who were placed in grave danger because they
were employed by or assisted the United States Government. Having
benefited greatly from their faithful service, Members on both sides of
the aisle recognized that we owed a debt of gratitude. We owed these
people and their family members the opportunity to live safely and
freely.
The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program has not been without its
problems. Many of us have come together over the years to complain that
the process for issuing the visas was too slow and cumbersome.
Mr. Speaker, from the start of the program through fiscal year 2012,
only 1,051 of the 8,500 visas authorized by statute had actually been
issued to deserving Afghan nationals. In October of 2012, The
Washington Post reported that more than 5,000 Afghan Special Immigrant
Visa applications were sitting in a backlog waiting to be adjudicated.
Secretary Kerry recently stated that because of ``unconscionably long
processing times for applicants, some deserving people were simply
falling through the cracks.''
Now, recently, the program has undergone major improvements. In this
fiscal year alone, the State Department has issued more Afghan Special
Immigrant Visas than in all previous years combined. The process is now
moving swiftly enough that we are coming right up against the cap of
3,000 visas that we set earlier this year in the approps act.
That is where this bill comes in. By making these visas available to
Afghan nationals who are facing danger precisely because they provided
service to our country, to America, this bill will help ensure that we
stand by our commitment to protect those who helped to protect us.
I think it is worth noting that keeping our commitment to these
people--the large majority of whom acted as our translators in the
field--is not merely a good in and of itself. It is important that the
United States stands by its commitment here because we ultimately have
to work collaboratively with people all over the globe.
We must ensure that the message we send through our actions is that
we honor those who take great personal
[[Page 13647]]
risks to assist our men and women serving overseas and we do not forget
what they do.
Mr. Speaker, I support today's bill. I hope to work with my
colleagues to support future extensions of this program, if necessary.
I urge my colleagues to also support this important measure, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, with pleasure I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a champion on this issue.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
Chairman Goodlatte for helping to bring this to the floor very quickly,
also to the Majority Leader-elect Kevin McCarthy for his hard work and
also to my good friend on the other side of the aisle, Representative
Blumenauer, who has had a passion for this program since even before I
got here.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when we just get debating a lot of tough
things, it is great to see times when Republicans and Democrats can
come together and do things for those that fight hard on behalf of our
country and on behalf of theirs.
The Special Immigrant Visa program was designed to provide safe
refuge to the countless brave Afghan men and women who willingly put
their lives on the line and served shoulder to shoulder with our
servicemembers in Operation Enduring Freedom.
This program is critical to our national security and to our
servicemembers and veterans in any future engagement that will likely
come at some point in the future.
The SIV programs provide lifesaving protections to those who served
in U.S. missions and now are in danger as a result at the end of that
service. The Taliban are hunting these people down as we speak here
today.
Because it is in our national security interest to keep these
promises and protect our allies and simply because it is the right
thing to do, I want you to think about for a second: In a time of war,
what can American soldiers and American marines, airmen, and sailors do
in order to communicate with the local population and to get them on
our side versus a very tough and determined enemy? Of course, the basic
thing to that is to be able to speak to the local population.
So you think about, in many cases, these young men and women--these
translators that, in some cases, wouldn't even put on anything to
obscure their face and would stand side by side with American soldiers
against Taliban in very tough areas, many of them, now as America
withdraws its mission from Afghanistan and winds down its mission, now
find themselves under threat every day.
Whether we agree or we disagree with the war in Afghanistan and
anything like that, the reality of it is this: we all can agree that
those that were willing to stand by us and to stand against this very,
very bad enemy well deserve to come here.
{time} 1415
We of course want to ensure that we are going through the proper
process, and I want to commend the State Department for recently
improving their ability to process these applicants and to do so
correctly and safely. But I also would remind folks that when we talk
about the United States of America and who do we want here, people who
are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with our soldiers and defend
our cause and defend their cause are the ones we would like to see in
the United States of America enjoying their freedom as well.
I mentioned earlier the threats that these people live under. It is
estimated that multiple people are being killed every day who engaged
in this kind of effort on behalf of the United States. So I want to
commend everybody in this body for standing together to say that we
need to stand with those who stood with us.
Recently there was a very interesting news special that talked about
the reality of what was going on, and it interviewed a lot of these
translators. Something that struck me the most was somebody who had
been denied a visa, or at least it had taken a very long time to get,
but he still had faith.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HOLDING. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. He stood up and said that he had faith
that he was going to make it to the United States of America because
the United States of America came to his country to help them, and he
knows that the United States of America will do the right thing. It is
inspiring to see that kind of belief in our country that we have, but
to see it shared by people in war-torn areas.
So again to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, thank you.
Representative Blumenauer, thank you for your friendship and your hard
work.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for
yielding me the time to add my voice to this bill which addresses an
issue of national security and affirms our moral commitment to those
who have risked their lives on our behalf.
I especially want to give a shout-out to Mr. Blumenauer and Mr.
Kinzinger for their diligence in getting this measure to the floor.
During our war in Afghanistan, our forces have been assisted ably and
loyally by some Afghan nationals who have been essential to the mission
and the lives of our military, especially Afghan interpreters. Now that
we are leaving Afghanistan, these brave partners and their families
face a mortal threat from the Taliban. They are relying on us to uphold
our commitment to return their loyalty--and now that time has come--by
allowing them to relocate to the United States.
This Special Immigrant Visa category recognizes the extraordinary
debt we owe these partners. As Ms. Lofgren mentioned, for a number of
years, that category suffered from administrative neglect, and the visa
process was hardly functional. In the past year, though, important
improvements have been made to the processing system and many more of
our Afghan allies are being admitted to the United States.
Among them is Janis Shinwari, who served a translator alongside U.S.
troops and saved the life of U.S. Army Captain Matt Zeller, with whom
he now has a lifelong bond. Janis is now a member of my staff in my
district office in Alexandria, Virginia. He continues to hear the
desperate stories of his fellow translators who are in great peril and
desperately seek to leave Afghanistan. Unfortunately, there are no
visas left for the many deserving Afghans who are still in this
administrative limbo. In fact, State estimates that we will hit the
statutory cap on visas this summer with thousands of applications still
outstanding.
The 1,000 visas authorized under this emergency measure are
necessary. This bill is critical, but it does not represent the end of
our responsibility on this issue.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to ensure
that an appropriate number of visas are authorized for 2015. We have to
stand by our friends and ensure that those who have the courage to work
with us in future conflicts know that they will not be abandoned.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Emergency Afghan
Allies Extension Act, which would add 1,000 new visas for Afghans who
served American troops.
This program was designed to provide safe refuge to the many Afghans
who put their lives on the line and served with our troops in support
of Operation Enduring Freedom. I served personally with several Afghans
who literally bled for us and who still aspire to immigrate to America
in conformity with our laws--exactly the kind of immigrants which we
welcome.
This program is also critical to our national security and to our
troops who, in the future, will again serve around the world and need
support
[[Page 13648]]
from local nationals. If we don't stand with these brave Afghans now,
how will our troops in the future get the support they need?
Indeed, many Afghans who served with American forces are now hunted
by the Taliban and other terrorist groups. Adding a thousand visas this
year may be the difference between life and death for some of these
brave Afghans, particularly as America withdraws our troops from that
country.
Friends, colleagues, I urge you to support this bill because it is in
our national security interests to keep our promises and protect our
allies, and it is the right thing to do.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the author of this bill, who
has been a tremendous advocate to make sure that America does the right
thing.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
and her leadership in working with us on this challenging problem.
Mr. Speaker, in a way this represents an amazing, positive
development. I have been working in this area for 10 years, dealing
with the plight of the foreign nationals that too often America was at
risk of leaving behind. But in the course of our work, what has been
celebrated here is that actually the challenge today is the result of
the administration listening to Congress and improving a system that
was fatally flawed--there is no polite way around it--but they have
worked hard to improve it. As a result, the visas we have granted have
expired. They are gone now. There are no more to be issued. These
additional 1,000 visas are critical to be able to get us through this
gap.
It is, Mr. Speaker, I think, testimony to the fact that people here
in Congress can cross party lines, can work together cooperatively on
problems where we are focused. I appreciate the kind words of my
friend, Congressman Kinzinger. We wouldn't be where we are right now
without him, his focus and his commitment.
I should probably talk about his staff, Michael Essington and Zach
Hunter.
There are a list of people who are heroes in this fight that I hope
we can spend a moment or two acknowledging because we did get
cooperation from Majority Leader McCarthy, his security adviser, Emily
Murry.
Chairman Goodlatte, who has returned to this on numerous occasions,
we wouldn't be here without him.
Leader Cantor and his staff, particularly Robert Story Karem, who
helped us navigate a similar crisis for the Iraq program last fall.
Our whip, Steny Hoyer, and his policy members, Daniel Silverberg and
Tom Mahr, were there. At times when there is a lot going on, there is a
lot of controversy, there are competing interests, but they kept their
eye on the ball to move this forward.
We have got some critical people in the outside world, the NGOs,
particularly the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project, and their gurus,
Becca Heller and Katie Reisner, who helped provide the details, the
push.
And I have to admit that there is a champion in my office, my
legislative director, Michael Harold, who is as responsible as any one
single person who just would not give up, late nights, early mornings,
weekends, dealing with things that none of us want to know that
happened behind the scenes. But the point is that we are here.
I am hopeful that this signals not just a new era in terms of our
being able to get past this, but that we take a comprehensive look at
the Afghans and the Iraqis that are left behind because we are facing
additional deadlines, and we shouldn't have to go through this on a
repeated basis. It takes time that could be better spent more
appropriately.
I am confident, at the end, we will do the right thing, but we
shouldn't go down to the deadline. We shouldn't create doubt in the
minds of people who are waiting desperately, who are trying to evade
the tender mercies of the Taliban and al Qaeda, who have long memories
and who have hunted these people down. They have captured them and they
have killed their siblings. They have tortured them, beheaded them.
That is not a fate that they deserve.
I was at the National Airport when Janis Shinwari and Captain Matt
Zeller were united, and it is a moment I will never forget. But our
moving forward now with this legislation and committing ourselves to
the big picture, doing it right on a cooperative basis, means that it
will make the difference of life or death for thousands of others that
are waiting in this pipeline, and it will make all of us feel better as
we conclude this summer session that we are doing it on a note of the
sort of thing that we should do, how we should do it, and why we should
do it.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), who has herself served our
country in the armed services.
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, it is a proud moment that we are witnessing
here today as we see a bipartisan team of leaders here in Congress who
have so passionately been committed to this issue, taking action and
finding a solution, not in an ideal way in this crunch time, but
nonetheless finding a solution that will change people's lives.
When I first joined the military, one of the first lessons drilled
into us as young privates by our drill instructors was the importance
of teamwork, that we cannot be successful as individuals and how
crucial it is for us to work as members of a team towards that singular
mission. One team, one fight.
These Afghan interpreters and their families put their lives on the
line right alongside our troops, not carrying arms, not carrying
ammunition to defend themselves, but placing their lives in the hands
of our servicemembers as they worked together to complete that mission.
Through that sacrifice, they became a member of our team. They felt
pain with our losses, and they felt victorious in our successes.
The very least that we can do is to take this small step and honor
our commitment to our team members by passing H.R. 5195. This is one
step towards keeping our promise and just beginning to repay the debt
to these Afghan people who have served and sacrificed alongside us.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from
California for allowing me a chance to share some words today, and I
thank her for her leadership on this issue.
To my colleagues Mr. Kinzinger and Mr. Blumenauer, thank you for your
continued leadership on this issue and many others. It has been through
your persistence and perseverance that this day comes, and you deserve
quite a bit of gratitude and recognition for your work.
Throughout the war in Afghanistan, U.S. servicemen and -women worked
alongside thousands of Afghan partners who were employed as
translators, as drivers, as cooks, as NGO staff, cultural advisers, and
janitors. These Afghans risked their lives on a daily basis to come to
work. They faced the very same violence, attacks, and threats as U.S.
troops, but bravely put themselves in harm's way to aid in our shared
mission.
As has frequently been the case in the past, when the United States
began to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Congress created a Special
Immigrant Visa program open to foreign nationals who served in critical
roles and supported the American war effort. To date, more than 9,000
Afghans have benefited from the Special Immigrant Visa program. I am
pleased to hear that the State Department has accelerated the
processing time for these special visas in recent months, especially
since there are over 6,000 still in the pipeline. However, as a result
of this progress, the State Department is quickly running out of visas
previously authorized by Congress.
[[Page 13649]]
The bill before us today will authorize 1,000 visas for the remainder
of 2014 so that the State Department can continue processing
applications for Afghan men and women who assumed enormous risks to aid
our troops. Most importantly, this bill sends a message that the United
States is a loyal partner, that we keep our word and we honor our
promises, that we stand with those who stand with us in an ongoing
fight for a fairer, freer world.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), and then I am prepared to close.
{time} 1430
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding again.
I won't take much time, except to say it is very inspiring--as I
think it is important to note when it happens--to see both sides of the
aisle talking about such a very important issue.
I think it is important to note that when we exit the shores of the
United States, Americans stand together with those that stood with us.
This is going to be a very important message to our current allies,
and, again, something that is important to understand, as we all know,
as history repeats itself, that at some point into the future, and we
hope it is far out into the future, America will find itself engaged in
something similar again where we need the indigenous population to help
us to give them freedom and to defeat evil terrorism, or whatever it
may be at the time. This is a message that we are sending to future
conflicts that we will stand with you.
This is also going to, Mr. Speaker, save the lives of American
soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors in the future, as they have
somebody that can help them to communicate with the local population
and win the trust.
Again, for everybody involved, I want to just once again say thank
you.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will just thank all of the people who worked so hard on this,
certainly on both sides of the aisle, and, most especially, Mr.
Blumenauer, who has just been ceaseless in his efforts to make sure
that these translators were not left behind and not forgotten.
A note on the future: I am happy to support this bill for 1,000 visas
today. However, it is reported that there are 5,000 translators
backlogged. Now, we don't know, in that 5,000, some may have been
murdered already, some may have given up, or some may have gone
elsewhere. We don't know that we are going to need an additional number
of visas, but we need to open our hearts in the same spirit of
bipartisanship that if we fall short, we are going to have to come
together as a country. Because we all know, not only is this the right
thing to do morally, but for our troops in the field it is essential.
People have to know in other countries that if they step forward to
assist the United States, the United States will honor its promises to
them.
That is why this bill is so important, not only for what it does, but
what it stands for, and why I urge its adoption.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, this is an important piece of bipartisan legislation. The
Afghans, who benefit by this legislation, put their lives on the line
for the United States of America. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
I look forward in the coming Congress to doing oversight to look at
the further backlog of Afghans who may be eligible for visas, and look
through oversight how this program is being administered and ensure
that we are able to fulfill the promises that we have made to Afghans
who have helped us in the field.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for this important piece of
legislation.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5195, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
DENOUNCING USE OF CIVILIANS AS HUMAN SHIELDS BY HAMAS AND OTHER
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) denouncing the use of
civilians as human shields by Hamas and other terrorist organizations
in violation of international humanitarian law, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 107
Whereas the term ``human shields'' refers to the use of
civilians, prisoners of war, or other noncombatants whose
mere presence is designed to protect combatants and objects
from attack;
Whereas the use of human shields violates international
humanitarian law (also referred to as the Law of War or Law
of Armed Conflict);
Whereas Additional Protocol I, Article 50(1) to the Geneva
Convention defines ``civilian'' as, ``[a]ny person who does
not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in
Article 4(A) (1), (2), (3), and (6) of the Third Convention
and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In the case of doubt
whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be
considered a civilian.'';
Whereas Additional Protocol I, Article 51(7) to the Geneva
Convention states, ``[T]he presence or movement of the
civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used
to render certain points or areas immune from military
operations, in particular in attempts to shield military
objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede
military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not
direct the movement of the civilian population or individual
civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives
from attacks or to shield military operations.'';
Whereas since June 15, 2014, there have been over 2,000
rockets fired by Hamas and other terrorist organizations from
Gaza into Israel;
Whereas Hamas has been using civilian populations as human
shields by placing their missile batteries in densely
populated areas and near schools, hospitals, and mosques;
Whereas Israel drops leaflets, makes announcements, places
phone calls and sends text messages to the Palestinian people
in Gaza warning them in advance that an attack is imminent,
and goes to extraordinary lengths to target only terrorist
actors;
Whereas Hamas has urged the residents of Gaza to ignore the
Israeli warnings and to remain in their houses and has
encouraged Palestinians to gather on the roofs of their homes
to act as human shields;
Whereas on July 23, 2014, the 46-Member UN Human Rights
Council passed a resolution to form a commission of inquiry
over Israel's operations in Gaza without a single mention of
the indiscriminate rocket attacks by Hamas or the use of
human shields, with the United States being the lone
dissenting vote;
Whereas public reports have cited the role of Iran and
Syria in providing material support and training to Hamas and
other terrorist groups carrying out rocket and mortar attacks
from Gaza;
Whereas throughout the summer of 2006 conflict between the
State of Israel and the terrorist organization Hezbollah,
Hezbollah forces utilized human shields in violation of
international humanitarian law;
Whereas Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL) and other foreign terrorist organizations
typically use innocent civilians as human shields;
Whereas the United States and Israel have cooperated on
missile defense projects, including Iron Dome, David's Sling,
and the Arrow Anti-Missile System, projects designed to
thwart a diverse range of threats, including short-range
missiles and rockets fired by non-state actors, such as
Hamas;
Whereas the United States has provided $235,000,000 in
fiscal year 2014 for Iron Dome research, development, and
production;
Whereas, during the most recent rocket attacks from Gaza,
Iron Dome has successfully intercepted dozens of rockets that
were launched against Israeli population centers; and
Whereas 5 million Israelis are currently living under the
threat of rocket attacks from Gaza: Now, therefore, be it
[[Page 13650]]
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) strongly condemns the use of innocent civilians as
human shields;
(2) calls on the international community to recognize and
condemn Hamas' breaches of international law through the use
of human shields;
(3) places responsibility for the rocket attacks against
Israel on Hamas and other terrorist organizations, such as
Islamic Jihad;
(4) supports the sovereign right of the Government of
Israel to defend its territory and its citizens from Hamas'
rocket attacks, kidnapping attempts and the use of tunnels
and other means to carry out attacks against Israel;
(5) expresses condolences to the families of the innocent
victims on both sides of the conflict;
(6) supports Palestinian civilians who reject Hamas and all
forms of terrorism and violence, desiring to live in peace
with their Israeli neighbors;
(7) condemns Hamas' repeated refusals to accept a cease-
fire with Israel;
(8) supports efforts to permanently demilitarize the Gaza
Strip, removing Hamas's means to target Israel, including its
use of tunnels, rockets, and other means; and
(9) condemns the United Nations Human Rights Council's
biased commission of inquiry into Israel's Gaza operations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman and
ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of
Florida, and Mr. Deutch of Florida for their good work on this
legislation. I am pleased to have worked with Mr. Engel and the
leadership to ensure that this legislation was scheduled for the floor
today for consideration.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation places responsibility for the
escalation and violence squarely where it belongs: with the Iranian-
backed terrorist group Hamas. Hamas is deliberately targeting Israeli
civilians through the use not only of rockets but longer and longer
range missiles--2,500 of these so far--aimed at cities--Tel Aviv and
Jerusalem, attempting to attack Israeli communities. Remember, these
attacks are at civilian populations, they are not at military
installations. And Hamas is perpetuating the kidnapping and murder,
which started with three Israeli teenagers.
Again and again, we have seen these incursions through these
tunnels--32 new tunnels found so far--3 miles into Israeli territory.
One of the amazing things, when you go into the tunnels, you see not
only how they are used for these attacks, but what they have in reserve
in these tunnels: ropes, syringes, tranquilizers, handcuffs,
explosives, walls and walls of explosives. These were attempts to
inflict mass casualty attacks on the civilian population.
$100 million is approximately what was spent on these tunnels, at the
expense, I might add, of the Palestinian people. That is 4,000 trucks
of equipment coming in over the border from Israel with cement--which
was presumed to be used, hopefully, for schools or hospitals--with
cement, with aggregate, with steel, instead used for the construction
of these tunnels tunneling under Israel.
Less than 10 years ago, Israel pulled out of Gaza. The Strip was
going to flourish without Israel's control. That was what we were told.
But it wasn't supposed to be this way. It wasn't supposed to be a
situation where Hamas would take resources and plow it into terror day
by day.
Today, the Gaza Strip is a terrorist sanctuary on Israel's borders
with sanctuaries within this sanctuary. We now know 32 of these are
tunnels.
Beyond targeting Israeli civilians with kidnapping and indiscriminate
firing of rockets, Hamas shows a callous disregard for the lives of the
Palestinians it ostensibly represents. That is the purpose of this
initiative here today, to call attention to that fact.
Earlier this month, the Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on
Al-Aqsa television and encouraged Gaza residents to act as human
shields. That is the responsibility they ask as they are hidden down in
these tunnels. As they are in these bunkers, they ask their civilian
population to go and make of themselves human shields in front of
rocket launchers.
The world can't let terrorists embed their forces among the civilian
population, using them as human shields, without speaking out. This is
a direct violation of international humanitarian law and the law of
war, sacrificing the innocent in an effort to protect those engaged in
terror from an Israeli response.
Hamas is engaging in a crime of enormous proportions, perpetrated by
those who are deliberately hiding among civilians to protect
themselves. According to the Geneva Convention, the presence of the
civilian population, or individual civilians, shall not be used to
render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in
particular, in attempts to shield military objectives from attack, or
to shield, favor, or impede military operations. That is the Geneva
Convention.
A full court press to discredit Israel is on in the United Nations.
My question is: Where are the defenders of international law in
condemning Hamas' use of human shields? I saw the report. There is no
mention in there of the rockets being fired against Israel.
Yes, this is a case where Israel is using missile defense to protect
its civilians, and Hamas is using their civilians to protect their
missiles. It is a case where we have to recognize Israel's right to
defend its people by taking necessary and appropriate force to
neutralize the threat posed by Hamas.
Think about the recent discovery that Israeli security sources
unearthed, evidence that Hamas was preparing to dispatch 200 terrorists
via ten tunnels toward six Israeli communities with a goal of killing
and kidnapping scores and scores of Israelis on the Jewish New Year. If
that was on our border with Canada, how would we react?
I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, which takes a
strong stand against Hamas' crimes, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 107, condemning Hamas' use
of human shields in Gaza.
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, on our TV screens and computer
monitors, in the pages of newspapers and magazines, we have seen the
bloody and brutal results of war. We have heard the reports of so many
lives lost. No matter where you come from or what you believe, if you
don't grieve over every innocent killed, you simply don't have a heart.
What is missing from many of these stories, though, is why these
blameless men, women, and children ended up in harm's way. When Israel
acts to defend itself, it does everything it can do to warn civilians
and minimize loss of life. Israel warns Palestinians ahead of time,
going so far as to say specifically where an airstrike is going to
occur.
What does Hamas do, on the other hand? It forces Palestinians to stay
in their homes, to stay in the line of fire. All the while, Hamas
leaders cower in their underground tunnels. Then they have the cynicism
to point their cameras at the dead, show the world the outcome of their
human shield strategy, and blame Israel. It is despicable and it is
shameful.
This resolution sends a clear message. The Palestinian people of Gaza
should not have to take this anymore from Hamas.
It also makes clear that we support taking away Hamas' ability to
wage terror campaigns.
As Secretary Kerry said on Tuesday:
Any process to resolve the crisis in Gaza in a lasting and
meaningful way must lead to the disarmament of Hamas and all
terrorist groups.
Now is the time for the United States to stand firm in our support of
Israel.
[[Page 13651]]
Hamas has Qatar and Turkey, shamefully, to support them, and the rest
of the world has turned a deaf ear to Israel's pleas for security.
The U.N. Human Rights Council, which, frankly, is a joke, even voted
to investigate Israel for war crimes, with the United States casting
the courageous lone dissenting vote. We know the Human Rights Council
typically has a muddled view of Israeli-Palestinian issues. But given
the constant barrage of Hamas rockets, launched from civilian
population centers, day in and day out, week in and week out, year in
and year out, and falling on Israeli civilian population centers, the
Council seems especially out of touch.
We ought to mention something that is very important. This war
started because Hamas keeps attacking the Israeli civilian population
through the years with its missiles--civilians. So for Hamas to now
fret over civilian casualties, which is the fault of them in both Gaza
and Israel, really just rings hollow.
{time} 1445
If Hamas were so concerned about human casualties, why does it target
Israeli civilian populations, as it has all these years?
As Israel's security is threatened and its reputation is smeared--
frankly, the media hasn't been helpful or evenhanded--this moral
equivalency between a terrorist group and a democratic country trying
to protect its citizens is sometimes sickening.
The United States is the only one true friend that Israel has. We
must always stand up for Israel's security, and we must state plainly
that Israel is not alone.
I want to thank Representative Ros-Lehtinen and Representative Deutch
for their leadership on this issue. They have done very strong work in
bringing to light Hamas' deplorable crimes against the Israeli and
Palestinian people. I also want to thank Representative Steve Israel
and Representative Tom Cole for sponsoring a similar resolution, which
the House passed just a few weeks ago.
I also want to thank Chairman Royce, who has worked diligently and
hard to bring consensus to our committee, so we can speak with one
voice to let the Israeli people know that when it comes to the support
of Israel, support is strong and bipartisan from this Congress, and
that is the way it should be.
So only when the world rejects Hamas and its tactics and when Hamas
can no longer rain terrorist rockets on Israel and send the Palestinian
to their deaths will peace between Israelis and Palestinians be
possible.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee
on the Middle East and North Africa and author of this measure.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank my good friend, the chairman of our
committee, Ed Royce of California, as well as the ranking member, Eliot
Engel, for their continued efforts in support of human rights and
Israel's right to defend herself.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution condemning Hamas' use of human shields
in violation of international humanitarian law is an extremely
important and timely measure, given the current situation in Israel and
Gaza.
I want to first thank my colleague from South Florida, Ted Deutch,
for joining me in introducing this legislation. It was at an official
factfinding mission trip that we took to the Middle East earlier this
month where Ted and I realized how important this measure was needed.
While we were there, Hamas had already begun to increase the
frequency of indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israel. Prime
Minister Netanyahu was compelled to respond, but made it clear from the
very beginning that the objective was to restore peace and security to
the people of Israel and that quiet would be met with quiet, but Hamas
would not relent and only increased its attacks.
While Hamas was firing rockets at innocent Israeli civilians, Israel
was taking every step imaginable to avoid Palestinian civilian
casualties. Hamas' response was to intentionally place the Palestinians
in harm's way.
It stores its rockets and weapons underneath the homes of
Palestinians and even in at least three schools run by the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency, and it uses Palestinian men, women,
and children as human shields, in violation of international
humanitarian law, by placing its missile batteries in densely-populated
areas and near schools, hospitals, and mosques.
Mr. Speaker, the contrast between Israel--a legitimate sovereign
state--and Hamas--a terrorist organization--could not be any clearer.
Israel values and goes to great lengths to protect human life, while
Hamas has no respect for human life and goes to great lengths to
sacrifice anyone, including the Palestinian people, in the name of its
war against Israel.
Israel has accepted repeated cease-fire offers. Hamas has rejected
them all. While Israel seeks to fight terrorism, Hamas is an
internationally recognized terror organization that is being supported
by countries like Qatar in its war against our true democratic ally,
Israel, yet it is Israel that wrongfully faces international
condemnation for exercising her right to protect her citizens and
defend herself and gets singled out when the world should be condemning
Hamas.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, the U.N. Human Rights Council, an institution
that has been leading the anti-Israel charge for years now and has
since lost any legitimacy that it might have had, passed a resolution
to investigate what it calls war crimes and human rights violations by
Israel, not Hamas.
There was not even a word about Hamas' attacks against innocent
Israeli civilians, nor Hamas' use of Palestinians as human shields. Of
the 47 members on the Human Rights Council, you would think that there
would be many voices of reason--or some voices of reason--to speak out
against this obvious anti-Israel bias, but the United States was the
lone voice of dissent against this anti-Israel resolution.
Our so-called European allies lacked the courage of their
convictions, and they couldn't even muster the resolve to vote for or
against the resolution. Instead, they abstained. This is a disgrace,
and it is a shame.
If the United Nations Human Rights Council will not act and use its
voice, that is why it is so important for the U.S. House of
Representatives to pass this resolution and not only stand up for the
Palestinian people who have been made pawns in Hamas' mission to
destroy Israel, to their detriment, but for Israel in the face of this
biased anti-Israel agenda.
We must be the counterbalance, Mr. Speaker. We must send a message to
the world that we will continue to stand alongside Israel and that we
will condemn Hamas and its use of human shields. I urge my colleagues
to support this resolution to stand up for our ally, Israel, and to
stand up for human rights and American ideals and principles.
I thank the chairman, Mr. Royce, and the ranking member, Mr. Engel,
as well as my South Florida colleague, Mr. Deutch, for their help.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutch), my good friend and colleague, the ranking member
of the Middle East Subcommittee and coauthor of this resolution.
Mr. DEUTCH. I thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel and
especially Chairman Ros-Lehtinen for her partnership in this effort to
call the world's attention to Hamas' use of innocent civilians as human
shields. I also thank Casey Kustin of my staff, Eddy Acevedo of
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen's staff, and the committee staff as well, for
bringing this important resolution to the floor.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and I were in Israel the night that the world
learned the tragic fate of the three Israeli teens: Eyal, Gilad, and
Naftali. We mourned with the families and tens of thousands of others
at their joint funeral, and we were there just days later when 16-year-
old Mohammed Abu Khdeir was brutally and tragically murdered.
[[Page 13652]]
In the wake of these heartbreaking deaths, violence escalated when
Hamas began indiscriminately launching rockets at Israel, with the sole
purpose of causing terror and death. Israel responded.
Every civilian death is tragic. We continue to mourn the loss of
innocent lives on both sides of this conflict, but we cannot forget how
this started, and we cannot forget who is responsible.
It is Hamas that has chosen to launch 2,600 rockets at civilians. It
is Hamas that hides rockets and rocket launchers in UNRA schools, in
mosques, and even in hospitals, using the Palestinian people as cover
for their weapon stockpiles and their rocket launchers.
It is Hamas that chose to spend millions of dollars digging tunnels
into Israel to launch terrorist attacks and fortifying underground
bunkers for its terror commanders, instead of investing, so that the
people of Gaza have a chance at a prosperous future.
It is Hamas that is responsible for the miserable condition of the
Palestinians in Gaza, even before this military engagement started.
As former President Clinton said last week:
Hamas was perfectly well aware of what would happen if they
started raining rockets in Israel. They fired a thousand of
them, and they have a strategy designed to force Israel to
kill their own civilians, so that the rest of the world will
condemn them.
Mr. Speaker, while Israel warns the residents of Gaza of incoming
attacks via text messages, phone calls, and leaflets, Hamas' spokesmen
go on television to urge people to stay in their homes to act as human
shields. This is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. Let me be
clear: the use of civilians as shields to protect military objectives
is a violation of international law.
It is time for responsible nations to condemn this abhorrent behavior
and condemn the use of innocent civilians as human shields.
Passing House Concurrent Resolution 107 won't stop Hamas from putting
the lives of its citizens at risk as human shields, but it will make
clear that the U.S. House condemns the terrorists who wants to destroy
and murder Israelis--the terrorists who violate international law by
using human shields.
I ask my colleagues to please support this resolution.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It has been said many times, but I think we should say it again:
Israel uses its missiles to protect its citizens, and Hamas uses its
citizens to protect its missiles. That says it all. That is just a
disgrace, and it is a fact.
The United States must back Israel in its quest for security. Any
cease-fire that is put forth must contain the total disarming of Hamas
and the total destruction of those death tunnels that Hamas has been
building to try to kill Israeli civilians. That concrete was allowed to
be trucked in, under the eyes of Israel, because they were told that
the concrete would be used to build schools and infrastructure.
Instead, the concrete was used to build tunnels to kill Israelis. This
really cannot be tolerated at all.
I would also say again that the media reporting of what is really
going on in Gaza has been less than stellar. There are atrocities in
Syria, but that seems to be yesterday's story. So while every death in
Gaza and in Israel is something over which we grieve, there are more
deaths in Syria every single day in that bloody civil war than there
have been in Gaza, yet you hear no mention of it on the news. All you
do is have cameras focused on Gaza.
War is hell. Nobody wants war, but a terrorist organization like
Hamas must be told that terrorism cannot prevail.
Israel's fight is not with the Palestinian people. It is with Hamas,
a terrorist organization that denies Israel's very right to exist and
that wants to kill as many Israelis and Jews around the world and
destroy the State of Israel. That is why the United States and the
European Union have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.
We need to put that in perspective. A terrorist organization that
uses its own people as human shields is not to ever be taken seriously,
nor has it the right to lecture anybody about the sanctity of human
life.
In closing, let me say again that Israel has the right to self-
defense. Hamas' use of human shields demonstrates just how much they
devalue human life. The Palestinian people deserve better than Hamas.
The Israeli people deserve better.
I want to again thank my friend, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Deutch,
for their hard work on this issue. I want to thank my friend, Chairman
Royce, for his leadership on so many issues, but on this issue as well.
Democrats and Republicans agree that we stand by our ally, Israel,
and we condemn the terrorist organization Hamas, which uses its own
people as human shields.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Yoho). He is a member of the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 107.
This resolution denounces the cowardly act of using civilians--women
and children--as human shields by Hamas and any other terrorist
organization, which is in violation of international humanitarian law.
As a member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East
and North Africa, I was proud to have worked with Congresswoman Ros-
Lehtinen, Chairman Royce, and Ranking Member Engel. It is my hope that
this resolution sends a very clear message to Hamas that their
abhorrent practice of using civilians as human shields must stop.
Hamas has continued to fire rockets indiscriminately into Israel from
residential areas within Gaza, as well as having continued to store
munitions near schools and hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, what kind of human does this kind of thing? It is a
coward. It is a person who does not value human life.
Since June of 2014, over 2,000 rockets have been fired at Israel. In
response to the repeated rocket attacks, the United States and Israel
have worked together on missile defense projects, such as the Iron
Dome. The Iron Dome is an effective missile defense system. It has
proven its worth time after time, intercepting dozens of Hamas rockets
bound for densely-populated areas within Israel.
This resolution must pass in order to assure our Israeli allies of
our commitment to them, as well as to send a very clear message to
Hamas that their use of human shields must stop.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was in Haifa, Israel, in August of 2006 during the second Lebanon
war, during the war between Hezbollah and Israel. While I was there, I
was in Haifa. Rockets were raining down. For 30 days, rockets rained
down on that city. Air sirens were blaring during the day. It looked
like a ghost town. It was very debilitating, as you can imagine.
What amazed me was the targeting of the civilian areas of that town
and the targeting of the hospitals--the deliberate targeting of
civilians. That was the goal. At one point, we had to go into a bunker
when rockets were fired close to where we were.
The one takeaway I had was that out of that came the Iron Dome. In a
few short years, that system, the Iron Dome, which they were working
on, went from the drawing board to deployment and battle, proving its
mettle, and it proved its ability to shield Israelis in the south from
the Hamas rocket threat more recently. Congress, I think, can be proud
of our role here in backing the Iron Dome, which is recognized as part
of this resolution.
There is another part of this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I have to tell
you that Israel has more than the right to defend itself; it has the
duty to protect its citizens. I saw what happened in Haifa--over 600
people in that one trauma hospital I was in.
[[Page 13653]]
It is exercising that responsibility right now to protect its people
because, time and again, day after day, these rockets continue to be
fired from these rocket launchers in Hamas-held territory.
No country would stand for the Hamas terror organization's rockets
and tunnels. Remember, these tunnels come 3 miles into the border, 3
miles under Israel--one of them right outside an Israeli kindergarten.
That is Hamas.
Of course, Hamas' whole reason for being, for any of you who have
read its charter, is to attack Israel and to attack Jews. This
nihilistic terrorist organization works to kill the maximum number of
Israeli innocents while using its own population as human shields. Yes,
that is a double war crime.
Since the last conflict, Hamas has improved on all aspects of its
operation, courtesy of Iran. In the same way Iran supplied Hezbollah,
Iran supplies Hamas, and this could not have been done without the
longer-range missiles--the M-302s--that Iran has now transferred into
the inventory of Hamas, so that Jerusalem and Tel Aviv can be targets.
Earlier this month, my committee held a hearing that exposed Iran as
the primary backer of Hamas through weapons, through funding, through
missiles. Imagine the increase in material support to Hamas from Iran
if that government--if the Ayatollah regime--is granted further
sanctions relief as part of nuclear negotiations.
I ask all Members to join me in condemning Hamas on its despicable
use of human shields and to continue to stand with Israel to face down
the many shared threats that we face.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart as death and
violence once again rips the Middle East. Innocent civilians find
themselves again hostage in a war that none of them sought. The rockets
continue to rain down in Israel and civilians in Gaza find it harder
and harder to find refuge. And there is no end in sight despite the
ongoing work of peacemakers.
The most pressing need at the moment is an immediate ceasefire that
ends the rocket fire, allows humanitarian aid to reach those in need,
and lays the foundation for efforts to address Israel's long term
security needs. I am disappointed by the absence of any language in
this resolution supporting international efforts to bring about an
immediate ceasefire. Additionally, no one has come forward today to
argue how this legislation brings us any closer to a peaceful
resolution in the region or an end to the violence, terror, and fear
being experienced in Israel and Gaza.
Over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed so far, many, but not all of
them civilians. Over 50 Israelis, including 3 civilians and two
Israeli-American soldiers, have been killed so far. The key concern for
me is the qualifier--so far. A key question at this volatile moment is
how to end the violence. This resolution is absolutely silent on that
point.
I strongly believe that we need to work for an immediate ceasefire to
prevent further death and destruction in both Israel and Gaza. I
commend the U.S. for continuing to seek an immediate ceasefire which I
fully support. Despite the gallant attempts of the Secretary of State
and the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and others, an agreement
remains elusive and the violence continues.
The resolution rightly condemns Hamas, a terrorist organization that
has shown time and again its disregard for innocent human life. The
only party that seems to benefit from further chaos and loss of life is
Hamas, which continues to lob rockets at innocent Israelis. The barrage
of rockets must stop. Hamas has no regard for the lives it puts in
danger. Its despicable tactics have been thoroughly denounced by the
international community including the U.N. Secretary General who
recently noted that ``the United Nations position is clear: We condemn
strongly the rocket attacks. These must stop immediately. We condemn
the use of civilians--schools, hospital and other civilian facilities--
for military purposes. No country would accept rockets raining down on
its territory--and all countries and parties have an international
obligation to protect civilians.''
The resolution recognizes, as President Obama has, that Israel has a
right to defend itself from relentless rocket attacks. The current
rocket count is well over 1,000 and growing every day. Israel does not
need authorization from the U.S. House of Representatives to act to
stop the rocket fire by Hamas.
I have been to Sderot. I talked with Israelis living in the shadows
of the rockets, including one woman whose relative was killed by a
rocket from Gaza in a previous conflict. And I remember her fervent
desire to live at peace with her neighbors.
I would point out that the resolution rightly recognizes that
innocent civilians on both sides have suffered. According to the U.N.,
nearly 10% of the population of Gaza are seeking shelter at U.N.
facilities, some of which have been attacked. The U.S. has recently
announced it would provide $47 million to help meet immediate
humanitarian needs in Gaza amid deteriorating conditions.
However, I remain concerned that this resolution does not press for
an immediate ceasefire by all parties or urge or express support for
efforts by the U.S. and international community to push for that peace.
That is the best way to support innocent civilians on both sides--
ending the violence that threatens them. You can't force peace on those
who don't want it, but we must make every effort to offer a path out of
misery and suffering and fear.
As President Obama has said, ``Israel has a right to defend itself
against rocket and tunnel attacks from Hamas.'' He also stated, ``I've
also said, however, that we have serious concerns about the rising
number of Palestinian civilian deaths and the loss of Israeli lives.
And that is why it now has to be our focus and the focus of the
international community to bring about a ceasefire that ends the
fighting and that can stop the deaths of innocent civilians, both in
Gaza and in Israel.''
As a Congress, we should join with the State Department, the U.N.
Security Council, and others in urging all parties to redouble efforts
to protect civilians, to find a way to end the violence and ensure
peace and security for all, and to then move to find a long-term
resolution that meets Israel's security needs and the rights of
civilians to live in peace. This cycle of violence cannot continue
indefinitely.
Innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians cannot afford another
three weeks of rocket fire and further bloodshed. We must continue to
push for a ceasefire and to help find a long term solution that will
allow Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, side by side. What is
needed now is de-escalation of violence and escalation of diplomatic
efforts.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 107,
a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in
support of the State of Israel as it defends itself against rocket
attacks launched by Hamas.
These deadly rocket attacks launched from Gaza into Israel by Hamas
against unarmed civilian populations are deserving of the condemnation
of this House and the international community.
Mr. Speaker, since the most recent airstrikes began, hundreds of
persons--Israelis and Palestinians--have been killed and many hundreds
more injured.
No sovereign nation can be expected to stand idly by while unprovoked
acts of violence are perpetrated against its citizens by terrorists or
foreign entities.
Israel has, as do all countries under the law of nations, the right
to exist and the right to self-defense. This means Israel is allowed to
take all necessary, appropriate, and measured actions required to keep
its people safe. Hamas should cease using their fellow citizens as
human shields.
But at the end of the day, the peace and justice we all seek will
come from the parties acting in good faith to find a just and lasting
peace that recognizes Israel's right to exist, renounces violence and
terrorism, and achieves the two-state solution.
Among the most important things that can be done to bring peace and
the two-state solution into being and to halt the suffering is for the
Administration to redouble its efforts to mediate a peaceful resolution
of the conflict and for the President Mahmoud Abbas to exercise
stronger leadership in rallying and uniting the Palestinian people
under the banner of peace with justice.
Mr. Speaker, I condemn launching rockets into civilian populations.
In addition to death and destruction, such attacks instill fear and
cause suffering to innocent men, women, and children.
Finally, I offer sympathies for the loss of life among the Israelis
and the Palestinians.
As the great theologian St. Augustine reminds us, ``peace is the
necessary condition in which people can be free to work out their
eternal destiny.''
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 agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 107, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
[[Page 13654]]
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3230, PAY OUR GUARD AND RESERVE ACT
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3230) making
continuing appropriations during a government shutdown to provide pay
and allowances to members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces
who perform inactive-duty training during such period.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
July 28, 2014, at page 13342.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
General Leave
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of the conference report to accompany H.R.
3230, the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and
Transparency Act of 2014.
General Omar Bradley, the former administrator of what is now the
Department of Veterans Affairs, once said of our work, ``We are dealing
with veterans, not procedures--with their problems, not ours.''
We have come face-to-face with the problems our veterans routinely
encounter, and they are considerable to say the least. As every
American now knows, congressional oversight and whistleblower
revelations have exposed widespread corruption and systemic delays in
access and failures of accountability across our Nation's second
largest bureaucracy.
Thousands of veterans across this country have been left to wait--
some for years; some in pain; and, most disturbingly, some in caskets
that are draped with American flags; some while chronic or fatal
conditions worsened until little hope was left--for the health care
they earned through their honorable service to our Nation. Meanwhile,
poor-performing VA leaders and employees continued to receive large
bonuses, subject to little accountability for their many inadequacies.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Veterans
Affairs, as we know it today, is in crisis, and as a result, our
veterans are suffering. The conference report we are considering this
afternoon is the first step to alleviating their pain and for paving
the way for the failing VA health care system to experience much-needed
structural and cultural reform.
To immediately improve access to care for veteran patients, the
conference report would require the VA to authorize non-VA care to any
eligible veteran who is unable to secure a timely appointment at a VA
facility or who resides more than 40 miles from the nearest VA medical
facility, with certain exceptions.
Eligible veterans would include those who are enrolled in the VA
health care system as of August 1 of 2014 or who are newly-discharged
combat veterans.
It would further require the VA to issue a veterans choice card to
eligible veterans to facilitate care provided by non-VA providers and
provide $10 billion for the newly-established veterans choice fund to
cover the costs of access to non-VA care under this bill.
To lead the way for true reform in the long term, the conference
report would require a comprehensive assessment of VA care by an expert
independent entity or entities and would establish a congressional
commission on care, which would be charged with setting the future
course for access to and quality care throughout the entire VA health
care system.
To improve the VA's internal capacity to provide timely and high-
quality care to our veterans, this report would also provide the
Department with $5 billion to hire physicians and other clinical staff
and would provide for certain critical physical infrastructure
improvements.
The conference report would also extend the VA's rural health care-
focused project, ARCH--a pilot program--for an additional 2 years. It
would extend the pilot program for an additional 3 years to provide
rehabilitation, quality of life, and community integration services to
veterans with traumatic brain injury.
It would authorize 27 medical facility leases across 18 States and
Puerto Rico and make certain improvements to care provided to veterans
who have experienced military sexual trauma and others.
To advance genuine accountability for incompetent or corrupt senior
managers, the conference report would reduce funding for bonuses
available to VA employees by $40 million each year through fiscal year
2024, and it would authorize the Secretary to fire or demote Senior
Executive Service employees and title 38 SES equivalent employees for
poor performance or misconduct. Poor-performing employees who are
disciplined under this authority would be provided an expedited and
limited appeal process, but would be prohibited from receiving their
pay, bonuses, or benefits during the appeal process.
This provision will give the Secretary the tools he needs to
expeditiously hold senior managers accountable for the types of willful
misconduct and possibly criminal negligence we have seen during our
investigations.
The conference report would also require public colleges to provide
instate tuition to veterans and eligible dependents for the school to
remain eligible to receive GI Bill education payments.
This provision closely mirrors the bill that I offered, H.R. 357, the
GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act, which passed the House earlier this year.
The men and women who served this Nation did not just defend the
citizens of their home States; they defended the entire United States
of America.
The conference report would also include approximately $5 billion in
offsets with additional incidental offsets expected to accrue over time
as a result of increased third-party collections for nonservice-
connected conditions and reductions in Medicare payments as a result of
the increased utilization of the newly-created choice program.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is one that I am proud of, but more
importantly, it is one that I believe our Nation's veterans can be
proud of. It is not a blank check for a broken system, but it is an
important first step down a long road toward true transformation.
However, our work is far from over. We all know that congressional
oversight was crucial to bringing the failures at the VA to light, and
it will increase in the days and weeks and months ahead after the
passage of this bill.
The passage of this conference report will increase access to care
and improve accountability within a desperately broken bureaucracy.
However, the reform that is necessary to reforming the agency will
require dedication for years to come, and I would ask all of my
colleagues to join me in beginning that effort today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1515
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report
to H.R. 3230, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of
2014.
I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Senator Sanders, Senator Burr,
and the other members of the conference committee for working so
diligently on this legislation.
Even when it looked like an agreement would not be possible to
achieve
[[Page 13655]]
a compromise and bring it to the House floor today, at the end of the
day, we all worked together to make sure our national commitment to
veterans is there. This compromise agreement can serve as a model on
how Congress should look at serious problems facing our country and how
to address them.
It has been a long road getting here. The House Veterans' Affairs
Committee, under Chairman Miller's leadership, has held over a dozen
oversight hearings in the past couple of months alone. We have heard
from veterans, their families, VA employees, and veterans service
organizations about what is and what isn't working within the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
The measure before us today isn't a long-term solution to all of the
VA's problems, but it is an appropriate and well-crafted response to
the immediate problems of veterans not being able to access quality
health care in a timely fashion.
This bill also takes important steps to begin to address the systemic
problems within the Department of Veterans Affairs that have led to
this crisis: too few doctors, inadequate infrastructure, and a
management culture that is asleep at the wheel. It holds those whom the
Nation has entrusted with our veterans' lives and well-being
responsible for the outcomes.
For the 12 years that I have been on the Veterans' Affairs Committee,
I have fought to ensure that our veterans, especially those who are
living in rural areas, have access to quality health care. I fought for
the needs of veterans returning from the current conflicts, while not
forgetting the sacrifices and the needs of veterans from previous
conflicts.
One of the successes that you heard from Chairman Miller earlier I am
most proud of is the Project ARCH. The Access Received Closer to Home
project expands the opportunity for rural veterans to receive health
care without long drives to a VA facility many miles away. I am pleased
to see that the conference report extends and expands this important
program. It is critical for the thousands of veterans who live in
districts like mine. Many veterans in my district would be forced to
make a nearly 600-mile round trip drive to the nearest VA facility if
it weren't for ARCH.
Another important aspect of this bill not only deals with Senior
Executive Service, but also the title 38 employees, which covers about
80,000 within the VA. It sets metrics and outcomes and accountability
for those employees.
This bill also will address the immediate problem of long waiting
times for health care, while beginning to strengthen the VA, so we are
not facing the same crisis next year or the year after.
But I would also like to remind my colleagues that this bill is only
the first step. After 12 years on the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee, I am more convinced than ever that we must begin to talk
about the innovative solutions that will truly modernize the Department
and better meet the needs of current and future veterans.
Far too often, the good intentions underlying the laws that we passed
are stymied by an organizational structure that has originated back in
the seventies and eighties. Far too often, the good intentions of the
Department of Veterans' Affairs employees meet the wall of bureaucratic
indifference. Far too often, our veterans ask for help and there is no
one there at the other end to answer for that help.
This is totally unacceptable, and it is why I believe we must begin
the work of radically restructuring the Department of Veterans'
Affairs. We must restructure it to better assist our veterans, to
better live up to the promises we have made to them. We need to look at
the fundamental business model, the processes, the organization, the
technology, the data and information and the workforce capabilities.
Our work today is to pass this conference report and get it to the
President's desk as quickly as possible so that we can fix the current
crisis. The work for tomorrow is the work that I ask each and every one
of my colleagues to continue working on: to make sure that the
Department of Veterans Affairs evolves to a new, more veteran-centered
Department of Veterans Affairs.
It is going to take a lot of work and a lot of oversight, as you
heard the chairman mention earlier. Once again, I would encourage my
colleagues to pass this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the
conference committee.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Jeff Miller
for his continued leadership as we work to provide our veterans with
the care and benefits that they have earned.
Keeping the promises that we have made to our veterans and their
families is of utmost importance to me and all Americans. This piece of
legislation is a major step in the process of restoring veteran trust
in the VA.
This bill will expand access to non-VA care, making wait times
shorter and increase convenience. Although this will ensure veterans
who are currently on a waiting list will get the timely care they
deserve, much more needs to be done.
I am especially pleased that an independent congressional committee
on care will be formed to look at the VA from the ground up. For
lasting change to take place, the corrupt culture shown by some in the
VA must be purged. It must be replaced with an ethos that puts the
veteran first.
By authorizing the Secretary of the VA to fire senior employees that
are guilty of poor performance or misconduct, this bill ensures that
newly confirmed Secretary McDonald will have more tools to hold
individuals accountable for their actions. However, granting this
authority will mean nothing if it isn't combined with the leadership
required to always do the right things for our veterans. Through his
words and actions, Secretary McDonald must make it clear from day one
that individuals will be held accountable, whistleblowers will be
protected, and anyone responsible for poor performance, negligence, or
preventable deaths, even, will be held accountable.
It has been an honor to serve with the chairman during this
conference committee.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the VA conference
report.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I thank Mr. Michaud and Chairman Miller for their leadership on this
important bill.
As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have been
working with my colleagues to ensure that veterans have access to the
highest quality care in a timely fashion. This legislation before us
takes important steps towards that goal.
I am especially pleased that the compromise includes three of my
bills, which ensure that: one, all victims of sexual assault in the
military, including those in the National Guard, have access to the
care they need; two, that spouses of those who have died in service to
our country get education benefits; and, three, more residencies are
going to be funded at VA hospitals in areas of the country that are
underserved by doctors in private practice.
Our committee, I know, will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion
with the new Secretary to ensure that all veterans have access to the
benefits and care that they have so bravely earned.
Today, we are acting on behalf of a grateful Nation to provide our
country's heroes the care they need and restore their trust in the VA.
So I urge my colleagues to support this conference report to the
Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a veteran, a
physician, and also a member of the conference committee.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand before
this body in support of the conference report, the first major step in
providing
[[Page 13656]]
timely, high-quality health care to the veterans who so selflessly
served this great Nation. As a physician, veteran, and member of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee, it was an honor to have served on the
conference committee.
Mr. Speaker, a corrosive culture has been allowed to exist within the
Veterans Affairs bureaucracy for far too long and to the detriment of
our veterans. The most important thing this bill does is give the
veterans who are experiencing long wait times or live more than 40
miles from the nearest VA facility a choice. These veterans will now be
able to obtain a veterans choice card, which will allow them to seek
care in the private sector. Only by forcing the VA to compete will we
achieve the cultural change that is required in how they serve
veterans.
I have met with many physicians in recent weeks, and the desire to
help our veterans is stronger than ever. Hospitals and physicians,
alike, are ready and willing to care for veterans, helping to address a
crisis created by VA mismanagement.
Moving forward, this report creates a process by which we can make
significant strides toward accountability, by giving the VA Secretary
the ability to fire senior employees who fail to do their jobs and
ensuring that there will be swift, harsh penalties for knowingly
misreporting or falsifying information.
This agreement will also improve educational benefits for veterans
and their dependents.
As the founder and cochair of the House Invisible Wounds Caucus along
with my friend Tim Walz, I am pleased this report includes a provision
to extend an important pilot program intended to help veterans with
traumatic brain injuries for 3 more years.
The negotiations were tough, but I know the final product will have a
very positive impact on the lives of our veterans, and I would like to
thank the House and Senate VA committee staffs for all their late
nights and hard work they put into this toward this worthy goal.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the chairmen, Miller and Sanders, for their
leadership throughout this process, along with Ranking Member Michaud
and Senator Burr.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this report.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support
H.R. 3230.
As a member of the conference committee, I pushed for negotiations on
this bill to continue because veterans have waited too long for the
care they deserve.
This bill reflects the comprehensive, meaningful reforms that passed
the Senate and that I introduced as the companion bill in the House.
This bill ensures that rural veterans who live too far from a veterans'
medical facility and veterans who have waited too long for an
appointment can see a provider closer to home.
For the tribal veterans in my district, this bill strengthens the
relationship between the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health
Services.
This bill also ensures that the Veterans Administration can quickly
hire more doctors, nurses, and medical professionals, and this bill
gives the Veterans Administration Secretary the authority to hold VA
employees accountable.
Our veterans deserve world-class health care and a VA that puts
veterans first. I believe this bill provides the foundation to do just
that. Again, I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill so it can
be signed into law without delay.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), a former
physician within the VA system.
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report to the Veterans Access to Care Act.
As a doctor who served at the VA hospital in Iron Mountain, Michigan,
for 20 years, I have seen firsthand how Washington bureaucracy can keep
doctors and nurses from taking care of veterans. On its most basic
level, this is the sacred mission of the VA, and the VA has failed.
Today we take an important step toward reversing that failure. Most
urgently, our bill will allow veterans suffering long waits for care
the option to be seen by a local doctor at a private hospital. I
believe every veteran should have a choice as to where they receive
care, and this bill moves us closer to that goal.
But this triage measure is not the long-term solution. That is why
our bill directs the VA to tap the best health care minds that we have
in this country to go step by step through the system and write us a
blueprint for a lean, smart, 21st century VA.
Our bill is not perfect, and the problems at the VA will not be
solved overnight. However, this landmark effort is the best chance we
have had in years to make fundamental changes to the way the VA
operates.
Make no mistake, our true test comes next. We must continue to keep
the pressure on the VA long after the headlines have faded and the
worst employees have been fired, because our veterans will still be
there and they will still deserve to be at the top of our priority
list.
As the father of a veteran myself, I am committed to refusing to let
this issue go. We will demand results, and we will demand swift and
full implementation of this legislation. Anything short of that is not
worthy of our veterans and is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
{time} 1530
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 35 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as the most senior member of the
House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I strongly believe that the VA
provides the best care for our Nation's servicemembers returning from
protecting the freedoms we most hold dear, and I am committed to VA
continuing their critical mission of serving our veterans.
VA has served the special needs of our returning veterans for over 75
years and has expertise in their unique health care needs, including
prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder,
and a host of other veteran-specific injuries. My focus continues to be
on ensuring that the VA retains the unique responsibility for the
health care our veterans receive, regardless of the provider.
The bill includes critical language that I discussed with Senator
Bernie Sanders of Vermont to ensure the VA has the final authority over
the care that the veterans receive, whether at the VA or at non-VA
providers. We need to continue to work with our veteran stakeholders to
ensure the VA has all the resources it needs to provide superior health
care to our veterans.
I am looking forward to working with the new VA Secretary. And I want
to thank the past Secretaries. I have worked with past Secretaries from
Jesse Brown to the present one.
I know a lot of people will say that we have given the VA everything
they need. But of course many of us don't have institutional memory.
I remember the first time the VA got the real budget they wanted in
2009 under President Barack Obama, when we had a Democratic House and a
Democratic Senate. So a lot of us talk the talk, walk the walk, but
don't really roll the roll.
So we have got to make sure as we move forward that we don't just
talk about providing service, but that we really provide service and we
ensure that the veterans have the service that the first President,
George Washington, promised the veterans.
And I do want to thank our chairperson, Mr. Miller of Florida, for
his leadership and the way he has conducted our meetings, and also our
ranking member.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1
minute and 35 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a
United States veteran and another member of the conference committee.
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Chairman Miller
[[Page 13657]]
for his dedicated work on behalf of our veterans.
As a Marine Corps combat veteran and chairman of the House Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have spent the
past year working side-by-side with the members of my subcommittee and
with Chairman Miller to investigate and uncover the largest scandal in
the history of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I am proud that Republicans and Democrats were able to put aside
their partisan differences to focus on supporting our Nation's warriors
with choice, accountability, and greater transparency. These reforms
will allow veterans to vote with their feet if they cannot get an
appointment within a reasonable timeframe at a VA facility.
I am also proud that we were able to include much-needed reforms on
the treatment of victims of sexual assault in the military. The scourge
of sexual assault in the military and the corruption of covered-up
waiting lists at VA hospitals are shameful acts, and we must work
together to confront them head on.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine has 10 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I congratulate Mr.
Miller, the chairman of the committee, and Mr. Michaud, the ranking
member, for working together to get this done.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of a bipartisan agreement. And
while I have some serious concerns about a number of provisions of
which I will speak, I am supporting it because it assigns resources to
help cut down the waiting times for veterans to get the care they need
and that we owe them. That must be our number one goal.
I remain deeply outraged, as so many of us are, by what transpired in
Phoenix and at other VA facilities, where our wounded warriors were
made to wait weeks, months to get an appointment and receive treatment,
including for serious postdeployment mental health issues. That is not
acceptable. This is more than unacceptable, however. It is
unconscionable.
I think there is wide agreement on both sides of the aisle that any
VA personnel who facilitated this wrongdoing or undermined veterans'
health care must be held accountable.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned with provisions in this bill
regarding the removal of senior executive personnel. While this bill
does improve on the House version by adding a 21-day period for
appeals, it still undermines civil service protections that had been in
place for decades to ensure a merit service, not a politicized,
patronage service.
There are already strict rules in place that facilitate the swift
removal of SES officials who do not perform their jobs responsibly, as
there should be.
Those protections strike the right balance between giving agencies
the authority to remove personnel without trampling on the due process
rights of SES employees, who need to do their job without fear of
political reprisal or arbitrary removal.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses major challenges
at the VA. It provides resources to ensure that our veterans can access
health care at private facilities if they face a very long wait or live
in rural areas far from VA doctors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
And it makes health care services more available and accessible to
veterans through additional resources for medical and other VA
personnel.
This, of course, is not a perfect bill. But then again, I don't think
I have ever voted for a perfect bill. But this is a good bill that
moves in the right direction.
Again, I congratulate Mr. Miller and Mr. Michaud on their work on
this very important piece of legislation.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), another member of our
conference committee and an outstanding member of the full committee.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Chairman Miller
and Ranking Member Michaud, on behalf of the 54,000 veterans in my
district and the 20 million around the country, thank you. And to every
conferee that has served on this conference committee, thank you. This
is a huge step forward today, and I am grateful to have been a part of
this process. The need for this legislation and for our conference
committee to have worked together was great, and it has been an
incredible experience.
Let's not forget, in the past decade, nearly 1,000 veterans have died
as a result of substandard treatment from the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and many more cases are under investigation. Mr. Speaker,
50,000 new patients have waited at least 90 days for their first
appointment at VA hospitals. VA staff have admitted to falsifying
medical appointment dates to fit within the agency's wait time
performance goal of 14 days. All these facts have been simply
appalling. All of us in Congress have constituents who have been
directly impacted by this scandal.
The need for the legislation is so timely today. I just came from the
World War II Memorial, and I thanked a veteran from the Chicagoland-
Indiana area. I shook his hand, looked him in the eye, and thanked him
for serving our Nation. He stood up out of his wheelchair, looked me in
the eye, and said: ``Thank you for fighting for us.'' It just simply
shows how important this is. This is an opportunity, as legislators, to
take the first steps toward real change at the VA.
So today we stand together to help our Nation's heroes. We owe it to
our veterans to provide them with nothing but the best. However,
echoing the chairman's comments, simply providing a financial boost to
an agency that has repeatedly demonstrated awful management practices
will not solve the problem.
In the coming weeks and months, we must continue to stand together to
ensure additional improvements are made to the VA. I urge my colleagues
to vote in support of this bill.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen very much on
behalf of the State that has one of the largest populations of
veterans, including those in my congressional district. I would like to
say thank you.
To Ranking Member Michaud and Chairman Miller, thank you for allowing
me to sit in on a hearing. Thank you to the conferees. Thank you for
understanding that, when our soldiers put on the uniform, have any of
us ever had them question why? And therefore, we should never question
why are we giving the best service that we can give to our veterans.
I am grateful for the $5 billion that allows this temporary
flexibility, that if you cannot get service, you are, in fact, able to
go to civilian doctors.
The professionals that are going to be added with primary and
specialty doctors are the TMI, housing, PTSD, sexual assault. All of
these are making a difference.
In the name of the World War II veteran that I saw in Normandy, by
the name of Curtis, a veteran in my district who had an appointment in
2013 and never heard back from the veterans hospital, in his name, I
believe that this is the most important opportunity. We should vote for
this and be able to provide our veterans with the promise we have made
to them: You serve, and we will serve you.
God bless America.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary and Homeland
Security Committees, I rise in strong support of the Conference Report
to H.R. 3230, ``Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of
2014.''
We must remember that freedom is not free and pause to recognize the
valor and self-sacrifice of our nation's veterans.
We also need to keep our promises to the nation's more than 2 million
troops and reservists and 23 million veterans.
[[Page 13658]]
I support the Conference Report for 6 principle reasons. The
legislation before us:
1. Expands access to health care for veterans;
2. Addresses the shortage of health professionals in the VA;
3. Ensures access to care for rural veterans;
4. Provides funding to establish 27 new VA clinics;
5. Expands access to education for veterans and their families; and
6. Extends a community-based housing program for veterans.
Specifically, the conference report provides that the bulk of the
funding in this agreement--$10 billion in emergency funding--be used to
expand access to non-VA health care options for veterans who have been
left waiting for more than 30 days for an appointment or live more than
40 miles from the nearest VA facility.
Additionally, the bill provides $5 billion to VA to hire more primary
and specialty care physicians and other medical staff and includes
incentives to attract more doctors, nurses and other medical personnel
to the VA, and to increase medical education opportunities to attract
doctors in the future.
Third, the bill extends the ARCH (Access Received Closer to Home)
pilot program for two years. The ARCH program expands VA's ability to
serve veterans who live far from VA facilities in Northern Maine;
Farmville, Virginia; Pratt, Kansas; Flagstaff, Arizona; and Billings,
Montana.
Fourth, the bill expands VA authority to provide counseling, care and
other services to veterans and certain other non-veteran service
members who have experienced military sexual trauma during active or
inactive duty training (including members of the National Guard and
Reserves). The legislation also requires the VA and DOD to conduct an
annual assessment focused on the transition and continuum of care from
DOD to VA for those who have experiences military sexual trauma.
Fifth, the conference report includes $1.5 billion to lease 27 new VA
clinics, including a new research facility in my home city of Houston,
Texas, bringing care closer to where veterans live and increasing
access to specialty care services.
Sixth, the Conference Report permits veterans who are eligible for
education benefits under the post-9/11 New GI Bill to qualify for in-
state tuition and it expands the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry
Scholarship to include spouses of members of the Air Force who die in
the line duty while serving in active duty.
Finally, the Conference Report gives the VA Secretary the authority
to immediately fire or demote senior executives based on poor job
performance or misconduct but includes an expedited appeals process for
terminated employees to prevent political firings and protect
whistleblowers from retaliation.
Mr. Speaker, my state of Texas and Houston appreciates the service
and sacrifices of veterans and takes care of them.
The Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, for example, located in
Houston, Texas serves the 32,477 veterans and is the primary healthcare
provider for almost 130,000 veterans in southeast Texas.
Veterans from around the country are referred to the DeBakey VA
Medical Center for specialized diagnostic care, radiation therapy,
surgery, and medical treatment including cardiovascular surgery,
gastrointestinal endoscopy, nuclear medicine, ophthalmology, and
treatment of spinal cord injury and diseases.
DeBakey VA Medical Center provides vital healthcare services to
Veterans in the Houston area and through the nation.
I am proud to support the Conference Report since veterans from
Houston and surrounding regions will benefit with the establishment of
a new facility that will extend access to specialty care services.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to long wait times at VA facilities, many
veterans face a number of other challenges, including homelessness,
coping with PTSD, and finding suitable employment in the civilian job
market.
To address these problems, earlier this year I was successful in
passing amendments to this year's Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations Act and the Defense Appropriations Act providing
additional funding and resources targeted to helping homeless veterans
secure housing and treating veterans suffering from PTSD in underserved
urban and rural areas.
I also introduced H.R. 4110, the ``Transitioning Heroes Act of
2014,'' which provides strong tax incentives for employers to hire,
retain, and employ veterans in positions that take maximum advantage of
their skills and experience.
Mr. Speaker, our men and women in the military have fulfilled a
commitment to this nation and to each other that we should imitate in
our actions to work to provide for veterans now that their military
service has ended.
That is why as Members of Congress we need to make sure our veterans
receive the best medical care that modern medicine has to offer to them
and their families.
That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
Conference Report to H.R. 3230, ``Veterans Access, Choice, and
Accountability Act of 2014.''
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the vice chairman of the full
committee and a member of the conference committee.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Today I rise in support of the VA conference report on H.R. 3230. The
Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 is a positive
first step toward reforming the VA, which provides, among other things,
relief to veterans who have waited excessively to receive the health
care they have earned at a level of quality they deserve, Mr. Speaker.
This bill also includes real accountability provisions, allowing the
VA Secretary to fire or demote Senior Executive Service employees for
lack of performance and management negligence.
This reform package is focused around ensuring the veteran has timely
access to quality care and includes language to authorize 27 major
medical facility leases, including one in Pasco County, Florida, in my
congressional district.
The veterans in my area will soon have the ability to seek treatments
at a consolidated clinic, thanks to Chairman Miller, as opposed to
having to travel between the main clinic and four other satellite
facilities.
Authorizing these leases will improve the timeliness for veterans to
receive care in Pasco County and in 17 other States throughout the
Nation, as well as Puerto Rico.
Passage of this bill is the beginning, not the end. Obviously much
work needs to be done. However, immediate action needs to be taken to
get veterans off waiting lists and ensure they receive care within the
VA health system or in the private sector, if they so choose. The
veteran should have the choice. We need to get this done for our
veterans.
I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report.
I want to thank Chairman Miller for the gracious way that he has
conducted the committee hearings, and I thank Ranking Member Michaud
for his hard work.
Principally, I am very pleased that this conference report also
includes 1,500 funded graduate medical school education slots at
veterans facilities around this country. It was a good thing that we
approved access to non-VA care for those servicemembers, those veterans
who have been on waiting lists for far too long. But that would not be
satisfactory to those areas of the country that are experiencing
physician shortages. This is a huge, huge accomplishment for a Congress
that is so partisan to approve these 1,500 funded GMEs.
I urge all my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work on this
bill.
As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I want to take a
moment to share a little about what this bill means for my Kansas
veterans.
Since coming to Congress, I have heard dozens of stories from Kansas
veterans about their troubles with the VA. They have shared about how
they are required to travel hundreds of miles for simple medical tests
or to renew their prescriptions, all the while, driving past dozens of
local hospitals and other health care providers with the ability and
desire to meet their needs locally. Many Kansas veterans drive halfway
across the State or to Colorado, Nebraska, or even Texas to
[[Page 13659]]
get their simplest health care needs met.
In fact, just yesterday, my office had to step in to help a 94-year-
old World War II veteran. The nearest VA hospital was 240 miles away.
He just had a recent serious surgery, and they said, you have to come
into the hospital to renew your prescriptions.
{time} 1545
Thankfully, I was able to contact the VA and ensure this veteran
could get his care in his local community, but as I tell folks in
Kansas, you shouldn't have to call your Congressman to get the care you
deserve.
With this bill, hundreds of rural Kansas veterans will be able to use
their new veteran choice card or Project ARCH, call their local doctor,
and get their health care needs met. Just like Medicare or TRICARE,
veterans should have the choice to schedule their own appointments,
pick their own doctors in their own communities.
When our veterans come back from serving and defending our country
and return to communities across the United States, most of them don't
ask for much, but I want our veterans to know that I believe you
deserve the best, not just the mediocre, scandal-plagued culture we
have seen at the current VA.
This bill is just plain common sense. It is a big first step towards
giving veterans real choice and real accountability. As this law is
implemented, I remain committed to continuing to ask the hard questions
and working to return the VA to its true mission, to serve our
veterans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member
Michaud for bringing this Veterans' Access to Care Through Choice,
Accountability, and Transparency Act to us today.
In medically-underserved communities, where health care staffing
shortages have caused delays in appointments, this conference agreement
will help provide critical investments so that the VA can begin hiring
the doctors it needs to serve our veterans.
It will help to reduce the backlog in VA construction and maintenance
projects. It will help to ensure that veterans unable to get a medical
appointment at a VA facility will be able to get the care they need
from a non-VA provider.
This legislation can do a lot of good, but it is only a first step.
The bill must be implemented, regulations issued, and scarce moneys
allocated to ensure that veterans get the care that this legislation
promises.
We must not lose sight of the rural, underserved areas in our Nation
like in southern West Virginia, where veterans are elderly and travel
is costly and burdensome. We must not lose sight of the need for
medical facilities and health providers in those areas.
I urge the VA to remember rural veterans as it implements this bill,
and I certainly aim to help to ensure that it does so. Again, I commend
the chairman and ranking member for bringing this legislation to us
today.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), someone who always has veterans first in his
mind.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a necessary repair for our vets'
damage that was caused by VA workers who were willing to allow veterans
to die by denying them care, ostensibly to receive a bonus.
Leave no doubt that this is a patch and that the VA requires a
complete overhaul. For example, 7 years ago, the VA hospital in Omaha
was deemed to be in such poor condition it needed to be replaced ASAP.
It was put on the official list, and in those 7 years since, the
project has actually fallen down the list, as few projects have been
completed.
The VA is just not able to manage major projects. The entire Nebraska
delegation wrote then-Secretary Shinseki over a year ago to meet and
discuss the lack of progress and possible alternatives, but he refused
to meet with our delegation, even after repeated requests.
This is evidence of total dysfunction of this VA in Washington, D.C.
My hope is that the new VA Secretary will be more accommodating to
listen to the Nebraska delegation whose sole goal is simply to help our
veterans receive the appropriate care in a building that meets at least
today's standards.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Barber).
Mr. BARBER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored to rise today in
support of the Veterans' Access to Care Through Choice, Accountability,
and Transparency Act of 2014 and to commend Representative Miller and
Representative Michaud for their leadership in getting this bill to us
and this conference committee report to us today.
As the son of a veteran of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, I say it
is long overdue that Congress took action to provide the quality of
care that our veterans have earned. I am here today to fight for
veterans in southern Arizona, of which I represent 85,000, and veterans
all across this Nation.
I have been pushing for better access to health care for our veterans
since I came to Congress a little over 2 years ago. This has become
even more urgent given the tragedy, the disgraceful behavior that we
have uncovered in Phoenix and potentially across veterans centers in
our Nation. To play games with our veterans to get bonuses is
despicable, and this bill, I hope, will move us in a direction of
correcting those terrible actions.
One of the first bills I introduced was the veterans' access to
health care bill to ensure that veterans could get health care they
need in their communities, and this bill, I am glad to say, includes
that provision. I commend the leader, the chairman, and the ranking
member for their work, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for
this important bill for our veterans.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gallego).
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of the conference
committee report, asking all of our fellow members to support it, and I
congratulate the chairman with whom I had a rather spirited
conversation on this floor, as well as the ranking member on
accomplishing the first step, I think, and it is the first step, but it
is a significant step.
I am particularly proud that two of the provisions that I came to
this floor to argue for--that being additional facilities, including an
expansion of the facility in San Antonio, as well as additional support
personnel, medical personnel, and health care personnel--are included
in this bill.
This bill includes so much more: a graduate medical education
component and, in addition, educational opportunities for spouses and
families. This is an incredible first step.
I, again, want to underscore my thanks to the chairman, to the
ranking member, to the members of the conference committee, and this is
a great first step at putting us in the right direction towards finally
treating our veterans with the respect that they not only deserve, but
they have earned over the period of their service.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Peters).
Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to state my support
for this agreement, the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice,
Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014, and thank both Chairman
Miller and Ranking Member Michaud for their leadership on bringing this
issue to a resolution.
Last week, I offered a motion to instruct as a way to spur a
bipartisan solution and to ensure that vets on the GI Bill could pay
lower instate college tuition. I am happy that that provision has been
included.
[[Page 13660]]
Enacting the measures offered in this plan will go a long way toward
improving veterans health care though, as everyone noted, there is much
more work to be done. The more than 200,000 veterans who live in San
Diego County deserve access to the medical care and benefits America
has promised them and they have earned.
It is my hope that our action today will give new hope to the many
vets who felt despair and disappointment at the way they have been
treated by the VA after all they have sacrificed. Today, we send a
bipartisan message to them: America keeps its promises to our veterans.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am ready
to close.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the conference
report to H.R. 3230. This is a very important bill. It is a bill that
we have worked long and hard over the last several months. It is one
that took into consideration a lot of the concerns that Members from
both sides and both bodies had, and we came together with this bill.
I do want to thank Chairman Miller for his hard work and dedication
to our veterans and their families. We would not be here today if it
wasn't his determination in having strong oversight hearings over the
last couple of months within our committee.
I also want to thank staffs on both sides, the majority and minority
staff. I know they have put in thousands of hours for oversight
hearings to work on this conference report to get us where we are
today. We could not have done it without our dedicated staffs on both
sides of the aisle going through this document and making sure that
every Member's concerns were addressed in this document.
With that, I want to once again thank the chairman for your hard work
on this effort and look forward to the vote on this. I encourage all my
colleagues to support this bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to say thank
you to the ranking member of the full House committee, Mr. Michaud, for
his tenacity in what he has done to move this conference report along.
I also want to say thank you to the ranking member, Mr. Burr, in the
Senate and to Senator Sanders because, as we continue to negotiate
through, there never was a willingness to quit by either side.
I am grateful to the 24 other conference committee members who worked
with us, with their input, their ideas, and their willingness to
embrace this compromise. It was brought forth by diligent, focused
effort and a willingness on all sides to put aside differences of
opinion and ideology and focus not on our disagreements, but how best
we can all help our veterans.
While not perfect, this is an example of all the good work we can
accomplish when we work together, and remember, it is the veteran who
is sacred, not the VA.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, at this time, there is no Federal
agency more deserving of our attention than the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs. The VA has served generations of heroes who have
sacrificed on behalf of our country and we have an obligation to take
care of them when they come home.
Without a doubt, the American people expect and veterans deserve the
best service possible and I firmly believe that it is a duty of all of
us in Congress to ensure that no one betrays the sacred trust owed to
our Veterans.
The failure and mismanagement of care for our veterans that has come
to light through the IG's investigation over the past two months must
never be repeated, and I trust that this bill will go far to help
reverse the failures, and ensure better future treatment of veterans at
the VA.
I think this conference report contains provisions that will help
provide timely care to veterans, hold the management of the Department
of Veterans Affairs accountable, uphold the integrity of the
department, and improve education benefits for veterans and their
dependants--representing a major step in the right direction in meeting
those obligations.
Specific measures to do so include; providing $5 billion to the VA to
hire additional physicians and other medical staff, authorizing a
system for the VA to fire or demote management level employees for poor
performance or misconduct, and increasing access to non-VA care for
those veterans in dire need.
Yesterday, we were greeted with the good news of the Senate
confirmation of the new VA Secretary, Robert McDonald. While the Senate
acted swiftly on the confirmation of McDonald, I was disappointed to
see that the Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman was unable to
bring the FY 2015 MilCon/VA Appropriations bill to floor due to
objections from the Senate Minority. If we truly wanted to get the ball
rolling to make the VA better the Senate Minority should allow the bill
to come to the floor.
Nevertheless, I also have full expectation that with the passage of
this conference report it is going to be important that this Congress
hold Secretary McDonald and his subordinates fully accountable moving
forward.
Many in Congress are concerned about the cost of this bill. One way
to help pay the cost of improved health care for veterans would be to
improve third party collections.
Section 201 of the bill authorizes an independent assessment of a
number of VA activities. Among other provisions, the assessment would
report on ways to increase funds owed to the VA by third parties.
Over the past dozen years, the GAO and the VA/OIG have issued more
than a dozen reports outlining the problems with third party
reimbursement. I hope that the assessment team will not reinvent the
wheel.
We already know that the VA has increased its billings for these
services, but its collection rate has decreased or has remained
stagnant. As a result, in FY13 alone, the VA failed to collect more
than $3 billion in billings. Between FY07 and FY13, the VA left nearly
$23 billion on the table.
The assessment should include specific directives for the improvement
of the entire billings and collections process--from initial billing to
denied claims to appeals of denied claims. The private sector seeks to
maximize reimbursement. The VA should do no less.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Conference Report on H.R. 3230, the Veterans' Access to Care through
Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014. I also want to
commend Chairman Sanders, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Burr, and
Ranking Member Michaud for their work on crafting a bipartisan bill
that not only provides for our veterans but addresses many of the
systemic problems within the Veteran Health Administration.
The final conference agreement provides over $17 billion in funding
for the Department of Veteran Affairs. This includes $10 billion in
funding to allow veterans who live more than 40 miles away from a VA
facility, or who have waited more than 30 days for an appointment at a
VA medical center, to seek care with an outside provider. In addition,
it provides the VA with $6.5 billion in funding to address its critical
shortage of doctors and nurses and to allow the VA to enter into 27 new
medical facility leases. By expanding access to care, increasing
staffing needs, and authorizing new clinics, this bill is a great first
step in tackling many of the ongoing problems that have surfaced at the
VA in recent years.
The Conference Report strengthens a number of other programs to help
support our veterans and their families. It expands eligibility and
provides veterans who experienced military sexual trauma while on
inactive duty the opportunity to seek sexual trauma counseling. It also
modifies the post-9/11 GI Bill and allows veterans to receive in-state
tuition rates at any public university, if they decide to relocate.
Finally, today's legislation extends an important program set to expire
later this year to provide housing for veterans struggling with
traumatic brain injuries.
I do, however, have reservations about a provision in this bill which
gives the VA Secretary broad authority to fire Senior Executive Service
(SES) employees even though the VA already has tools to remove SES
employees who are rated unsatisfactory. However, I am encouraged that--
unlike legislation that passed the House earlier this year--the
conference agreement does provide SES employees with an expedited
appeals process through a Merit Systems Protection Board.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than providing for those
who have sacrificed so much for our country. I encourage my colleagues
to join me in support of this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the conference report on H.R. 3230.
The question was taken.
[[Page 13661]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. MILLER 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 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on questions previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 694;
Adopting House Resolution 694, if ordered;
Suspending the rules and adopting the conference report on H.R. 3230.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 676, AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE
LITIGATION FOR ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 935, REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 1, 2014, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 5,
2014
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 694) providing for consideration of
the resolution (H. Res. 676) providing for authority to initiate
litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch
officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the
United States; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 935) to
amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent
regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable
waters, and for other purposes; and providing for proceedings during
the period from August 1, 2014, through September 5, 2014, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 195, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 465]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
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
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
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
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
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 (IN)
NAYS--195
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
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
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
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
McCarthy (NY)
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
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
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
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Clay
Cleaver
DesJarlais
Garrett
Gosar
Hanabusa
McKeon
Nunnelee
Pompeo
Sires
{time} 1623
Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of
California, Ms. KUSTER, Messrs. RICHMOND and LANGEVIN changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Moment of Silence in Remembrance of Members of Armed Forces and Their
Families
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wenstrup). The Chair would ask all
present to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence.
The Chair asks that the House now observe a moment of silence in
remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their
lives in the service of our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan and their
families and all who serve in our Armed Forces and their families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Without objection, 5-minute
voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
[[Page 13662]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 196, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 466]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
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
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
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
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
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
McAllister
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
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
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 (IN)
NAYS--196
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
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
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
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
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
McCarthy (NY)
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
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
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
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Clay
Cleaver
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Hanabusa
Hurt
Nunnelee
Pompeo
Sires
{time} 1633
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.
Stated for:
Mr. HURT. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 466, a
recorded vote on H. Res. 694. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 466 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3230, PAY OUR GUARD AND RESERVE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The unfinished
business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to
the conference report to the bill (H.R. 3230) making continuing
appropriations during a government shutdown to provide pay and
allowances to members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who
perform inactive-duty training during such period, 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 Florida (Mr. Miller) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the conference report.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 420,
nays 5, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 467]
YEAS--420
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
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)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
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 (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
[[Page 13663]]
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
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)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
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
Rush
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
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
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
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--5
Crawford
Jones
Kingston
Sanford
Stockman
NOT VOTING--7
Clay
Cleaver
DesJarlais
Hanabusa
Nunnelee
Pompeo
Sires
{time} 1640
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE CERTAIN
CORRECTIONS IN THE ENROLLMENT OF THE BILL H.R. 3230
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent
resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in
the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 111
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3230,
the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the
following corrections:
(1) In section 101(a)(1)(B)(i), insert before the period at
the end the following: ``, including any physician furnishing
services under such program''.
(2) In section 101(d)(3)(A), insert after ``1395cc(a))''
the following: ``and participation agreements under section
1842(h) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(h))''.
(3) In section 101(d)(3)(B)(i), strike ``provider of
service'' and insert ``provider of services''.
(4) In section 101(d)(3)(B)(i), insert before the semicolon
the following: ``and any physician or other supplier who has
entered into a participation agreement under section 1842(h)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(h))''.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
General Leave
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and insert extraneous material on the concurrent
resolution just adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
____________________
{time} 1645
AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE LITIGATION FOR ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call
up the resolution (H. Res. 676) providing for authority to initiate
litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch
officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the
United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the
amendment recommended by the Committee on Rules printed in the
resolution is adopted, and the resolution, as amended, is considered
read.
The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:
H. Res. 676
Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to initiate or
intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House
of Representatives in a Federal court of competent
jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief regarding the
failure of the President, the head of any department or
agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive
branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official's
duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States
with respect to implementation of any provision of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or
subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by
such provision, or any other related provision of law,
including a failure to implement any such provision.
Sec. 2. The Speaker shall notify the House of
Representatives of a decision to initiate or intervene in any
civil action pursuant to this resolution.
Sec. 3. (a) The Office of the General Counsel of the House
of Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, shall
represent the House in any civil action initiated, or in
which the House intervenes, pursuant to this resolution, and
may employ the services of outside counsel and other experts
for this purpose.
(b) The chair of the Committee on House Administration
shall cause to be printed in the Congressional Record a
statement setting forth the aggregate amounts expended by the
Office of General Counsel on outside counsel and other
experts pursuant to subsection (a) on a quarterly basis. Such
statement shall be submitted for printing not more than 30
days after the expiration of each such period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on the consideration of H. Res. 676.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to discuss the unwarranted, ongoing shift of power in
favor of the executive branch.
[[Page 13664]]
Under President Obama, the executive branch has increasingly gone
beyond the constraints of the Constitution. In fact, in a number of
instances, the President's actions have gone beyond his article II
powers to enforce the law and have infringed upon the article I powers
of Congress to write the law.
We are here today because, at the beginning of this Congress, every
Member of this body took an oath of office in which we swore to
``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' At the
beginning of each Presidential term, the President takes an oath to
``faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States
and . . . to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.'' While these oaths are slightly
different, the object of both oaths is the same. The President and
Members of Congress have an obligation to follow and defend the
Constitution.
The text of the Constitution that we have sworn to defend provides
separate powers for each branch of the Federal Government. Article I
puts the power to legislate--that is, to write the law--in the hands of
Congress. Article II, on the other hand, requires that the President
``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The difference is
important. The Founders knew that giving one branch the power to both
write and execute the law would be a direct threat to the liberties of
the American people. They separated these powers between the branches
in order to ensure that no one particular person, whether it be the
President or a Member of Congress, could trample upon the rights of the
people.
My fear is that our Nation is currently facing the exact threat that
the Constitution is designed to avoid. Branches of government have
always attempted to exert their influence on the other branches, but
the President has gone too far. Rather than faithfully executing the
law as the Constitution requires, I believe that the President has
selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignored the law in
other instances and, in a few cases, unilaterally attempted to change
the law altogether.
These actions have tilted the power away from the legislature and
toward the Executive. They have also undermined the rule of law, which
provides the predictability necessary to govern a functioning and fair
society. By and large, this country is founded upon the rule of law,
and this tilts that balance. By circumventing Congress, the President's
actions have marginalized the role that the American people play in
creating the laws that govern them. Specifically, the President has
waived work requirements for welfare recipients, unilaterally changed
immigration laws, released the Gitmo Five without properly notifying
Congress, which is the law, and ignored the statutory requirements of
the Affordable Care Act.
We have chosen to bring this legislation forth today to sue the
President over his selective implementation of the Affordable Care Act
because it is the option most likely to clear the legal hurdles
necessary to succeed and to restore the balance between the branches
intended by the Founders. This administration has effectively rewritten
the law without following the constitutional process.
When the executive branch goes beyond the constraints of the
Constitution and infringes upon the powers of the legislative branch,
it is important that the remaining branch of government--the
judiciary--play its role in rebalancing this important separation of
powers. After all, the constitutional limits on government power are
meaningless unless judges engage with the Constitution and enforce
those limits.
My friends in the minority do not seem to believe that the judiciary
is up to its role in rebalancing the separation of powers. I disagree.
Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, Members of the minority argued that
this lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of time. They argued that if this
litigation were to go forward that it would lead to countless lawsuits
between the branches of government.
What my friends in the minority might fail to tell you--but I will
today on the floor--is that they were for suing the President before
they were against it. Eight years ago, in 2006, some Members of the
minority, including the ranking member of the Rules Committee--the
gentlewoman from New York--were plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by
congressional Democrats against then sitting President George W. Bush.
That is right. Eight years ago, my friends across the aisle filed a
lawsuit against the President, brought by Members of one half of the
Congress. The Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the
gentleman from Michigan, who is also a plaintiff, argued that he was
alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government and by
a President who shrugged about the law. After consulting with some of
the foremost constitutional experts in the Nation, he said he had
determined that there was one group of people who was injured by the
President's lack of respect for checks and balances--the House of
Representatives.
I want to echo one line that he argued at the time regarding the
separation of powers:
If a President does not need one House of Congress to pass
the law, what is next?
Perhaps this makes sense.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from The Huffington
Post, on April 26, 2006, by the ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee, the gentleman from Michigan. It is entitled, ``Taking the
President to Court,'' in which he made a compelling argument as to why
Members of the House could, in fact, have standing to sue the
President.
[From The Huffington Post, July 30, 2014]
Taking the President to Court
As some of you may be aware, according to the President and
Congressional Republicans, a bill does not have to pass both
the Senate and the House to become a law. Forget your sixth
grade civics lesson, forget the book they give you when you
visit Congress--``How Our Laws Are Made,'' and forget
Schoolhouse Rock. These are checks and balances, Republican-
style.
As the Washington Post reported last month, as the
Republican budget bill struggled to make its way through
Congress at the end of last year and beginning of this year
(the bill cuts critical programs such as student loans and
Medicaid funding), the House and Senate passed different
versions of it. House Republicans did not want to make
Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so
they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as
the House bill and sent it to the President. The President,
despite warnings that the bill did not represent the
consensus of the House and Senate, simply shrugged and signed
the bill anyway. Now, the Administration is implementing it
as though it was the law of the land.
Several public interest groups have sought to stop some
parts of the bill from being implemented, under the theory
that the bill is unconstitutional. However, getting into the
weeds a bit, they have lacked the ability to stop the entire
bill. To seek this recourse, the person bringing the suit
must have what is called ``standing,'' that is they must show
they were injured or deprived of some right. Because the
budget bill covers so many areas of the law, it is difficult
for one person to show they were harmed by the entire bill.
Thus, many of these groups have only sought to stop part of
it.
After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional
experts in the nation, I determined that one group of people
are injured by the entire bill: Members of the House. We were
deprived of our right to vote on a bill that is now being
treated as the law of the land.
So, I am going to court. With many of my Democratic
Colleagues (list appended at the bottom of this diary), I
plan to file suit tomorrow in federal district court in
Detroit against the President, members of the Cabinet and
other federal officers seeking to have a simple truth
confirmed: a bill not passed by the House and Senate is not a
law, even if the President signs it. As such, the Budget bill
cannot be treated as the law of the land.
As many of you know, I have become increasingly alarmed at
the erosion of our constitutional form of government. Whether
through the Patriot Act, the Presidents Secret Domestic
Spying program, or election irregularities and
disenfranchisement, our fundamental freedoms are being taken
away. Nothing to me is more stark than this, however. If a
President does not need one House of Congress to pass a law,
what's next?
The following is a list of co-plaintiffs on this lawsuit. I
would note that I did not invite every Member of the House to
join in the suit, and I am certain many, many more Members
would have joined if asked. However, this was not possible
for various arcane legal reasons.
[[Page 13665]]
The other plaintiffs include Rep. John Dingell, Ranking
Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee; Rep. Charles B.
Rangel, Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Committee; Rep.
George Miller, Ranking Member on the Education and Workforce
Committee; Rep. James L. Oberstar, Ranking Member on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Rep. Barney
Frank, Ranking Member on the Financial Services Committee;
Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Ranking Member on the Agriculture
Committee; Rep. Bennie Thompson, Ranking Member on the
Homeland Security Committee; Rep. Louise M. Slaughter,
Ranking Member on the Rules Committee; Rep. Fortney ``Pete''
Stark, Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Health
Subcommittee; Rep. Sherrod Brown, Representing Ohio's 13th
District.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the litigation considered by this
resolution is a lot different and is a lot stronger than litigation
filed by my friends on the other side against a previous President. The
majority of these lawsuits was brought by a small group of legislators
or individual Members. Today, the House as an institution will vote to
authorize the suit, which gives this case, I believe, a far better
chance in court than previous attempts.
My friends in the minority at the Rules Committee yesterday claimed
that this is all about politics, but the Republican members of this
committee repeatedly insisted that we disagreed. The issue is not about
partisan politics. It is not about Republicans and Democrats. This
lawsuit is about the legislative branch's standing up for the laws that
have been passed and signed into law by the legislative branch and
signed by the Executive of this great Nation. Republicans are motivated
to stand up for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the
rule of law.
Any person who believes in our system of government should be worried
about the President's executive overreach. This President, as well as
future Presidents--from either party--must not be allowed to ignore the
Constitution and to circumvent Congress.
Both Republicans and Democrats have stood up for the legislative
branch in the past. In fact, there have been 44 lawsuits filed in the
last 75 years in which legislators sought standing in Federal court. Of
the 41 filed by plaintiffs from a single party, nearly 70 percent were
brought by Democrats, representing the body.
I submit for the Record an editorial by Kimberley Strassel, from The
Wall Street Journal, dated July 17, 2014, that further explains why the
Democrats were suing the President before they were against it, and I
call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for
Congress and to defend our Constitution against the executive branch.
[From The Potomac Watch, July 17, 2014]
The Boehner-Bashers' Track Record
(By Kimberley A. Strassel)
In the tiny House Rules Committee room in Congress on
Wednesday, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter let roll her
grievances against House Republicans' lawsuit against Barack
Obama. It took a lot of coffee.
The suit, which sues the president for unilaterally
changing a core provision of ObamaCare, is a ``political
stunt,'' declared Ms. Slaughter. Republicans have ``timed''
it to ``peak . . . right as the midterm elections are
happening,'' said the ranking Rules member. Having failed to
stop ObamaCare, they have chosen to ``run to the judicial
branch.'' And, she lectured, a ``lawsuit against the
president brought by half of the Congress'' is ``certainly''
not the ``correct way to resolve'' a ``political dispute.''
As for the legal merits, well! Ms. Slaughter feted her
witness, lawyer Walter Dellinger, praising his work on Raines
v. Byrd , a 1997 case in which the Supreme Court found
members of Congress do not have automatic standing to sue.
The courts, she insisted, had no business settling such
disputes. A lawsuit against the president, she declared, ``is
preposterous.''
About the only thing Ms. Slaughter didn't do in five hours
was offer House Speaker John Boehner her litigation notes.
For it seems to have slipped Ms. Slaughter's mind--and the
press's attention--that a mere eight years ago she was a
plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats
against George W. Bush. The year was 2006, just as Democrats
were, uh, peaking in their campaign to take back the House.
Democrats were sore that they'd lost a fight over a budget
bill that made cuts to Medicaid and student loans. They
dredged up a technical mistake--a tiny difference between the
House and Senate version of the bill. Michigan Democrat John
Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee,
decided to (how did Ms. Slaughter put it?) file a lawsuit
against the president brought by half of the Congress. He was
joined as a plaintiff by nearly every other then-ranking
Democratic member and titan in the House--Charles Rangel,
John Dingell, George Miller, Collin Peterson, Bennie
Thompson, Barney Frank, Pete Stark, James Oberstar and Ms.
Slaughter herself.
In an April 2006 Huffington Post piece titled ``Taking the
President to Court,'' Mr. Conyers explained that he was
``alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of
government,'' and by a president who ``shrugged'' about ``the
law.'' After ``consulting with some of the foremost
constitutional experts in the nation,'' he had determined
that there was ``one group of people'' who were ``injured''
by Mr. Bush's lack of respect for ``checks and balances'':
Congress. So he was ``going''--or as Ms. Slaughter might put
it, ``running''--``to court.''
The plaintiffs--including Ms. Slaughter--meanwhile filed
briefs explaining why Raines v. Byrd (her Dellinger special)
should be no bar to granting them standing. They chided the
defendants for omitting ``any mention'' of Coleman v. Miller,
a 1939 case in which the Supreme Court did grant standing to
members of a legislature to sue. By Wednesday, it was Ms.
Slaughter who was omitting any mention that any such decision
ever existed.
Then again, there was so much that escaped Democrats' minds
at that hearing. Not one of those present, for instance,
recalled that only two years ago, four of their House
colleagues filed suit against Vice President Joe Biden (in
his capacity as head of the Senate) challenging as
unconstitutional the filibuster. Or that Democratic
legislators also filed lawsuits claiming standing in 2011,
and in 2007, and in 2006, and in 2002 and in 2001 and . . .
It was left to Florida International University law professor
Elizabeth Price Foley, another witness, to remind Democrats
that in fact no fewer than 44 lawsuits in which legislators
sought standing had been filed in federal court since Coleman
v. Miller. Of the 41 filed by plaintiffs with unified
political affiliation, nearly 70 percent were brought by
Democrats. At least 20 of those came since 2000. The GOP
might thank Ms. Slaughter for the idea.
Save one crucial difference. It was also left to Ms. Foley
to explain that the reason most of these prior cases had
failed is because most were, in fact--again, in Ms.
Slaughter's words--``political stunts.'' The majority,
including the Slaughter case, were brought by ad hoc groups
of legislators, sore over a lost political battle,
complaining to courts. The judiciary wasn't much impressed.
By contrast--and by far the more notable aspect of the five
long hours of the hearing--is the care the Boehner team is
putting into its own suit. While Democrats used Wednesday to
score political points, Republicans used it to grill their
expert witnesses on case law and constitutional questions.
Mr. Boehner's decisions to have the House as a whole vote to
authorize the suit, and to narrowly tailor it around a
specific presidential transgression (and one that no private
litigant would ever have standing to protest), are designed
to make this a far different and better breed of a court
case.
It's precisely because Democrats know how good a point
Republicans have about Obama unilateralism that they are
already working to dismiss the suit as ``political.'' And to
do that, Ms. Slaughter must have us forget that up until, oh,
two weeks ago, Democrats were all about asking the courts to
vindicate Congress's prerogatives. How times change.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, through this lawsuit, the United States
House of Representatives will take a critical and crucial step in
reining in the President and in defending the Constitution so that it
will endure for yet another generation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1700
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, across the country, conservative thinkers and legal
scholars are discrediting this lawsuit against the President. They are
exposing it for what it is: a political stunt timed to peak in November
as Americans are heading to the polls for the midterm elections.
For example, Harvard Law Professor and Former Assistant Attorney
General under President George W. Bush Jack Goldsmith wrote: ``the
lawsuit will almost certainly fail, and should fail for lack of
congressional standing.''
Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice
Roberts and Justice Thomas, wrote that the Framers of the Constitution
emphatically rejected a ``system in which Congress and the Executive
can pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity,
whenever the President . . . implements a law in a manner that is not
to Congress' liking.''
Conservative writer and former Justice Department official Andrew C.
[[Page 13666]]
McCarthy wrote recently that this lawsuit is ``a classic case of
assuming the pose of meaningful action while in reality doing
nothing.''
Heavens to Betsy, how much more do we have to hear that this is not
going to work?
A recent poll by CNN found that 57 percent of Americans oppose the
lawsuit. Yes, the majority of the American people recognize it for what
it is: political theater. They recognize this lawsuit is not only a
distraction from the real problems that plague our Nation, but that it
is designed to appease radical Republicans clamoring for impeachment.
The Rules Committee, of which I am ranking member, was the only
committee to consider this lawsuit. Under regular order, the House
Administration Committee would have also held hearings and a markup
because they are the ``money'' committee that handles the House's
internal accounts, but they were not given the chance to do so.
Over the past 3 weeks, the Rules Committee heard testimony from
constitutional scholars who debated the merits of the lawsuit and
offered several amendments. The minority on our committee offered
nearly a dozen amendments aimed at bringing some transparency and
accountability to this process, and they were all voted down along
party lines.
Democrats offered an amendment that would have required that this
political stunt be funded from the Benghazi Select Committee's budget,
another political stunt. After the 14 investigations of the Benghazi
tragedy, they have allocated $3.3 million to continue to chase after a
nonexistent scandal.
We offered an amendment that would have ensured that any law firms
contracted for this lawsuit were not also lobbyists trying to influence
us at the same time that they represented us in court, a clear conflict
of interest.
We even offered an amendment that would have required disclosure of
which programs and budgets in the Federal budget will be reduced to pay
for the lawsuit. Would the funds come from the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, the House Armed Services Committee? We don't know, because
the majority has refused to tell us.
Before they vote today, Members of this House deserve to know exactly
which legislative branch functions will be curtailed to pay for this
folly. Otherwise, how can we cast an informed vote?
We focused our amendments on cost because of how important cost is.
It is not, as has been stated here, an imaginary concern. Republicans
have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in this month alone passing
over $700 billion, with a B, of unpaid-for tax extenders on this House
floor. Republicans took $24 billion out of the economy when they shut
down the government to deny health care to millions. And, according to
CBS News, the majority has wasted over $79 million on the more than 50
votes for the House floor to dismantle, to undermine, and to repeal the
Affordable Care Act.
Where in the world does it stop?
When Republicans defended the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act
and employed outside counsel in a similar lawsuit--with the fate that
we believe this will have--they cost the American taxpayers $2.3
million. We learned later that their lawyers charged $520 an hour--an
hour, and at that rate, they would have been paid $1 million a year for
a 40-hour workweek.
So what will this lawsuit cost, Mr. Speaker? That is what we want to
know. The minority requested this information. The majority replied:
``A lawsuit is a small price to pay.''
We could be spending money on our crumbling infrastructure, investing
in our education system, making it easier for our children to go to
college, even building some high-speed rail--we are about the only
country left in the world that doesn't have any--or addressing climate
change. We just had a terrible flood in my district and next door,
where they have lost sewer systems, water systems. We could be doing so
many other things than simply throwing this money away.
The idea of fiscal responsibility, of fiscal tightness, absolutely is
decimated in just what I have said already at this time, the money
wasted here, with nothing for it, when the needs are so great and the
population cries out for relief. But instead of investing in our
country, the majority insists on bringing a lawsuit that, if it is
successful, will do the opposite of everything they have been trying to
accomplish since 2010.
Yes, after years of rallying against the Affordable Care Act, not one
of them would vote for it as it passed the House, voting to derail it,
working against it--pay attention here--they are suing the President
for not implementing it fast enough. And if that makes no sense to you,
you are not alone. We don't understand it either.
Not only is this logic upside-down and inside out, it is directly
against the feelings of members of their own party. A recent poll from
the Commonwealth Fund found that 77 percent of people were pleased with
their new coverage. Republicans themselves have a 74 percent
satisfaction rate with the new plans that they have bought.
Now before us, we have a lawsuit that has been ridiculed and railed
against by conservative thinkers and progressives alike. It is a
deplorable waste of taxpayer funds and would go against everything the
Republicans have been working for for 4 years. The Republicans that I
worked with in this Congress when I first came here would not even
think of this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the
chairman of the Rules Committee, for his leadership on this issue.
Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under
a law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning
democracy. We in the House of Representatives who face reelection every
2 years under the Constitution are perhaps reminded of that more often
than others. And while there is at least one political branch willing
to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means of
which we can successfully avail ourselves.
When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he
take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has
appropriations and other powers over the President. But none of those
powers can be exercised if a Senate controlled by the President's own
political party refuses to exercise them. Nor would the exercise of
those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually
require the President to faithfully execute the laws.
And, of course, the most powerful and always available means of
solving the problem at hand is to vote out of office supporters of the
President's abuses of power. In the meantime, however, the need to
pursue the establishment of clear principles of political
accountability is of the essence.
Earlier this year, I joined with Representative Gowdy to introduce
H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act, to put a procedure in place for
Congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for
failure to faithfully execute the laws. But while that legislation
passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to even
consider it, so today we consider a resolution to authorize litigation
by the House to restore political accountability and enforce the rule
of law.
Although the case law on standing may be murky, one thing is
absolutely clear: the Supreme Court has never closed the door to the
standing of the House as an institution.
As President Lincoln said: ``Let reverence for the laws be . . .
enforced in courts of justice.''
It is the courts' duty, too, to uphold reverence for the law, and it
is the specific duty of the courts to call fouls when the lines of
constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by
the Constitution have been breached.
[[Page 13667]]
A lawsuit by the House of Representatives would grant no additional
powers to the judicial branch over legislation. Indeed, what a statute
says or doesn't say would remain unaffected. But it would be the
appropriate task of the Federal courts to determine whether or not,
whatever a statute says, a President can ignore or alter it under the
Constitution.
The stakes of inaction are high. The lawsuit will challenge the
President's failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come
to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the
White House. What provisions of ObamaCare have been enforced have not
proved popular, and what provisions the President has refused to
enforce have been delayed until after the next Federal elections.
How convenient for the President, yet how devastating to
accountability in our Republic.
Imagine the future if this new unconstitutional power of the
President is left to stand. Presidents today and in the future would be
able to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick
and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore.
The current President has even created entirely new categories of
businesses to apply his unilaterally imposed exemptions.
In that future, if a bill the President signed into law was later
considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the President's
political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy
into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more
politically opportune time, if at all. No longer would Presidential
candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records,
because their records could be edited at will.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional
minute.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Sign one bill into law, enforce another version of it
in practice. Rinse and repeat until the accumulation of power in the
Presidency is complete.
We should all support this resolution today, as it aims to unite two-
thirds of the Federal Government in delivering a simple message:
Congress writes the laws and the President enforces them. Our own
constitutionally required oath to support the Constitution of the
United States requires no less.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I
rise in opposition to the bill that is before us.
It is somewhat ironic that the Republicans want to sue the President
for not enforcing a law that they want to repeal. How ironic. But it
is, frankly, a demonstration of their frustration that they have been
unable politically to attain the objective that they seek. They
therefore repair to the wasting of time by this Congress and the
wasting of the taxpayers' money on a hypocritical and partisan attack
against the President, one that is meant to distract from the pressing
issues of the day, like fixing our broken immigration system, raising
the minimum wage, or restoring emergency unemployment insurance for
those seeking jobs.
While the majority of Americans oppose this lawsuit gimmick, House
Republicans continue to move ahead with it instead of acting on those
policies and other critical legislation which the majority of the
American public do support: Make It In America jobs bills, Export-
Import Bank reauthorization, terrorism risk insurance, Voting Rights
Amendment Act, continuing resolutions and appropriations bills. All of
these the American people want to see us do.
But in polls, they show they don't want us to be doing this. They
think it is frivolous. They think it is without merit. They think it
should not be done.
All the bills that I referenced they think ought to be done. How sad
it is that we come here and do things the American public thinks are a
waste of time while not doing things Americans think are very
important.
I tell my friend from Texas, and he is my friend, none other than
Justice Antonin Scalia has made the point that the judiciary
traditionally does not hear cases of political disagreement between the
other two branches.
{time} 1715
In fact, in United States v. Windsor, Justice Scalia said, a ``system
in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court, in
their institutional capacity, whenever the President implements a law
in a manner that is not to Congress' liking.'' Scalia felt that was not
justified.
We believe this legislation is not justified. We further believe that
the American people do not believe this legislation is justified. We do
believe that the base of the Republican Party that tried to defeat
President Obama in 2012, voted against him in 2008, and disagreed with
him on the issues thinks this is what is available to them.
It is wrong. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of money. It is a
distraction from the issues that are so important to our people. This
lawsuit is nothing more than a partisan bill to rally the Republican
base, and for some, it doesn't go far enough.
Under President Clinton, Republicans' playbook was shut down and then
impeach. Under President Obama, Republicans said that if the Affordable
Care Act were not repealed--not that they would sue him. They said they
would shut down the government if they didn't get their way. They
didn't get their way, and they shut down the government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. They threatened to shut down the government, and they shut
down the government. And the American people said, that is not what we
want done.
Again, they come to this floor because they cannot achieve, through
their political process, the ends they seek. They have voted over 50
times to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. They do not want
it implemented. Now they want to sue the President because he is not
implementing it fully, and now they are suing and refusing to say that
impeachment is off the table.
In fact, their newly elected whip, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Scalise) declined the opportunity to rule out impeachment on four
separate occasions last weekend.
My friends, instead of wasting time and money on the lawsuit and what
might follow, Congress ought to do what our constituents sent us here
to do: create jobs, grow the middle class, invest in an economy where
all of our people can work hard, and make it in America.
Reject this waste of time. Vote ``no'' on this unjustified,
impractical, losing proposition for the suit against the President of
the United States.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard a lot of revisionist
history.
But I will answer the question. And the answer is that years back, we
did impeach William Jefferson Clinton because he lied to an FBI agent.
He lied to a Federal grand jury, and he violated a Federal law, which
was a felony. Oh, by the way, that led to impeachment for a felony
while in office, a sitting President.
In this instance, the President of the United States is not
faithfully executing the laws of the country, and that is an entirely
different process. So for the gentleman to suggest that this is going
to lead to that is simply not true.
I will tell you that William Jefferson Clinton violated the Federal
law as a felony, and we believe our President, now Barack Obama, is not
faithfully executing the laws. And anybody could figure that out who
serves as a Member of Congress.
I would now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Foreign Affairs, Homeland
Security, and Natural Resources Committees.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my
colleague from Maryland who just spoke
[[Page 13668]]
that, in my humble opinion, Harry Reid shut down the government.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain for everybody watching at home across
America what the separation of powers doctrine means. I know this is
obvious for most Americans because we study it in school. But since our
constitutional scholar President doesn't seem to get it, it apparently
needs to be explained again.
Our Constitution says that we, the legislative branch--this branch--
we write the laws. The President executes the laws. And the courts
settle any dispute we may have. Got it? We write the laws. The
President executes the laws. The court settles the disputes.
Our Constitution does not say that the President gets to write his
own laws. Our Founders knew that was a bad idea. They had seen kings
wield that kind of power, and they knew they didn't want that for the
new Nation. They understood that too much power in the hands of any one
person or any one group of people would inevitably lead to tyranny.
As Christian men of the day, they understood that since the Garden of
Eden, man is fallen, and that fallen men, once they have a taste of
power, they will always lust for more. They knew that ``Power corrupts;
absolute power corrupts absolutely.''
So in their understanding of fallen man, the remedy was a system of
checks and balances, and clearly delineated, but separate, powers
divided among three equal branches of government. We write the laws.
The President executes them. It should be simple, right?
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the President has failed us in
two directions. He has failed to execute the laws we have written, and
he has rewritten the laws on his own. I believe that is a breach of his
oath of office to uphold the laws.
So we are gathered here, as the first branch, the legislative branch,
the branch that is closest to the people, to seek the judicial branch's
help in reining in the power of an out-of-control executive branch,
plain and simple. We are here specifically to bring legal action
against the President of the United States to stop him from
unilaterally rewriting the so-called Affordable Care Act.
By the way, that is really a misnomer. There is nothing
``affordable'' about the Affordable Care Act, and the American people
know it. But really, that is a discussion for another day.
From the individual mandate to the business mandate to the waivers
for Big Labor to the HHS regulations that were struck down by the
Supreme Court, to the decision just last week to exempt the U.S.
territories--how many people is that, 4 million people?--exempt 4
million more people from the law known as ObamaCare with just the
action of the President's pen, time and time and time again, we have
seen this President rewrite the law.
But rewriting ObamaCare isn't only one of the ways this President has
abused his power. Look at the mess on the southern border right now, a
mess of the President's own making, thanks to his decision not to
enforce the immigration law and his attempt to attempt to rewrite that
law through a failed DACA regulation and so-called ``prosecutorial
discretion.'' Last week, I sent the President 21 tweets which laid out
the things that he could do to stop this mess at the border that are
within the law, within his purview. And still, he continues to operate
outside the law.
And it is not just the border and ObamaCare. It is DOMA and the NLRB
and an out-of-control EPA trying to backdoor cap-and-trade legislation,
a regulatory war on coal, and the waters of the United States--
regulation after regulation, administrative action after action with no
basis in real, actual bona fide law that this body has passed. This
administration has chosen repeatedly to flout laws or to try to rewrite
laws without going through the legislative process that our Founders
set up for us.
The Constitution, they are laying all over the place. Get a copy.
Look at it. Understand the separation of powers.
This Congress must use every power at our disposal to restore balance
to our government and uphold the rule of law. We have voted repeatedly
to use the power of the purse to cut off funding for unconstitutional
activities within this administration. We have voted repeatedly, Mr.
Speaker, to overturn bad regulations. We passed the ENFORCE Act, the
REINS Act, and I have cosponsored numerous other efforts that repair
our broken system of checks and balances in order to stop the
overreaches of this administration. We must act today, and we must
continue to act until this administration and this President relent and
get it right.
I support this resolution to take this President to court.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Let's take this President to court
because I believe we need to take whatever steps are necessary and in
our power to rein in this administration and hold them accountable to
the United States Constitution and citizens of the United States of
America.
The Founding Fathers gave us this recourse to restore the balance of
power and uphold the rule of law. That is why this is so important for
the legislative branch to reassert our authority, to make the law so he
can enforce the law.
May God continue to bless this body. May God continue to bless the
men and women that serve this country. And may God continue to bless
the United States of America.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, as the former chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong opposition to House
Resolution 676, which would authorize the Speaker to file suit against
the President of the United States for failing to enforce the
Affordable Care Act, which has been attacked more than 51 times
unsuccessfully in the House.
Now, why do I oppose this seriously flawed measure? One, the fact
that it addresses a nonexistent problem. Two, it violates
constitutional requirements and fundamental separation of power
principles. And three, it diverts Congress from focusing on truly
critical matters that require prompt legislative responses.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter received
only today signed by eight constitutional law scholars explaining the
reasons why a lawsuit filed pursuant to H. Res. 676 is likely to fail.
July 30, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner, We write as law professors who
specialize in constitutional law and federal courts to
express our view that the members of the House of
Representatives lack the ability to sue the President of the
United States in federal court for his alleged failure to
enforce a federal statute, even if an Act of Congress were to
authorize such a suit and especially without such legislative
authorization. Never in American history has such a suit been
allowed. In fact, in many cases, the United States Supreme
Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit have held that members of Congress lack
standing to sue in federal court. An entire House of Congress
is in no stronger a position to sue. Moreover, this is
exactly the type of political dispute which courts have found
to pose a non-justiciable political question and that should
be resolved in the political process rather than by judges.
In Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), members of Congress
sued to challenge the constitutionality of the line-item
veto. The Court dismissed the case for lack of standing and
said that the members of Congress ``have alleged no injury to
themselves as individuals, the institutional injury they
allege is wholly abstract and widely dispersed, and their
attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this
form is contrary to historical experience . . . . We
therefore hold that these individual members of Congress do
not have a sufficient `personal stake' in this dispute and
have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have
established Article III standing.''
[[Page 13669]]
After Raines v. Byrd, it is clear that legislators have
standing only if they allege either that they have been
singled out for specially unfavorable treatment as opposed to
other members of their bodies or that their votes have been
denied or nullified. This is consistent with a large body of
lower court precedent, primarily from the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, that
requires a showing of nullification of a vote as a
prerequisite for standing. The Court of Appeals has stated
that a member of Congress has standing only if ``the alleged
diminution in congressional influence . . . amount[s] to a
disenfranchisement, a complete nullification or withdrawal of
a voting opportunity.'' Goldwater v. Carter, 617 F.2d 697,
702 (D.C. Cir. 1979), vacated and remanded on other grounds,
444 U.S. 996 (1979); see also Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d
190, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
It is just for this reason that the House of
Representatives as a body, like its members individually,
lacks standing to sue. The claim that the President has not
fully enforced provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or
other laws, does not amount to a ``disenfranchisement, a
complete nullification, or withdrawal of a voting
opportunity.'' Congress retains countless mechanisms to
ensure enforcement of a law, ranging from use of its spending
power to assigning the task to an independent agency.
On many occasions throughout American history, the Supreme
Court has seen the need for the federal judiciary to stay out
of disputes between the elected branches of government. That
is exactly the lesson that the proposed lawsuit would ignore.
Thus the suit likely would be dismissed both for want of
standing and because it poses a non-justiciable political
question. As Justice Scalia pointed out years ago, courts
frequently fail to review actions or inaction by the
Executive when a decision involves ``a sensitive and
inherently discretionary judgment call, . . . the sort of
decision that has traditionally been nonreviewable, . . .
[and decisions for which] review would have disruptive
practical consequences.'' Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 608
(1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The question presented here
poses the very essence of what the Supreme Court in Baker v.
Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962), said is a political question
because of ``the impossibility of deciding without an initial
policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial
discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking
independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect
due coordinate branches of government.'' The idea of a judge
telling a President how to exercise his discretion in
enforcing a law cuts at the heart of separation of powers and
thus presents a question non-justiciable in the courts.
Under long-standing practice and precedents, disputes, such
as this one between members of the House of Representatives
and the President, must be worked out in the political
process, not the courts.
Disclaimer: institutional affiliations are for
identification purposes only.
Erwin Chemerinsky,
Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law;
Janet Cooper Alexander,
Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law, Stanford Law School;
Peter Edelman,
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center;
Lawrence Lessig,
Roy L. Furman Professor of Law, Harvard Law School;
Burt Neuborne,
Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties, New York
University Law School;
Kermit Roosevelt,
Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School;
Suzanna Sherry,
Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law, Vanderbilt
University Law School;
Charles Tiefer,
Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law.
Mr. CONYERS. To begin with, H. Res. 676 seeks to solve a nonexistent
problem because the President has, in fact, fully met his obligations
to fully execute the laws.
Allowing flexibility in the implementation of a major new program,
even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual
nor a constitutional violation.
Indeed, in the case of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate,
the administration acted pursuant to statutory authorization granted to
it by Congress.
Section 7805(a) of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the Treasury
Secretary to issue any rules necessary for the enforcement of the Code,
including the provisions that enforce the employer mandate.
Exercising discretion in implementing a law is the reality of
administering sometimes complex programs and is inherent in the
President's duty to ``take care'' that he ``faithfully'' execute laws.
This has been especially true with respect to the Affordable Care
Act. The President's decision to extend certain compliance dates to
help phase-in the Act is not a novel tactic.
Yet, even though not a single court has ever concluded that
reasonable delay in implementing a complex law constitutes a violation
of the Take Care Clause, the Majority insists there is a constitutional
crisis.
In addition, a suit initiated under H. Res. 676 would itself be
unconstitutional and would violate separation of powers principles.
This is because such a lawsuit would essentially allow federal courts
to second-guess decisions by the Executive Branch in how it chooses to
implement a policy.
The federal judiciary, under the political question doctrine, avoids
answering such questions precisely because a court is not appropriate
forum to resolve issues of complex policy.
Additionally, it is highly unlikely that Congress could satisfy the
standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution that must be
met in order to enforce the Take Care Clause.
To meet those requirements, a plaintiff--under the Supreme Court's
1997 decision in Raines v. Byrd--must show, among other things, that it
suffered a concrete and particularized injury.
Injury amounting only to an alleged violation of a right to have the
Government act in accordance with law--which is what this resolution
contemplates--is not judicially cognizable for Article III standing
purposes.
This is in stark contrast to cases where Congress has sought to
protect a fundamental power, like its subpoena authority.
In subpoena enforcement cases, courts have found standing for one
House of Congress to sue because a specific legislative prerogative was
at stake, constituting a sufficiently concrete injury to Congress to
confer Article III standing.
Article III's standing requirements enforce the Constitution's
separation-of-powers principles. Congress cannot simply legislate away
these constitutional standing requirements.
Finally, H. Res. 676 is obviously just pure political theater that
distracts the public from the fact that this Republican-controlled
House has failed to address a whole host of critical issues.
These include immigration reform, extending unemployment insurance,
enhancing environmental protections, ensuring worker safety, and
helping those who are financially struggling.
Coincidentally, H. Res. 676 shares a number with H.R. 676, the
``Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,'' which I introduced in
February of 2013.
H.R. 676 would create a publicly-financed, privately-delivered health
care system that would greatly improve and expand the already existing
Medicare program.
My legislation would ensure that all Americans have access,
guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective
health care services regardless of their employment, income or health
care status.
Instead of discussing this and other critical matters, today we
continue to waste precious resources on a patently unconstitutional
measure that would authorize a lawsuit destined to fail.
We owe it to the American people to address real, not imaginary,
challenges facing our Nation, including enhancing health care for all
Americans.
I would also note that the litigation referred to by the gentleman
from Texas that I was involved in eight years ago involved a situation
where the House and Senate passed different versions of the same budget
bill that was signed by the President. That was brought in our
individual capacity as Members, not the House as a whole, and did not
involve the use of additional taxpayer funds. The resolution before us
today is of course an entirely different matter.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.
Res. 676, a resolution to authorize the House of Representatives to
initiate litigation against the President, or any executive branch
employee, for failure to act in accordance with their duties.
Specifically, this resolution deals with the President's failure to
implement the employer mandate required by his
[[Page 13670]]
own signature law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
While the scope of the litigation authorized is narrow, it is
symbolic of a much larger problem--the President's continued refusal to
faithfully execute the law, choosing, instead, to usurp Congress'
exclusive constitutional right to legislate.
Simply because Congress chooses not to be the President's rubberstamp
does not bestow upon him the power to circumvent the law. Conversely,
when the President decides enforcement of a law might be politically
perilous, he can't simply choose to ignore it.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about party politics. This is about the
proper role of government, as defined by our Founders. The Federal
Government was intentionally designed with three branches, each with
their own separate powers and the ability to serve as a check and
balance on the other two. Yet, the President--as a former
constitutional law professor--refuses to recognize his proper role,
defying the law and unilaterally enacting policies, or ignoring the
law, at will.
I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as a Member of
this institution, and I have taken that oath seriously every single
day.
{time} 1730
Unfortunately, I believe the President's actions undermine the very
same oath that he has twice taken, so I urge my colleagues to join me
in this step to uphold the law and protect the balance of power by
supporting the resolution.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong
opposition to this resolution that would propose to have the House sue
the President of the United States.
With only a few hours left before Congress adjourns for the August
district work period, we have a full plate of responsibilities left
unfinished. When I go back home to my district, I highly doubt that
many constituents will be running up to me to thank me for Congress
passing a resolution to sue the President of the United States.
I know what I will hear instead: Why hasn't the House passed
comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken immigration system?
Why hasn't Congress raised the minimum wage so people who work full
time don't remain in poverty? Why haven't we renewed emergency
unemployment insurance for more than 3\1/2\ million Americans,
including nearly 300,000 veterans?
The only answer I will be able to give them is that Republican
leadership in the House cares more about scoring political points
against this President than they do about helping America's middle
class families.
This is a question of priorities. The American people sent us here to
respond to the pressing needs that face our Nation. It should be a
given that we would use our time to focus on the most important issues.
Instead, we waste time on suing the President of the United States
while failing to address commonsense measures to ensure economic
security for every American.
Not only does this resolution reflect a very different set of
priorities from the majority of Americans, we are yet again wasting
millions in taxpayer dollars, just like the $3 million wasted in
defending the indefensible and unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act
and billions of dollars wasted by shutting down the government to try
to take away Americans' health care benefits.
It is unconscionable that when this do-nothing Republican Congress
finally decided to do something, it is suing the President for doing
his job when they refuse to do theirs. I wish I could say that this was
politics at its worst, but I have heard too many in the Republican
majority raise the specter of impeachment not to know better.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this time- and taxpayer money-
wasting resolution and urge Republicans in the majority to join
Democrats and address the serious challenges facing our Nation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the
House.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I also
want to thank the whole House for its work to address the American
peoples' concerns about jobs and our economy. All told, we have sent
the Senate now more than 40 jobs bills, almost all of them in a
bipartisan way.
From the first day of this Congress, I have said our focus would be
on jobs, and it has been, but also on that first day, you may recall
that I addressed the House about the importance of our oath of office.
I noted that it is the same oath we all take, that it makes no mention
of party, it makes no mention of faction or agenda. The oath only
refers to the Constitution and our obligation to defend it.
Mr. Speaker, I said that with moments like this in mind. I said that
knowing there would be times when we would have to do things we didn't
come here to do, we didn't plan to do, and things that require us to
consider interests greater than our own interests.
I have to think this is why, on several occasions, members of the
minority party have taken a similar step. In 2011, some of them filed
litigation against the Vice President. They took similar steps in 2006,
2002, 2001, and so forth.
Because this isn't about Republicans and Democrats--it is about
defending the Constitution that we swore an oath to uphold and acting
decisively when it may be compromised.
No Member of this body needs to be reminded of what the Constitution
states about the President's obligation to faithfully execute the laws
of our Nation. No Member needs to be reminded of the bonds of trust
that have been frayed, of the damage that has already been done to our
economy and to our people.
Are you willing to let any President choose what laws to execute and
what laws to change? Are you willing to let anyone tear apart what our
Founders have built? Think not only about the specifics of the oath you
took, but think about how you took it: as one body, standing together.
That is all I am asking you to do today, to act as one institution
defending the Constitution on behalf of the people that we serve.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Well, Republicans today are choosing lawsuits over
legislating. They are choosing to sue the President rather than
pursuing legislation to support American families.
There is no shortage of legislation awaiting action: immigration
reform, a bipartisan Senate bill held up by the Speaker who has just
spoken; unemployment insurance, a bipartisan Senate bill has never
gotten a vote in this House held up by this Speaker; the employment
nondiscrimination bill, the Senate bill not brought up here and held up
by the Speaker; paycheck fairness, not brought up; a minimum wage bill,
not brought up; Ex-Im, caught in controversy within the Republican
conference; a highway bill, another patch, the inability of House
Republicans to face up to the need for a long-term highway bill; and a
voting rights reform bill sponsored by a senior Republican, held up by
the Speaker of this House and the conference of the Republicans.
The Republicans in this House are suing the President because they
conjure up that the President did not adopt what Republicans argue is
the correct implementation of a law they have tried 50 times to
destroy. It is the House Republicans who should be sued, if that were
possible, for their abdication of their responsibilities to the people
of this Nation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, my favorite piece of art in
this Capitol is a picture in the rotunda
[[Page 13671]]
of our Founding Fathers gathered together to sign the Declaration of
Independence, a document that they knew, when they signed it, they were
signing their own death warrant if they were caught and tried for
treason. They felt that strongly that they wanted to escape the bonds
of a monarch and pursue freedom.
Our forefathers fought a Revolution against the greatest military
power on Earth to escape the bonds of a monarchy. At the end of that
bloody Revolution, the last thing they wanted was another king. They
wanted freedom.
To protect that precious freedom, they designed a government of, by,
and for the people based on a separation of powers. The legislative
branch makes the laws; the executive branch enforces laws.
President Obama has decided that he is not bound by the separation of
powers. He has bragged that if Congress will not accept his priorities,
he has a pen and a phone, and he will make the laws himself.
He may have a pen, but the people have the Constitution left us by
our forefathers. Our forefathers recognized that one man who can both
make the laws and enforce the laws is a king, not a President. Thomas
Jefferson once said that freedom does not disappear all at once, but is
eroded imperceptibly day by day.
The prosperity of our great country sprang from our freedom. Our form
of government set forth in the Constitution by our forefathers has
protected that very fragile freedom for 200 years.
Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle worry about the price of a
lawsuit to protect our freedom. Our forefathers paid dearly for that
freedom. Many gave all they had, even their lives.
Our freedom is in peril, my friends. We cannot stand by and watch the
President shred our Constitution. I stand in support of H. Res. 676.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The
constitutional question raised by this measure is whether the House has
standing to sue the President over what is, in essence, a policy
difference. ``Standing'' is a constitutionally-defined status and
requires that the plaintiff, among other things, demonstrate a legally
recognizable injury. In the case of a suit between branches of
government, the House would also have to show that there is no other
remedy.
On both of these counts, this lawsuit fails. The House cannot speak
for the Senate, which doesn't agree with its position, and therefore
cannot represent the legislative branch. Even if it could, neither body
has suffered a recognizable injury merely because some Members of the
Congress do not like how the President has interpreted a law passed by
a different Congress.
Moreover, this Congress has a remedy if it doesn't like the way that
the President has implemented the Affordable Care Act: it can change
the law. That would be a far better approach, one more consistent with
our separation of powers than this expensive and ill-conceived lawsuit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to reject this effort.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker does not have a good record when
it comes to wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits. When the
Justice Department concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act could not
be defended in court, the House wasted $2.3 million trying to defend
the indefensible and lost in the Supreme Court.
Now, the Speaker wants to waste more of the taxpayers' money on a
meritless lawsuit against the President for not ``taking care that the
law be faithfully executed.''
What did the President do? In implementing the Affordable Care Act,
which the Republican-led House has voted to repeal 50 times, he
postponed implementation of one provision by a year, a provision the
Republicans and the House opposed.
Now, they want to waste money to go to court to say the President had
no power to postpone this provision for a year, although no one opposed
President Bush when he postponed implementation of a provision of the
Medicare drug act for a year.
It is well-settled that it is within the discretion of Presidents in
implementing a law to postpone implementation of part of it in order to
get it done right, but this leads to another absurdity of the case.
Let's assume the Republicans get the House to go into court and somehow
overcome the standing question--which they will not. What is the remedy
they will seek?
By the time it got to court, the provision in question will have
already been implemented, so the Republicans want to waste $5 million
or $6 million in taxpayers' money to go into court and say, Judge,
please order the President to implement what he has already
implemented. Totally ridiculous.
So what have we got? We have a Congress that has passed no highway
bill, no minimum wage bill, no unemployment extension bill, no pay
equity for women bill, no action on campaign finance reform, no action
to reduce the burdens of student loans, no action to make sure that
women continue to have access to contraceptive services despite the
Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, no action on all the emergencies
that face the American people, but we are going to waste money and time
on a meritless lawsuit that will go nowhere, but will simply serve the
single function of diverting attention from all the real problems the
House Republicans want to continue to ignore.
This is not a proper use of the taxpayers' money. More wasted money
for political purposes. For shame.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time remains
on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman very much, and I rise to
oppose H. Res. 676, which is seeking an unconstitutional right to sue
the President for doing his duty and following the law.
The underbelly of this resolution would, in essence, put fire in the
hearts and minds of Americans when we find out that this legislation is
to undermine the President and any of his officers and employees from
doing their jobs.
{time} 1745
This is a failed attempt to impeach the President. I am willing to
say that word because the President has been following the law. The law
passed, and it gives him discretion to interpret the Affordable Care
Act to make it best work for the American people. As has been stated,
if you want to change the law, go to the floor of the House. But in
actuality, this resolution smacks against the Constitution which says
there are three equal branches of government. Therefore, the Executive
has the right to perform his duties.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a
veiled attempt for impeachment, and it undermines the law that allows
the President to do his job. It is a historical fact that President
Bush pushed this Nation into a war that had little to do with
apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President
Bush because as an Executive, he had his authority. President Obama has
the authority.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, in
essence, provide the opportunity for us to do valid things for the
American people--improve the minimum wage, paycheck fairness--and stop
undermining the authority as indicated in the Constitution that gives
equal authority to the three branches of government.
We can pass laws. We have the ability to pass laws, and citizens have
the
[[Page 13672]]
right to go into court on their independent standing. The courts have
often said that the Congress has no standing. The House of
Representatives has no independent standing, as evidenced by many cases
that we have already taken to court and determined that Congress has no
standing.
The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements,
derived from the case or controversy provision in article III, and
prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be
modified by Congress.
That dictates on how you gain standing, and I would say the
constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a
personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete, and
particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's
conduct and likely be redressed by the relief requested from the court.
Let me be very clear. We in Congress can make no argument that the
President has injured us. We can make no independent argument of that,
and so I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution and do not accept
a veiled attempt at impeachment when our President is doing his duty
and following the law under the Constitution of the United States of
America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H. Res. 676, providing
for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or
other Executive Branch officials inconsistent with their duties under
the constitution of the United States.
We could be doing some very important legislation to help the
American people from Texas to the tip of Maine, like Comprehensive
Immigration Reform, the Appropriations Border Supplemental,
comprehensive tax reform, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization, or
the Voting Rights Act, yet my Republican colleagues insist on wasting
valuable time.
The Congressional Black Caucus did a Special Order earlier this week
entitled: the GOP's March Towards Impeachment, and that is where we
appear to be headed.
But first let me make a distinction between impeachment and a lawsuit
initiated by the House, qua House of Representatives, via H. Res. 676.
Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
In any impeachment inquiry, the Members of this branch of government
must confront some preliminary questions to determine whether an
impeachment is appropriate in a given situation.
The first of these questions is whether the individual whose conduct
is under scrutiny falls within the category of President, Vice
President, or ``civil Officers of the United States'' such that he is
vulnerable to impeachment.
A preliminary question is whether the conduct involved constitutes
``treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.''
Now Mr. Speaker, whether we get to this point where we are actually
considering impeachment of the President is a question that only the
GOP majority can answer. It appears that we are heading in that
direction--even in the face of doubt from numerous experts as to
whether the effort will succeed or not.
Indeed, it is a matter of historical fact that President Bush pushed
this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending the
terrorists of September 11, 2001; and weapons of mass destruction,
``WMD's'' have yet to be found.
House Democrats refused to impeach President Bush.
Let me state that again: House Democrats refused to impeach President
George W. Bush.
Now I wish to turn to the resolution which the GOP Majority intends
to put before this body in a last-ditch effort to stir their base
before November.
Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger testified before the Rules
Committee two weeks ago and had this to say about the potential
lawsuit:
The House of Representatives lacks authority to bring such
a suit. Because neither the Speaker nor even the House of
Representatives has a legal concrete, particular and personal
stake in the outcome of the proposed lawsuits, federal courts
would have no authority to entertain such actions.
Passage of the proposed resolution does nothing to change
that. If federal judges were to undertake to entertain suits
brought by the legislature against the President or other
federal officers for failing to administer statutes as the
House desires, the result would be an unprecedented
aggrandizement of the political power of the judiciary.
Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected
judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected
branches of government should be rejected.
My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to
force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the
President from exceeding his constitutional authority,
But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of
executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the
President's powers under the Constitution.
The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements,
derived from the case or controversy provision in Article III, and
prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be
modified by Congress.
The constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have
suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete
and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the
defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by the relief requested
from the court.
Constitutional Requirements
To satisfy the constitutional standing requirements in Article III,
the Supreme Court imposes three requirements.
The plaintiff must first allege a personal injury-in-fact, which is
actual or imminent, concrete, and particularized.
Second, the injury must be ``fairly traceable to the defendant's
allegedly unlawful conduct, and'' third, the injury must be ``likely to
be redressed by the requested relief.''
Prudential Requirements
In addition to the constitutional questions posed by the doctrine of
standing, federal courts also follow a well-developed set of prudential
principles that are relevant to a standing inquiry.
Similar to the constitutional requirements, these limits are
``founded in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of
the courts in a democratic society,'' but are judicially created.
Unlike their constitutional counterparts, prudential standing
requirements ``can be modified or abrogated by Congress.''
If separation-of-powers principles require anything, it is that each
branch must respect its constitutional role.
When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a
federal law, the other branches must abide by the decision.
The executive branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply
with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by
Congress pursuant to this bill as my amendment to H.R. 4138, the
ENFORCE ACT made clear.
And Mr. Speaker, a basic respect for separation of powers should
inform any discussion of a lawsuit from both a constitutional
standpoint and a purely pragmatic one.
In our constitutional democracy, taking care that the laws are
executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion.
And it is a well-settled principle that our Constitution imposes
restrictions on Congress' legislative authority, so that the faithful
execution of the laws may present occasions where the President
declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law, or delays such
enforcement, because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law
of the land.
This resolution, like the bill we considered in the Judiciary
Committee on which I serve and before this body, the H.R. 4138, The
ENFORCE Act, has problems with standing, separation of powers, and
allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due
process.
The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit
seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to
faithfully execute the law.
These are critical problems. First, Congress is unlikely to be able
to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, which the Supreme
Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally
injured by the challenged conduct.
In the wide array of circumstances incident and related to the
Affordable Care Act in which the resolution would authorize a House of
Congress to sue the president, that House would not have suffered any
personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing
requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any
legislator's votes.
Second, the resolution violates separation of powers principles by
inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left
to the other branches to be decided.
And Mr. Speaker, I thought the Supreme Court had put this notion to
rest as far back as Baker v. Carr, a case that hails from 1962. Baker
stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate
political questions--and that it is impossible to decide such
[[Page 13673]]
questions without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job.
Third, the resolution makes one House of Congress a general
enforcement body able to direct the entire field of administrative
action by bringing cases whenever such House deems a President's action
to constitute a policy, of non-enforcement.
This bill attempts to use the notion of separation of powers to
justify an unprecedented effort to ensure that the laws are enforced by
the President--and I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in
some time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to deliberate before we are at a
bridge too far.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the
gentlewoman from New York for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a waste of time and money. We are
sent to Congress to make progress on behalf of the people of this
Nation, yet House Republicans spend all of their time and energy
fighting this President. Why?
The Republicans need to jump off the bandwagon of political attacks
and come together to jump-start the economy. While Americans were
unemployed, they did nothing to put them back to work. When people were
losing their homes, they did little to protect them from foreclosure.
While hunger and poverty are on the rise in this country, they have
hardly mentioned the disappearing middle class.
From his first day in office, Republicans in the House, in this
House, have never supported this President. Every olive branch he has
extended was broken.
But today, Mr. Speaker, they have reached a low, a very low point.
This resolution to sue the President just goes a little too far. It is
a shame and a disgrace that we are here debating the suing of the
President. The American people deserve better. We can do better. We can
do much better.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. LEWIS. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to have the raw
courage--nothing but courage--to oppose this insulting and offensive
resolution. It has no place on this floor. Let us get back to the work
that we were elected to do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members to speak
within the time yielded to those Members.
The gentlewoman from New York has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. With the gentlewoman having 5\1/2\ minutes left, I will
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time.
I find it interesting that this is all about President Obama engaging
in an executive overreach. Look at the statistics. During President
Obama's first term and comparing him to prior Presidents, President
Bush issued 173 executive orders, President Clinton 200, President
Reagan 213, and President Obama only 147. And during this part of
President Obama's second term, he has thus far issued only 36 executive
orders, while President Bush, during his second term, issued 116;
Clinton, 164; and Reagan, 168. So I ask you, based on the statistics,
is that overreach? No, it is underreach. It is underreach.
Mitch McConnell said upon President Obama's inauguration the job was
to see that this man wasn't reelected. Now the job seems to be to see
that the attack on the President can be such that the Republicans take
the Senate and hopefully set the stage for 2016 of the Presidency. This
unquestionably is impeachment lite. It is an attempt to put the
President in a situation in a lawsuit that, if successful, which I find
hard to believe, would be the foundation for impeachment.
This President has done nothing that is impeachable, nothing that
merits this type of action, nothing that merits this type of
disrespect. He should be respected as our President and supported, and
we should work to create jobs, pass an infrastructure bill, pass a
minimum wage bill, and extend unemployment insurance.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member
of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me the
time.
There are plenty of places in the Affordable Care Act where it is
full of drafting errors and stuff that, quite frankly, just wasn't
quite ready for prime time, but, Mr. Speaker, there is no ambiguity
over this issue.
When the President delayed the institution of the employer mandate on
July 2, 2013, it couldn't have been clearer. Let me give you an
example. The effective date for the individual mandate as written in
law, and this is for the individual mandate:
The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable
years ending after December 31, 2013.
Pretty clear. ``Shall apply.'' Seems straightforward.
The effective date for the employer mandate, section 1514 of the law,
effective date:
The amendments made by this section shall apply to months
beginning after December 31, 2013.
It really does seem straightforward. There is no ambiguity there. I
would just ask the question: Is there a list of laws that must be
followed and those that may or may not be followed depending upon
whatever the will of the President is that day?
I would remind my colleagues the words of Abraham Lincoln:
The best way to end a bad law is to enforce it strictly.
We should do the same.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, we in this body are called upon to represent the wishes
of the American people. The last national election, President Obama was
reelected by the American people by an overwhelming majority. What we
find today are the people who opposed his reelection, the people who
for years now have been wishing upon him failure, are attempting to do
with this lawsuit what they could not do at the polling places.
Rather than address the problems of the American people, repair our
crumbling infrastructure, getting affordability for our young people to
attend colleges and universities and other postsecondary education,
here we are trying to find a way to discover some peg upon which to
hang an impeachment resolution. That is what this is all about.
I would hope that we would hurry up and return dignity to this body
and stop these charades that are inflaming the American people in a way
that they are undeserving of.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentlewoman
that I have no additional speakers except myself to close, so I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield
myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are about to bring to a close this sorry spectacle of
legislative malpractice. It really saddens me to think that we have
arrived at this point in this legislative year when we are about to go
home for 5 weeks of legislative work in the district when we should be
here on the floor taking care of the very many issues that people have
talked about all day.
But most importantly, this lawsuit goes against everything that the
majority has been working for for the last 4 years. They have tried
over 50 times, spending $79 million, to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
And no one, frankly, listening to this is now going to believe
[[Page 13674]]
that there is this great change of heart and they are so broken up that
it wasn't implemented in time and by the book that you are going to try
to sue the President of the United States. I don't think even to kids
watching Sesame Street that would make any sense. In fact, the
strongest arguments about it really come from the majority's own party.
It is sadly a partisan political election year stunt, and it has no
place in this House.
As I said earlier today, when I first came here, the bipartisanship
was so wonderful and strong that the New York delegation, all of us,
stood together on issue after issue. I miss that terribly and long for
it to come back.
In the meantime, I ask my colleagues to vote against this disgraceful
resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, our system of government is in a bad place when one
branch of government is compelled to sue another branch of government
for failing to play its proper constitutional role. We shouldn't be in
that situation, but we are. The President should have fulfilled his
oath to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress and signed
by this President. Unfortunately, this lawsuit is necessary because the
President has not implemented the law as passed and chose to pick and
choose how he would have the law affect the American citizens.
This resolution will help guarantee that the legislation passed by
Congress and signed by the President is faithfully executed according
to the rule of law and not according to the whim of one person, that
being the President of the United States. Also, no President should be
allowed to pick and choose which laws matter and which ones do not.
It is unfortunate that some Members of Congress believe this body
should be irrelevant. It is unfortunate that they believe any President
should be able to enforce the law or not enforce the law as that
President chooses.
The American people elect their Member of Congress. They live under
the laws that are written. They make their plans and follow through
based upon what the laws are, and they live under these rules of law,
and they need to be able to count on them. When Members of Congress
believe the laws that we pass no longer matter, they are also saying
that the beliefs of the American people do not matter.
{time} 1800
When we allow the President to singlehandedly determine what the law
is, the Constitution, our separation of powers, and the American people
become irrelevant. That is why the President's system of unilateral
governance cannot stand. It must be stopped. Even if it takes a lawsuit
to do so, that is what we think the Federal judiciary is there to do:
to resolve differences based upon the law. If the President's goal was
to goad the House into defending the Constitution and the role of the
government, he certainly had succeeded when he said: Why not just sue
me?
Our Constitution must be defended and the role of the American people
in the lawmaking process must be understood and guaranteed. This
resolution is an important step in doing that.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I submit an exchange of letters between
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Candice Miller, and
myself regarding the Committee on House Administration's jurisdictional
interests in this resolution as well as Chairman Miller's desire to
waive House Administration's consideration of H. Res. 676. These
letters were also included in House Report 113- 561, which was filed on
July 28, 2014.
July 24, 2014.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Chairman, The Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sessions: On July 24, 2014, the Committee on
Rules ordered reported H. Res. 676, a resolution providing
for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the
President or other executive branch officials inconsistent
with their duties under the Constitution of the United
States. As you know, the Committee on House Administration
was granted an additional referral upon the bill's
introduction pursuant to the Committee's jurisdiction under
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives over the
allowance and expenses of administrative officers of the
House.
Because of your willingness to consult with my committee
regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill
by the Committee on House Administration. By agreeing to
waive its consideration of the bill, the Committee on House
Administration does not waive its jurisdiction over H. Res.
676.
I request that you include this letter and your response as
part of your committee's report on the bill and the
Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation
on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Candice S. Miller,
Chairman, Committee on
House Administration.
____
July 24, 2014.
Hon. Candice S. Miller,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for your letter regarding
H. Res. 676, resolution providing for authority to initiate
litigation for actions by the President or other executive
branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the
Constitution of the United States, which the Committee on
Rules ordered reported on July 24, 2014.
I acknowledge your committee's jurisdictional interest in
this legislation and appreciate your cooperation in moving
the bill to the House floor expeditiously. I agree that your
decision to forego further action on the bill will not
prejudice the Committee on House Administration with respect
to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar
legislation.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response in
the Committee's report on the bill and the Congressional
Record when the House considers the legislation.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today on the House Floor,
the Republican leadership is taking a dangerous and unprecedented
action by bringing up H. Res 676, a bill to move forward with a lawsuit
against President Barack Obama.
Beyond a doubt, the move to sue the President is yet another example
of the failed leadership of the Republican Party. If the Republicans
had acted on critical issues to move our country forward instead of
wasting time and taxpayer money by taking over 50 senseless votes to
repeal the Affordable Care Act or shutting down the Federal government,
the President would not have needed to use Executive authority in the
first place.
With fewer than 150 bills enacted into law to date, the 113th
Congress is on course to be the least productive in our nation's
history. Undeniably, this Republican led Congress is the worst, and
least productive, in our nation's history.
Instead of spending time passing partisan bills that attack working
Americans, weaken environmental protections and retreat on education
and job training opportunities, this Congress should be working to
create jobs and strengthen the middle class, not wasting taxpayer
dollars on yet another political stunt.
Congress should instead be focusing on the issues that matter:
creating jobs, fixing our broken immigration system, restoring
unemployment insurance for 3 million Americans, and raising the minimum
wage to help workers and their families to have access to
opportunities. Along with my Democratic colleagues, I strongly urge
House Republicans to work with Democrats to help create jobs and
opportunities for the American people, not engage in political tricks.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
unprecedented Republican plan to sue the President of the United
States.
At a time when Congress should be focusing on strengthening the
middle class and expanding opportunities for all Americans, our
Republican colleagues in the House accuse the President of
unconstitutionally abusing his executive power by delaying the
requirement in the Affordable Care Act that larger companies provide
health insurance to their employees.
At a time when student debt exceeds credit card debt in our country,
when mothers are the primary breadwinner yet receive unequal pay, and
when job creation is stagnating, our Republican colleagues have
proposed a baseless, shameful lawsuit that further erodes the public's
confidence in the United States Congress and a functioning American
democracy.
The lawsuit is fundamentally flawed in several ways:
[[Page 13675]]
First, Republicans argue that the President acted outside of his
authority with respect to implementing the ACA.
Claims that the President is ignoring the law are unmerited. Records
show that the President is using the same flexibility that presidents
of both parties have long utilized to phase in new programs and
policies and ensure that statutes are implemented in workable, sensible
ways, minimizing disruption to individuals, families and businesses.
Everything we do in Congress bears the mark of humanity. No law is
perfect and occasionally, presidents must make reasonable, short-term
accommodations to reality.
Second, the courts are not the appropriate place to work out
political disagreements between one half of one House of Congress and
the Administration.
The Affordable Care Act was passed by the House and the Senate and
signed into law by the President. I understand that many House
Republicans hate the law; they've made that abundantly clear in the
more than 50 times they have voted to repeal it.
After unsuccessfully attempting to repeal the law through regular
order, House Republicans, grasping at straws, have opted to give away
the mighty powers of the legislative branch to the judicial branch. If
Congress starts relying on judges to check executive power, instead of
the tools the Constitution grants us, this body will transfer enormous
authority to the judicial branch.
And to add insult to injury, the entire cost of this political
misadventure will be paid for by the taxpayers.
Repeated attempts to maintain regular order regarding cost
transparency have been rebuffed.
Ranking Member Slaughter of the Rules Committee sent a letter to
Chairman Sessions, asking for a cost estimate of the lawsuit. No useful
information has been provided.
Ranking Member Brady of the House Administration Committee sent a
letter to Speaker Boehner asking for regular order and transparency
with the use of taxpayer money. No useful information has been
provided.
Amendment after amendment was offered by the Minority Members of the
Rules Committee to provide transparency to the expenditures which would
come out of legislative branch funds. All were voted down on party
lines.
This lawsuit is further proof of House Republicans' contempt and
disregard for the priorities of the American people--an effort to
pander to the most extreme, rightwing voters at taxpayer expense and
our nation's well-being.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res.
676. This legislation, which authorizes a lawsuit that the Republican
Party plans to bring against President Obama, is a waste of time and a
waste of money.
Congress has two days before the August recess and instead of
bringing up unemployment insurance, the Bring Jobs Home Act, the Fair
Minimum Wage Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Bank on Students
Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,
universal pre-K legislation reauthorization of the America COMPETES
Act, reauthorization of the Export Import Bank reauthorization of the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, legislation addressing global climate
change, legislation to fund the federal government after September 30th
of this year, gun control, comprehensive immigration reform, or any
number of other issues that have stalled in the House since the
Republicans took control in 2010, this is what the Republican majority
has chosen to pass.
The proposed lawsuit has dubious legal standing and no evident merit
at all. Every administration has used the executive authority delegated
to it by the Constitution and by the Congress, in the implementation
and execution of our nation's laws. In fact, Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia said ``The framers of the Constitution emphatically
rejected a system in which Congress and the Executive can pop
immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the
President . . . implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress's
liking.''
I hope that the American people will see this action for what it is--
a stunt--an attempt to placate a radical wing of the Republican Party.
The majority should be embarrassed to use Congressional time for this
rather than for real, pressing issues.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 3.5
million Americans who have lost their unemployment benefits over the
past seven months and the one million Dreamers whose aspirations
continue to be tragically denied and in strong opposition to the
Majority's endless parade of political stunts, now best highlighted by
the present legislation, H. Res. 676, a resolution giving one chamber
of Congress the authority to sue the President.
As the American people's elected representatives, we have a duty to
debate and vote on pressing legislation, such as long-term unemployment
insurance and comprehensive immigration reform.
Instead, the Majority is wasting the American people's time and
precious tax dollars on this political stunt that will inevitably fail.
Any first-year law student would be able to tell the Majority that our
chamber would lack standing before any court under the U.S.
Constitution because there's simply no injury.
Just nine days ago, Judge William Griesbach agreed, dismissing a suit
brought before the Eastern District Court of Wisconsin by Senator Ron
Johnson against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management over its
implementation of the Affordable Care Act because the Senator lacked
standing.
To quote Judge Griesbach, ``Under our constitutional design, in the
absence of a concrete injury to a party that can be redressed by the
courts, disputes between the executive and legislative branches over
the exercise of their respective powers are to be resolved through the
political process, not by decisions issued by federal judges.''
One of our nation's most noted jurists, Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia agrees. He wrote last year in his opinion in United States v.
Windsor, regarding the dangers of resolving a political question before
a court, that the framers of the Constitution unequivocally rejected a
``system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into
court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the President . . .
implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress's liking.''
Our Constitution provides the Executive wide discretion in the
implementation of federal law. In 2006, then-President George W. Bush
extended the deadline and waived penalties for certain seniors who
failed to sign up in time for the new Medicare prescription drug
program.
At that time, or in the following year when control of this chamber
changed hands, neither Democrats nor Republicans contemplated suing
President Bush over his use of executive discretion.
If the Majority is dissatisfied with current federal law, it should
use its authority granted under Article I to amend it.
Otherwise, the Majority should do what every elected official under
our present government has done since 1788--go before the American
people and openly debate the merits of their agenda--which today
includes the unashamed denial of millions of Americans essential
unemployment benefits or the million young persons raise in our country
the opportunity to become Americans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution, as amended.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 201, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 468]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
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
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
[[Page 13676]]
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McAllister
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
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
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
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 (IN)
NAYS--201
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
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
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Garrett
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
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
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
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
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--6
DesJarlais
Foster
Hanabusa
Nunnelee
Pompeo
Sires
{time} 1828
Mr. GUTHRIE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 468 had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
____________________
REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2013
General Leave
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on H.R. 935.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Woodall). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up
the bill (H.R. 935) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify
Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides
in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 935
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 ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.
Section 3(f) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(5) Use of authorized pesticides.--Except as provided in
section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
the Administrator or a State may not require a permit under
such Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable
waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or
use under this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide,
resulting from the application of such pesticide.''.
SEC. 3. DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDES.
Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Discharges of Pesticides.--
``(1) No permit requirement.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the
Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge from
a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide
authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or the residue
of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such
pesticide.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue:
``(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a
pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant
to protecting water quality, if--
``(i) the discharge would not have occurred but for the
violation; or
``(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the
discharge is greater than would have occurred without the
violation.
``(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under
subsection (p).
``(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under
this section:
``(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent.
``(ii) Treatment works effluent.
``(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel, including a discharge resulting from ballasting
operations or vessel biofouling prevention.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms.
Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act of 2013.
The reason we are back here on the floor for this bill today is pure
politics. In the last Congress, this bill then was H.R. 872. It was
introduced on a bipartisan basis, with overwhelming bipartisan support,
and it passed on the suspension calendar with two-thirds of this body
in support of it. In this Congress, H.R. 935--the exact same bill--was
again introduced on a bipartisan basis, with bipartisan support, and it
was voice-voted out of the Transportation and Agriculture Committees.
However, earlier this week, partisanship reared its ugly head, and
Members who were on record as voting in support of this legislation or
in having agreed to it by voice vote were urged to change their votes
from ``yes'' to ``no'' in order for it not to be agreed on by two-
thirds of this body. This is partisanship at its ugliest. The
principles and policy of this legislation have not changed over the
last few years. Instead, the politics of it did.
I introduced H.R. 935 to clarify congressional intent regarding how
the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should be regulated.
It is the
[[Page 13677]]
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act--also know as
FIFRA--and not the Clean Water Act, which has long been the Federal
regulatory statute that governs the sale and use of pesticides in the
United States. In fact, FIFRA regulated pesticide use long before the
enactment of the Clean Water Act. However, more recently, as the result
of a number of lawsuits, the Clean Water Act has been added as a new
and redundant layer of Federal regulation over the use of pesticides.
I will not repeat the history I gave in Monday's debate of how the
EPA came to impose this unnecessary second layer of Federal regulation,
but I think it is important for everyone to realize that this
regulatory burden is impacting not just farmers, but cities, counties,
and homeowners.
Federal and State agencies are expending vital funds to initiate and
maintain Clean Water Act permitting programs governing pesticide
applications, and a wide range of public and private pesticide users
are now facing increased financial and administrative burdens in order
to comply with the new permitting process. This is adding another layer
to an already big and growing pile of unfunded regulatory mandates
being imposed on the regulated community. Despite what some would have
you believe, all of this expense comes with no additional environmental
protection.
The cost of complying with the NPDES permit regulations and the fears
of potential liability are forcing mosquito control and other pest
control programs to reduce operations and redirect resources to comply
with the regulatory requirements. This may be having an adverse effect
on public health. In many States, routine preventative programs have
been reduced due to the NPDES requirements. This most likely impacted
and increased the record-breaking outbreaks of the West Nile virus
around the Nation in 2012. H.R. 935 will enable communities to resume
conducting routine preventative mosquito and other pest control
programs in the future.
H.R. 935 exempts from the NPDES permitting process a discharge to
waters involving the application of a pesticide authorized for sale,
distribution, or use under FIFRA, where the pesticide is used for its
intended purpose and the use is in compliance with pesticide label
requirements. This is appropriate because pesticide registration and
enforcement programs under FIFRA take into account environmental and
human health risks just like the Clean Water Act does.
H.R. 935 was drafted very narrowly with technical assistance from the
United States EPA to return pesticide regulation to where it was before
the court got involved. It leaves FIFRA as the appropriate and adequate
regulating statute. Well over 150 organizations, representing a wide
variety of public and private entities and thousands of stakeholders,
have signed a letter supporting a legislative resolution of this issue.
I will insert the letter in the Record. Just to name a few of these
organizations, they include the American Mosquito Control Association,
the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the
National Water Resources Association, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the National Farmers Union, Farm Family Alliance, the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, and
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.
In addition, I will submit for the Record a letter from the National
Alliance of Forest Owners, who expressed support for H.R. 935. NAFO
represents private forest owners and managers of over 80 million acres
of private forestland in 47 States, supporting 2.4 million jobs.
Finally, I will submit for the Record a letter of support, plus a
rebuttal paper, prepared by the American Mosquito Control Association,
which rebuts the inaccuracies of several statements made by several
Members on the House floor Monday evening.
July 28, 2014.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The undersigned organizations ask for
your vote in support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory
Burdens Act, today. The bill will be on the floor of the
House of Representatives on suspension this evening.
Pesticide users must now comply with the added requirement
that certain pesticide applications--already stringently
regulated under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)--obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or
delegated states. The legislation would clarify that federal
law does not require water permits for FIFRA-compliant
pesticide applications.
The new water permit for pesticides provides virtually no
environmental benefit because all pesticide applications are
already stringently regulated through FIFRA, including
applications to and near water. Compliance requirements under
the permit impose significant resource and liability burdens
on thousands of small businesses, farms, municipalities,
counties, and the state and federal agencies legally
responsible for protecting public health. Most notably, the
permit potentially exposes all pesticide users to citizen law
suits under the CWA.
In the 112th Congress, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act--then, H.R. 872--passed the House of Representatives on
suspension.
Now, in the 113th Congress, the Act has been reintroduced
as H.R. 935. Strong bipartisan support was again demonstrated
by the bill's recent passage out of both the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee
on Agriculture.
Pesticides play a critical role in protecting crops from
destructive pests, controlling mosquitoes and other disease-
carrying pests, and managing invasive weeds that choke our
waterways and shipping lanes, impede power generation, and
damage our forests and recreation areas. We believe that the
water permit for pesticides jeopardizes these protections and
the economy as regulators and businesses expend time and
resources on implementation and compliance all for no
additional environmental benefits. We urge you to vote in
support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
Sincerely,
Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agricultural Alliance of
North Carolina, Agricultural Council of Arkansas,
Agricultural Retailers Association, Alabama Agribusiness
Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, Alabama Farmers
Federation, American Mosquito Control Association, American
Soybean Association, Aquatic Plant Management Society,
Arkansas Forestry Association, Biopesticide Industry
Alliance, California Association of Winegrape Growers, Cape
Cod Cranberry Growers Association, The Cranberry Institute,
CropLife America, Council of Producers & Distributors of
Agrotechnology, Edison Electric Institute, Family Farm
Alliance, Far West Agribusiness Association.
Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Fruit & Vegetable
Association, Georgia Agribusiness Council, Golf Course
Superintendents Association of America, Hawaii Cattlemen's
Council, Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Potato
Commission, Idaho Water Users Association, Illinois Farm
Bureau, Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Kansas
Agribusiness Retailers Association, Louisiana Cotton and
Grain Association, Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Maine
Potato Board, Michigan Agribusiness Association, Minnesota
Agricultural Aircraft Association, Minnesota Pesticide
Information & Education, Minor Crops Farmer Alliance,
Missouri Agribusiness Association, Missouri Farm Bureau
Federation.
Montana Agricultural Business Association, National
Agricultural Aviation Association, National Alliance of
Forest Owners, National Alliance of Independent Crop
Consultants, National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers, National
Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union,
National Pest Management Association, National Potato
Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association,
National Water Resources Association, Nebraska Agri-Business
Association, North Carolina Agricultural Consultants
Association, North Carolina Cotton Producers Association,
North Central Weed Science Society, North Dakota Agricultural
Association, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance.
Northeastern Weed Science Society, Northern Plains Potato
Growers Association, Ohio Professional Applicators for
Responsible Regulation, Oregon Potato Commission, Oregonians
for Food & Shelter, Pesticide Policy Coalition, Plains Cotton
Growers, Inc., Professional Landcare Network, RISE
(Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), South Dakota
Agri-Business Association, South Texas Cotton and Grain
Association, Southern Cotton Growers, Inc., Southern Crop
Production Association, Southern Rolling Plains Cotton
Growers, Southern Weed Science Society, Texas Ag Industries
Association, Texas Vegetation Management Association, United
Fresh Produce Association, U.S. Apple Association, USA Rice
Federation.
[[Page 13678]]
Virginia Agribusiness Council, Virginia Forestry
Association, Washington Friends of Farm & Forests, Washington
State Potato Commission, Weed Science Society of America,
Western Growers Association, Western Plant Health
Association, Western Society of Weed Science, Wild Blueberry
Commission of Maine, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation,
Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, Wisconsin
State Cranberry Growers Association.
____
National Alliance of Forest Owners,
July 30, 2014.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representative, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gibbs: On behalf of the National Alliance of
Forest Owners (NAFO), I write to express NAFO's support for
your bill, H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
NAFO represents private forest owners and managers committed
to promoting economic and environmental benefits of
privately-owned working forests. NAFO membership encompasses
more than 80 million acres of private forestland in 47
states, support 2.4 million U.S. jobs. NAFO seeks to sustain
the ecological, economic and social values of forests and to
assure an abundance of healthy and productive forest
resources.
In many parts of the country, wetland areas form an
integral part of working forests. Congress has recognized in
section 404 of the Clean Water Act that forest management
maintains the wetlands function and has provided a permit
exemption for normal silviculture activities. Judicious use
of herbicides once or twice over 30 years helps ensure a
healthy and vigorous forest stand is regenerated after a
harvest.
Herbicide use must now comply with the added requirement
that certain pesticides obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or
delegated states. This NPDES permit for herbicides provides
virtually no additional environmental benefit because
applications are already stringently regulated by EPA under
the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). The permit must be renewed every five years and
exposes all pesticide users to citizen law suits under the
CWA.
Your legislation would clarify that federal law does not
require water permits for FIFRA-compliant herbicide
applications. We believe this clarification will provide
certainty to forest managers and others who rely on these
products. We appreciate your leadership to pass this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Daniel Sakura,
Vice President for Government Affairs.
____
AMCA,
July 30, 2014.
Dear Member of Congress, I am writing on behalf of the
American Mosquito Control Association (AMCA) to request your
support for H.R. 935, which is of vital importance to the
public health mission of the nation's mosquito control
agencies.
Threats to the public from existing and new and emerging
mosquito-borne diseases persist and have amplified. West Nile
virus (WNv) is now endemic throughout the United States and
annually causes local epidemics and fatalities. Eastern
equine encephalitis (EEE) continues as a significant health
risk, especially to children. Now, a new mosquito-borne
virus, chikungunya virus (CHK), has emerged in the Western
Hemisphere, causing hundreds of thousands of human cases in
the Caribbean and Central America. Recently, locally
transmitted cases of CHK have occurred in Florida, and this
disease now threatens numerous other states as well.
Effective, local mosquito control programs are the best
line of defense against these mosquito-borne diseases. Yet
these programs face challenges, not the least of which is the
financial burden caused by the imposition of permit
requirements under the Clean Water Act National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This NPDES permit
requirement mandates that mosquito control agencies' limited
financial resources be shifted away from actual mosquito
surveillance and control activities to administrative and
compliance monitoring activities.
Mosquito control products are already very well regulated
under FIFRA. NPDES compliance by public health agencies does
not, in fact, add any additional environmental benefit, but
does add unnecessary costs. The impact of those added costs
will be felt by people at most risk to mosquito-borne
diseases.
The solution is the elimination of this duplicative
regulatory burden by supporting and passing H.R. 935, the
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. This legislation clarifies
that no additional federal NPDES permits are required when
pesticide applicators are using those products in accordance
with the federal mandates established by the US Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs that are
already specified on the product label.
We respectfully request your support of H.R. 935.
Sincerely,
Steve Mulligan,
AMCA President.
____
AMCA,
July 30, 2014.
On the House floor this week, Representative DeFazio said
that his local mosquito control district applied for their
permit online and has been able to operate just fine before
and after the NPDES permits went into effect. It is our
understanding that Rep. DeFazio does not live in a mosquito
control district.
However, he has contacted the 4 Rivers Vector Control
District in Bend, Oregon to spray his vacation home. 4 Rivers
VCD told him the permit would be a financial burden on their
operation and they we were already regulated under FIFRA.
Rep. DeFazio's staff has called the North Morrow Vector
Control and the Baker Valley Vector Control managers in
Oregon who explained the negative impacts the permit was
having on their districts. The managers of those districts
have met with Rep. DeFazio's staff repeatedly in Washington
D.C. over the past several years regarding the burden NPDES
is having on mosquito control and provided written
information (AMCA briefing papers) during those meetings.
It is our understanding that many Oregon Mosquito and
Vector Control Districts have similarly written him about
NPDES impacts on their districts at various times when there
has been a push for legislation.
Rep DeFazio stated on the floor that anyone with a computer
can easily get a NPDES permit online, with no fee, and no
waiting period. This is not an accurate statement in the
State of Oregon and most other states in the country.
Instead, operators seeking to register under the Oregon
permit must take the following steps so that uninterrupted
coverage continues:
Write a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan.
Obtain a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
application form through the mail or in person from a DEQ
regional office, or download the application from the DEQ
website.
Submit the application and maps of the treatment area, by
mail, no less than 45 days before a planned pesticide
application. There is no online application system.
Pay the permit fee is $903, and you must continue to pay an
annual fee.
Failure to pay applicable fees may result in denial of an
application or termination of coverage under this permit.
Submit an Annual Report. This cannot be submitted online,
and there is no acknowledgement from the state that your
Annual Report has been received.
The free, online permit only applies to the EPA's pesticide
general permit that covers discharges in areas where EPA is
the NPDES permitting authority. This only includes four
states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico),
Washington, D.C., all U.S. territories except the Virgin
Islands, most Indian Country lands, and federal facilities in
four additional states (Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and
Washington).
NPDES permits do not reduce the amount of pesticides being
used, or bring about additional water monitoring. Integrated
Mosquito Management strategies used by mosquito control
programs for over a century, new technology, safer products,
and our dedication to a healthy environment is what reduces
adverse effects to Waters of the U.S.
The California NPDES permit is the strictest in the nation
requiring post-treatment water testing, but after the initial
samples showed that mosquito control did not adversely affect
water quality, that provision of the California permit has
been eliminated.
Our pesticides are vigorously tested by the Environmental
Protection Agency to be used over, near, and in water without
causing adverse affects to the environment. When used
according to the label, the EPA has built in a significant
margin of safety.
Pesticides are detected in many of our nation's waters, but
the technology used today can detect pesticides at miniscule
amounts; this does not mean that pesticides are present at
levels toxic to people, aquatic plants or animals.
Why would environmental groups want pesticide applicators
regulated under the CWA? Because it leaves municipal mosquito
control programs vulnerable to lawsuits where fines may
exceed $35,000/day. Under FIFRA they would need to
demonstrate that the pesticides caused harm or were
misapplied; because our pesticides are specific to mosquitoes
and used in low doses by qualified applicators that would be
extremely difficult. However, under the CWA, all they have to
prove is a paperwork violation.
Communities without established Mosquito Control Districts
are being deprived of the economic and health benefits of
mosquito control. Historically, a local contractor could be
hired to provide spraying services with the understanding
that if he/she follows the FIFRA label he/she will be in
compliance with the law.
Now, these local applicators must apply for a NPDES permit,
create a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan, publish a
Notice of Intent to apply pesticides, and wait for approval
from the State or EPA. In most states
[[Page 13679]]
the permits are not free. The steep fines under the Clean
Water Act and the cumbersome administrative process have
caused local applicators to discontinue mosquito control
services.
Mr. GIBBS. This is a good bill that reduces burdensome regulations
without rolling back any environmental safeguards.
Don't just ask the environmental community about what it takes to
comply with the current duplicative Clean Water Act regulation of
pesticides. Ask your farmers and your mosquito control agencies in your
cities and your counties. Then look at your States' Web sites to see
what it takes to apply for the NPDES permit for pesticide applications.
We did that. It costs over $200 in my State of Ohio, and in Oregon, it
is over $900. That does not count the time of an applicant to complete
the process or the time of a regulator to evaluate the application--all
to regulate again something that is already adequately regulated under
FIFRA.
I urge all Members to support this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 935.
In the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership moved similar
legislation under the guise that, unless Congress acted, the process
for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome that it would grind to
a halt an array of agricultural and public health-related activities.
Now, some may say that this may be a bit of hyperbole to describe the
impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide general
permit. However, if you were to compare the concern expressed before
the Agency's draft permit went into effect with the almost nonexistent
level of concern expressed after almost 3 years of implementation, you
would likely question why we are here this evening debating this bill.
Contrary to the rhetoric, the EPA and the States have successfully
drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit, a PGP, for the
last 2\1/2\ years that adopted several commonsense precautionary
measures to limit the contamination of local waters by pesticides. They
do so in a way that allows pesticide applicators to meet their vital
public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a cost-
effective manner.
This sky has not fallen. Farmers and forestry operators have had two
successful growing seasons, and public health officials successfully
addressed multiple threats of mosquito-borne illness while, at the same
time, complying with the sensible requirements of both the Clean Water
Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA.
I say ``sensible'' because, as we should clearly understand, the
intended focus of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA are very different.
FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of pesticides
on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects on human
health and the environment through uniform labels indicating approved
uses and restrictions. Very sensible. However, the Clean Water Act is
focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the Nation's
waters, with a primary focus on the protection of local water quality--
two very distinct purposes.
It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved
pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirements is a surrogate
for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with
FIFRA is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its
label. Farmers do not need to look to the localized impact of the
pesticide on local water quality.
So why are groups, ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation
to CropLife America, so adamantly opposed to this regulation?
Let's explore that.
One plausible answer is that these groups do not want to come out of
the regulatory shadows that have allowed unknown individuals to
discharge unknown pesticides, in unknown quantities, with unknown
mixtures, and at unknown locations.
I wonder how the American public would react to the fact that, for
decades, pesticide sprayers could apply massive amounts of potentially
harmful materials almost completely below the radar.
In fact, prior to the issuance of the pesticide general permit, the
only hard evidence on pesticide usage in this country came from a
voluntary sampling of the types and amounts of pesticides that were
purchased from the commercial dealers of pesticides. No comprehensive
information was available or required on the quantities, types, or
locations of pesticides applied in this country.
Based on that practice, I guess we should not be surprised that, for
decades, pesticides have been detected in the majority of our Nation's
surface and groundwater, which leads me to question how eliminating any
reporting requirement on the use of pesticides is protective of human
health and the environment. All this would do is make it harder to
locate the sources of pesticide contamination in our Nation's rivers,
lakes, and streams, and it would make the accountability for these
discharges even more difficult. If this legislation were to pass, we
would require more disclosure of those who manufacture pesticides than
those who actually release these dangerous chemicals into the real
world.
During the debate this past Monday, several speakers questioned the
environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the
application of pesticides. However, many of these benefits are so
obvious that it is not surprising they may have otherwise gone
overlooked.
First, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide
applicators to minimize pesticide discharges through the use of
pesticide management measures, such as integrated pest management. I
find it very difficult to argue that using an appropriate amount of
pesticides for certain applications would be a problem.
Second, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide
applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents that result
from spraying.
{time} 1845
I would think that monitoring for large fish or wildlife kills would
actually be a mutually agreed-upon benefit.
Also, it is the Clean Water Act and not FIFRA that requires pesticide
applicators to keep records on where and how many pesticides are being
applied throughout the Nation. Again, if data is showing that a local
water body is contaminated by pesticides, I would think the public
would want to quickly identify the likely sources of pesticide that is
causing the impairment.
Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware that, despite
repeated requests to both EPA and the States, of any specific example
where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a
pesticide applicator from performing their services.
So despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act has not
significantly increased the compliance costs to States or individual
pesticide sprayers, nor has it been used as a tool by outside groups or
the EPA to ban the use of pesticides.
So let me summarize just a few points.
One, the Clean Water Act does provide a valuable service in ensuring
that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the
appropriate times and that pesticides are not having an adverse impact
on human health or the environment.
Number two, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit
has imposed no impediment on the ability of pesticide applicators to
provide their valuable service to both agricultural and public health
communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically
covered by the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by
filing of an electronic notice of intent.
Three, Federal and State data make clear that application of
pesticides in compliance with FIFRA alone, as was the case for many
years, was insufficient to protect water bodies throughout the Nation
from being contaminated by pesticides. So, if we care
[[Page 13680]]
about water quality, more needed to be done.
I can see no legitimate reason why we would want to allow any user of
potentially harmful chemicals to return to the regulatory shadows that
existed prior to the issuance of Clean Water Act pesticide general
permits. It has caused no known regulatory, administrative, or
significant financial burden, and it has been implemented seamlessly
across country. As was stated during the debate on Monday, this
legislation is seeking to address a pretend problem that simply does
not exist.
I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Well, as a farmer, I take a little bit of offense to some of the
remarks that we are applying pesticides in the shadows.
Pesticides cost money and, as farmers, we do not control what we get
for our products, our commodities. We are raising corn and soybeans. We
are at the mercy of the commodities market, so we have to do everything
we can do on the cost side. And we certainly aren't going to waste a
valuable input cost: pesticide, herbicide, and insecticide. So that is
just an erroneous statement. That is just not true. Farmers of today
are professionals, high capital cost operations, and it just makes no
sense that we would waste those inputs.
On the issue about finding pesticide residues in water bodies, there
is an issue that we call legacy issue, meaning that there was
pesticides used many years ago that didn't break down in the
environment, weren't biodegradable, and there is essentially a bank of
residue left, and you get those legacy issues. The pesticides we are
using today are much safer. The industry, the technology has improved
drastically, and a lot of these pesticides, if not all, are more
biodegradable.
Also, keep in mind, under FIFRA, the EPA approves the label. That is
the approval of the process and the application and the amount that can
be used. In most States, if not all States, most of these pesticides
are being applied, have to be applied by certified applicators, and
they are licensed. So they are filling out some paperwork and have to
do due diligence.
This bill really does add a lot of duplication, because we went to a
couple of States, and if you are applying a pesticide near a water body
or a wetland--and that is open for definition how close that may be--
you have to go online and apply for the permit. In some States, you
have to apply for, you have to submit a management plan. You have to
list where you are going to be applying the pesticide, the location.
So, basically, let's take this down to a homeowner level. A homeowner
maybe wants to spray their yard for dandelions. If they are maybe
reasonably close to a water body, or maybe not--that is open for
discussion--they have to go online and, like I said, in Oregon, they
have got to apply for a permit and submit a management plan and pay
over a $900 fee. In my State of Ohio, it is over $200.
I think that is a little bizarre, as long as they are applying it to
the label under EPA approval.
So let's also talk about mosquito control districts. We had a huge
outbreak of West Nile virus in 2012. That was a big mosquito year. I
guess last year wasn't as much. This year, the debate is going to be
out on that.
But we were hearing evidence that, because of the permitting
requirements, that some of our mosquito control districts--and the
American Mosquito Control Association actually surveyed their members.
Some of them were actually kind of holding back and doing the
preventative programs.
I know of one large metropolitan area in the southern part of this
country that had to declare an emergency. And the irony of this, when
they declare an emergency, they don't have to get any permits. It was
so bad, they had to do aerial spraying, so that was putting the
environment even at more risk. When you go from land application up to
aerial, you can imagine the possible results that could happen of
contamination--and with no permit requirement.
So we do have evidence, there was some talk on Monday night in this
debate that the one gentleman on the other side of the aisle was
talking about: My mosquito control district, there is no issue--no
issue, no problem.
Well, we talked to his mosquito control district and it is a problem,
and they have been talking to them for the last several years that this
is a problem.
I would also contend, I did some research, checked around with some
of our local spraying outfits, the grain elevators that do spraying.
They don't know about this new rule yet because the EPA, in a lot of
States, hasn't notified, they haven't implemented it. I think maybe
because they know there is legislation hanging out there. So a lot of
our entities don't know about it yet. Some of the larger, obviously,
mosquito control districts and larger operations might know.
But the reason, when you talk about it has been nearly 3 years, which
is more like 2 years, and there hasn't been a problem as we might think
there should be a problem is because a lot of them aren't doing the
NPDES permits because they are not aware of that fact yet.
So at some point, if we don't fix this, the hammer is going to come
down and you are going to hear about it from farmers, mosquito control
districts, and individual homeowners.
So I just want to make that clear that this bill is duplicative, and
they are under a lot of regulation, and the EPA approves the label. If
you are not applying a pesticide under the label requirements, then you
have got a problem.
But we don't need to open this up to farmers and landowners and
mosquito control districts to lawsuits and other problems. So what this
is really boiling down to today is, now I am starting to see this is a
revenue stream into the EPA for these outrageous costs of the NPDES
programs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 935, the Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act, which will relieve farmers, foresters, and
other pesticide applicators from a potentially costly regulatory burden
that would do little, if anything, to protect the environment. The
legislation simply makes clear congressional intent by amending both
the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to prohibit permits for pesticide application
when pesticides are applied consistent with FIFRA.
This legislation is necessary following a 2006 decision by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned an EPA rule which specifically
exempted permitting of certain pesticide applications under the Clean
Water Act. The Court's decision preempts FIFRA by the Clean Water Act
for the first time in the history of either statute.
Clean Water Act permitting requirements place a significant burden
and responsibilities on the States and the EPA. These National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits do not reduce the amount
of pesticides being used or bring about additional water monitoring.
I know many of my colleagues share my concern about the regulations
coming from the EPA, and frankly, the last thing we need to do, we need
the EPA to do, or the lawyers or the judges who don't understand
agriculture, is to have them tell farmers how to farm or add another
meaningless paperwork exercise to their workload. The courts are not
the place to make agriculture policy, and this legislation takes a step
to address that.
Additionally, this bill is identical to legislation passed by the
House last Congress with broad and strong bipartisan support. So I urge
my colleagues to show that same support today.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 18\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
[[Page 13681]]
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control
that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
This legislation was the product of collaborative work done by two
House committees, along with technical assistance from the Obama
administration's Environmental Protection Agency. This is the way
legislation should be handled, and I am proud of our efforts in the
House.
To refresh our memories, this problem stems from an uninformed court
decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision
invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting pesticides regulations that
are in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act from having to also comply with a costly and
duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.
I want to be clear, our pesticides are vigorously tested by the EPA
to be used over, near, and in water without causing adverse effects to
the environment. When used according to the label, the EPA has built in
a significant margin of safety. Communities without established
mosquito control districts are being deprived of the economic and
health benefits of mosquito control.
Historically, a local contractor could be hired to provide spraying
services with the understanding that, if they followed the FIFRA label,
they would be in compliance with the law. Now these local applicators
must apply for an NPDES permit, create a Pesticide Discharge Management
Plan, publish a notice of intent to apply pesticides, and wait for
approval from the State or EPA. In most States, the permits are not
free. The steep fines under the Clean Water Act and the cumbersome
administrative process have caused local applicators to discontinue
mosquito control services.
The effort to have these same products today doubly regulated through
the Clean Water Act permitting process is unnecessary, costly, and,
ultimately, undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of
regulatory compliance costs for a variety of public agencies and
doubles their legal jeopardy. Think about that--doubles their legal
jeopardy.
I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Crawford) for debate purposes.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and
I certainly appreciate the chairman of the Subcommittee on Waterways
for his leadership.
I rise today in support of H.R. 935.
Mr. Speaker, the last thing we need in agriculture right now is more
regulation. Pesticides are and have been an integral part of insuring
that our Nation continues to produce the world's most abundant, safe,
and affordable food supply. As it stands today, pesticides already go
through a minimum of 125 safety tests before being registered for use.
On top of that, they are subject to strict labeling and usage
requirements, as the Agriculture Committee chairman alluded to in his
remarks.
Passage of H.R. 935 will clarify congressional intent that Clean
Water Act permits are not required for lawful pesticide applications
and protect pesticide users from abusive lawsuits.
{time} 1900
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 935, which prevents wasteful and duplicative regulations that
could ultimately expand the EPA's reach further into every part of our
country.
Federal law already requires the EPA to ensure that pesticides cause
``no unreasonable adverse effect'' to humans or the environment. Labels
attached to pesticides that are related to its use are crafted to
minimize such impacts. The label, in effect, is the law today. When a
person does not follow the label, regardless of additional permits,
they are violating the law.
Yet activists believe requiring water permits, even when a user
abides by the pesticide label, will somehow strengthen our water
quality. States continue to spend more and more money and man hours
implementing and enforcing a water permit process that most regulators
do not believe does anything to further protect the water quality. That
is why H.R. 935 is so important.
This bill removes a pointless paperwork exercise and burden through
NPDES permits that do nothing but create additional hurdles between
consumers and the benefits of products like pesticides provide.
Registration and labeling of a pesticide already does as much as any
additional NPDES permit would require. In fact, EPA's own analysis
suggests that the NPDES permits program for pesticides is the single
greatest expansion in the program's history, covering over 5.5 million
pesticide applications per year by 365,000 applicators.
If H.R. 935 is not implemented, the effects of the EPA's
overregulation would be felt across the State of Georgia. For example,
county officials will have one more hurdle to overcome when trying to
control the mosquito population and the outbreak of West Nile virus.
These counties are forced to address an additional bureaucratic hurdle
before they are able to address a serious health threat to our
citizens, a hurdle that provides no additional benefits.
With this unprecedented expansion, all stakeholders are affected,
including State agencies, cities, counties, municipalities, research
scientists, forest managers--and every American will pay for this. Last
Congress, we passed this same legislation, 292-130, and I ask Congress
to, again, do the same thing.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clear up a couple of points
here.
For the record, 45 States actually manage their own pesticide
programs. So it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government or
the EPA.
In fact, contrary to what we have heard here tonight, Mr. Speaker,
small applicators are already covered. They don't need to do anything.
They are covered already under the permitting process.
And then just to be clear, in fact, in the management of those 45
States--a State like Idaho, for example, currently has 122 active
permits, and there has been no charge for that permit. It is free from
the Federal Government. And that is true for actually a number of
States.
Now, we have heard about the dramatic effect that the regulations
would have. But, in fact, for almost 3 years now, there has been no
drama. The process has worked well. And confusing the FIFRA process and
the purposes of the Clean Water Act, I think in some ways, is what
brings us here today. As I said earlier, they are very distinct. And,
in fact, just because we need to cover applying pesticides and
controlling the way that those are applied and the application doesn't
absolve us of a responsibility also to make certain that our water
bodies are clean.
There is another myth, actually, that has been put forward here that
we have heard. And that is that maintaining the Clean Water Act would
subject pesticide applicators to litigation and increase citizen suits.
In fact, this is false. If a pesticide applicator abides by the terms
of the Clean Water Act, the pesticide general permit--which applies in
accordance with the FIFRA label and minimizes the use of the pesticide
and conducts routine monitoring of acute impacts--they are, by the
terms of the Clean Water Act, immune from lawsuits by any party.
Another myth that we have just heard here is that the permitting
process, Mr. Speaker, the FIFRA requirements and the Clean Water Act,
are duplicative. As I have said earlier, FIFRA addresses the safety and
effectiveness
[[Page 13682]]
on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse impacts on human
health and the environment through uniform labeling requirements. In
contrast, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining
the integrity of local water bodies, with direct considerations on the
potential impact of additional pollutants to specific waters. So
measuring the human health and environment with uniform labeling and
protecting the waters are two separate purposes.
Another myth that we have heard here is that most of the pesticides
that are contained in the existing studies are legacy pesticides that
are no longer used domestically. There is no evidence of pesticide
contamination by currently used pesticides. This is absolutely false.
Although the U.S. Geological Survey did publish a report in 2006 that
documented how pesticides were detected in every stream tested by the
USGS, including pesticides such as DDT and chlordane that were
previously banned as recently as 2014, the USGS has published several
research studies showing how more recently developed pesticides and
insecticides are being detected as widespread in streams in high corn
and soybean regions of the United States.
So we have heard a lot of mythology here, but it is important for
Congress to deal in reality. So I just wanted to clear those things for
the record.
And I would inquire of the gentleman if he has additional requests
for time because I am prepared to close.
Mr. LUCAS. I do, indeed, have one further request, and then I will
yield back to my friend from Ohio, who will close.
Ms. EDWARDS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. This evening, we
are, once again, considering H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act. Many of you will remember that the House voted in support of this
legislation 3 years ago. That bill, H.R. 872, passed the House floor on
suspension with a vote of 292-130.
This same language was included in the 2012 farm bill that was
reported out of the Agricultural Committee, as well as the 2013 farm
bill, which the House sent to the farm bill conference. It was included
in the committee-reported text of the fiscal year 2012 Interior and
Environment Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, due to the opposition
from a couple of our friends in the Senate, we have been unable to get
this bill to the President's desk, which we know, once done, will
guarantee his signature.
As many of you may recall, this language was drafted at our request
for technical assistance by the EPA general counsel. The problem we
asked the EPA to help resolve stems from an uninformed court decision
in the Sixth Circuit. This decision nullified a 2006 EPA regulation
that exempted certain pesticides from having to comply with a costly
and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.
My colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, gave a very nice speech.
And she mentioned several times the potential problem of contaminating
creeks, the potential problems of this pesticide causing all of these
problems that we haven't seen. We don't have the facts on that, and to
regulate something that is already regulated--and I must caution
everybody how these drugs and how these pesticides come out. They go
through extensive testing. Millions of dollars are spent by these
industries. And the intent by those pressing to have federally
registered pesticides regulated through the Clean Water Act is
unnecessary, it is costly, and it ultimately undermines public health.
It amounts to a duplication of compliance costs for a variety of public
agencies, adding to their legal jeopardy and threatening pesticide
applicators, including mosquito control districts, with fines set at
$37,500 per day per violation. All I can say is, welcome to going out
of business if you are in the private sector.
Across the country, several mosquito control districts may have to
cease operations due to these costs. If this occurs, it would expose
large portions of the population to mosquitoes carrying a number of
dangerous and exotic diseases, such as West Nile virus. Hospitalization
and rehab costs ranging from the tens of thousands into the millions of
dollars, lost productivity, a decrease in tourism, and negative impacts
on horses and livestock production are but a few of the costs that will
further strain public health resources.
Being a veterinarian for the last 30 years, I have seen effects of
mosquito-borne diseases. In addition, the West Nile virus causes
deaths, from alligators to humans. Also, diseases such as Eastern
encephalitis are transmittable to people, along with dengue fever,
which is moving its way up from the Caribbean through the peninsula of
Florida, and it will, no doubt, get up further to the mainland of the
United States of America, in addition to the heartworm disease in our
pets.
This unnecessary mandate applies not only to local and State
interests but also to Federal agency lands located in States directly
regulated by the EPA. For example, Federal agencies, such as the Army
Corps of Engineers, authorize the use of some of their lands for many
purposes, including recreation and agriculture. These uses often
require pesticide applications to prevent mosquito-borne transmitted
diseases and for other purposes.
Although the local mosquito control district may be the entity
actually applying the pesticide, the Army Corps District is required to
obtain the permit and sign off on related reports, thereby pointlessly
driving up costs to the Federal Government. We have agencies suing
government agencies.
Further, experience has shown that the Corps is unwilling to assume
permit responsibility for activities that it is not actually
performing. This is a regulatory burden that Congress never intended,
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a
letter from 144 environmental organizations, community-based
organizations around the country that oppose H. Res. 935.
Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Toxics, CATA--The Farmworker
Support Committee, Center for Biological Diversity,
Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Species
Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida,
Greenpeace, Louisiana Environmental Action Network,
League of Conservation Voters, Lower Mississippi
Riverkeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides,
Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest
Environmental Defense Center, Pesticide Action Network,
San Francisco Baykeeper, Sierra Club, Surfrider
Foundation, Waterkeeper Alliance, Waterkeepers
Carolina,
July 25, 2014.
Re Oppose H.R. 935 (``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of
2013'')
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 935
(``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013''), which would
prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting
water supplies from direct applications of pesticides.
Nearly 150 human health, fishing, environmental, and other
organizations have opposed efforts like H.R. 935 that would
undermine Clean Water Act permitting for direct pesticide
applications to waterways. We attach a list of these groups
for your reference, as well as a one-page fact sheet with
more information on the issue.
Regulating pesticide discharges to waterways under the
Clean Water Act is critical. Despite current regulation under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
pesticides continue to impair our waterways in significant
quantities and have caused real harm to public health and
ecosystems. H.R. 935 would render ineffective the Clean Water
Act pesticide general permit that took effect in 2011
(``pesticide general permit''). This permit is necessary to
protect our waterways, public health, and fish and wildlife.
There have been mischaracterizations of the existing permit
that we must correct:
The pesticide general permit has no significant effect on
farming practices. The permit in no way affects land
applications of pesticides for the purpose of controlling
pests. Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater
runoff will not require permits, even when they contain
pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the Clean
Water Act remain.
[[Page 13683]]
The pesticide general permit allows for spraying to combat
vector-borne diseases such as the West Nile virus. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency, the permit ``provides
that pesticide applications are covered automatically under
the permit and may be performed immediately for any declared
emergency pest situations.''
The pesticide general permit--which has been in place for
more than two and a half years now--simply lays out
commonsense practices for applying pesticides directly to
waters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of the
Clean Water Act. Efforts to block this permit are highly
controversial, as evidenced by the attached list of groups
opposed.
Please protect the health of your state's citizens and all
Americans by opposing H.R. 935.
Sincerely,
Marty Hayden, Vice President, Policy & Legislation,
Earthjustice; Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director,
Natural Resources Defense Council; Sara Chieffo,
Legislative Director, League of Conservation Voters;
Dalal Aboulhosn, Senior Washington Representative,
Sierra Club; Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety &
Environmental Health Project Coordinator, Farmworker
Association of Florida; Nelson Carrasquillo, Executive
Director, CATA--The Farmworker Support Committee; Mary
Beth Beetham, Director of Legislative Affairs,
Defenders of Wildlife; Jay Feldman, Executive Director,
Beyond Pesticides; Brett Hartl, Endangered Species
Policy Director, Center for Biological Diversity; Nina
Bell, Executive Director, Northwest Environmental
Advocates; Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace.
Pete Nichols, National Director, Waterkeeper Alliance;
Heather Ward, Executive Director, Waterkeepers,
Carolina; Mark Riskedahl, Executive Director, Northwest
Environmental Defense Center; Tara Thornton, Program
Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Marylee Orr,
Executive Director, Louisiana Environmental Action
Network; Paul Orr, Riverkeeper, Lower Mississippi
Riverkeeper; Jason Flanders, Program Director, San
Francisco Baykeeper; Kristin S. Schafer, Policy
Director, Pesticide Action Network; Lisa Arkin,
Executive Director, Beyond Toxics; Gus Gates, Oregon
Policy Manager, Surfrider Foundation; Kim Leval,
Executive Director, Northwest Center for Alternatives
to Pesticides.
____
Who Opposes Efforts To Undermine Clean Water Act Permitting for Direct
Pesticide Applications?
The below organizations have signed letters opposing
legislation that guts Clean Water Act safeguards protecting
communities from toxic pesticides:
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Altamaha Riverkeeper and
Altamaha Coastkeeper, Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Apalachicola
Riverkeeper, Assateague Coastkeeper/Assateague Coastal Trust,
American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Audubon
California, Better Urban Green Strategies, Beyond Pesticides,
Big Black Foot Riverkeeper, Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper, Black
Warrior Riverkeeper, Blackwater Nottoway Riverkeeper Program,
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, Butte Environmental Council,
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Californians for
Pesticide Reform, California Sportfishing Protection
Alliance, Cape Fear River Watch, Cascobay Baykeeper, Catawba
Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc., Center for Biological
Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Center on Race,
Poverty & the Environment, Charleston Waterkeeper,
Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper, Clean Water Action, Clean Water
Network, Coast Action Group, Colorado Riverkeeper, Cook
Inletkeeper, Inc., Defenders of Wildlife, Detroit
Riverkeeper, Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club, The Earth
Cause Organization, Earthjustice, Emerald Coastkeeper,
Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America,
Environment California, Environmental Protection Information
Center, Environmental Advocates, Flint Riverkeeper, Food &
Water Watch, Forestland Dwellers, French Broad Riverkeeper,
Friends of the Earth, Friends of Five Creeks, Friends of
Gualala River, Friends of the Petaluma River, Galveston
Baykeeper, Geos Institute, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Grand
Riverkeeper, Grand Traverse Baykeeper, Gunpowder Riverkeeper,
Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc., Haw Riverkeeper/Haw River
Assembly, Housatonic River Initiative, Hurricane Creekkepper/
Friends of Hurricane Creek, Hudson Riverkeeper, Humboldt
Baykeeper, Idaho Conservation League, Indian Riverkeeper,
Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Kansas Riverkeeper, Klamath Forest
Alliance, Klamath Riverkeeper, Lake George Waterkeeper, Lake
Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, Lawyers for Clean Water, League of
Conservation Voters, Long Island Soundkeeper, Louisiana
Bayoukeeper, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Lower
Mississippi Riverkeeper, Lower Neuse Riverkeeper, Lower
Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Madrone Audubon Society, Milwaukee
Riverkeeper, Mothers of Marin Against the Spray, Narragansett
Baykeeper, National Audubon Society, National Environmental
Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Neuse
Riverkeeper Foundation, New York/New Jersey Baykeeper,
Northcoast Environmental Center, Northern California River
Watch, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Northwest
Center for Alternatives for Pesticides, Ogeechee Riverkeeper,
Orange County Coastkeeper, Oregon Wild, Oregon Toxics
Alliance, Ouachita Riverkeeper, Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper, Patuxent
Riverkeeper, Peconic Baykeeper, Pesticide Action Network,
Pesticide-Free Sacramento, Pesticide-Free Zone, Pesticide
Watch, Planning and Conservation League, Potomac Riverkeeper,
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Puget
Soundkeeper Alliance, Quad Cities Riverkeeper, Raritan
Riverkeeper, Riverkeeper, Rogue Riverkeeper, Russian River
Watershed Protection Committee, Russian Riverkeeper,
Sacramento Audubon Society, Inc., Safe Alternatives for Our
Forest Environment, Safety Without Added Toxins, Saint John's
Organic Farm, Saint Louis Confluence Riverkeeper, San Diego
Coastkeeper, San Francisco Baykeeper, San Francisco League of
Conservation Voters, San Francisco Tomorrow, Santa Monica
Baykeeper, Santee Riverkeeper, Satilla Riverkeeper, Save Our
Wild Salmon Coalition, Savannah Riverkeeper, Shenandoah
Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, Silver Valley Waterkeeper, Spokane
Riverkeeper, St. Johns Riverkeeper, Stop the Spray East Bay,
Tennessee Riverkeeper, The Bay Institute, Toxics Action
Center, Tualatin Riverkeepers, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, Upper
Watauga Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance, West/Rhode
Riverkeeper, Western Nebraska Resources Council, Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Yadkin Riverkeeper.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I think it is important for us to deal in facts and not in
mythology. And a couple of the facts are these:
In 2008, States reported to the EPA--that is, State reporting
agencies--that 16,819 miles of rivers and streams, 1,766 square miles
of bays and estuaries, and 260,342 acres of lakes are impaired or
threatened by pesticides. So it is simply not the fact, Mr. Speaker,
that there is no identified pesticide contamination in our water
bodies. It is simply not true.
I just want to note also for the record, Mr. Speaker, that, again,
there has been no evidence at all that, again, despite the repeated
request of the EPA and State-run permit programs, that there are
specific examples where the application of the Clean Water Act
requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing
their services. So if there was a problem and a burden, then identify
it. And there simply has been no identification of such a problem.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to review our recent history. Just on
Monday of this past week, the House of Representatives actually
defeated the bill that we are considering tonight, H.R. 935, under
suspension of the rules. So having gone through that defeat, tonight we
have debated the merits again of that same piece of legislation under a
rule that does not allow any amendments to improve the bill to be
offered, debated, or voted on. Tomorrow, the House will, once again,
vote on passage of H.R. 935, the bill that failed under a suspension of
the rules on Monday.
This legislation will undermine one of our Nation's most successful
environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, in limiting the potential
contamination of our Nation's waters by pesticides.
Contrary to some of the rhetoric--some of which we have heard
tonight, Mr. Speaker--the Environmental Protection Agency has
successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit for
the last 2\1/2\ years.
{time} 1915
That regulation has several commonsense precautionary measures that
limit contamination of local waters by pesticides--we have heard from
the States even since 2008 that pesticide contamination in thousands of
miles of streams, rivers, and estuaries are in fact contaminated by
pesticide--while it would allow pesticide applicators to meet their
vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a
cost-effective manner.
Now, last Congress, Mr. Speaker, the House narrowly approved a
similar bill,
[[Page 13684]]
H.R. 872, under suspension of the rules by a vote of 292-130, under the
guise of regulatory uncertainty under a yet-unseen Clean Water Act
permit program.
However, since that time, the EPA has issued a reasonable and
protective Clean Water Act permit program that preserves vital farming,
forestry, and mosquito control activities at the same time as
protecting our Nation's waters. So a year passed, and we have
implemented a program that is underway now.
Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act is a key to those of us who value
clean drinking water and fishable, swimmable waters or who represent
States that depend on tourism, like my home State of Maryland, since we
have the fourth longest coastline in the continental United States, the
Chesapeake Bay--which is the largest estuary in the United States--and
several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, Patuxent, Potomac,
and Severn Rivers that flow through the Fourth Congressional District.
The shoreline of the Chesapeake and its tidal tributaries stretch for
over 2,000 miles, and thousands of streams, rivers, and acres of
wetlands provide the freshwater that flows into the bay.
Thanks to the Clean Water Act, over the past 40-plus years, billions
of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, and the number
of waters that meet clean water goals nationwide has doubled, with
direct benefits for drinking water, public health, recreation and
wildlife.
The act represents a huge step forward by requiring States to set
clean water standards to protect uses such as swimming, fishing, and
drinking and for the regulation of pollution discharges.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly want to return to a laissez-faire
policy that provided no accountability to who was using what
pesticides, where they were using those pesticides, and in what amounts
and resulted in thousands of miles of streams and lakes being
contaminated by pesticides.
I would urge my colleagues to take the commonsense approach that the
EPA has taken and to, on both sides of the aisle, vote ``no'' on H.R.
935 and to once again vote down legislation that is looking to solve a
problem, Mr. Speaker, that simply does not exist.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time does my side have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deregulate pesticides as
has been suggested by some speakers. Pesticides have been regulated
under FIFRA for decades, and this bill does not change that.
This bill makes it clear that if you are a mosquito control agency, a
farmer, or a citizen that is applying a pesticide and you are complying
with FIFRA, you do not need an NPDES permit.
Now, there are a couple facts that came out here tonight that the
other side said that, without this bill, it is not necessary because
you don't have to get a permit to go out and apply pesticides. Well, if
you are applying near a water body or a wetland, you do have to get an
NPDES permit from the court decision.
This was not an EPA decision. This was a court decision that looked
at it in a narrow vision, and it was a very ill-advised court decision,
and I would say when you look at proposed rules out there about waters
in the United States, it is up to debate what is near or close to a
water body, so that is a fact that we would have that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to share a personal experience. Several years
ago, my soybean crop--it was a Friday, late Friday afternoon, working
with my certified pesticide applicator, we discovered that my soybean
crop had just been attacked by spider mites, an insect, and we had to
make application, insecticide application, to take care of it.
That application was made on a Friday night. If I had to apply for an
NPDES permit, fill out the form, put in the management plan, submit it
to the State, it comes back--I don't know if we would have got it until
Tuesday. I would have lost--the damage to my soybean crop would have
been substantial.
So the issue out here that there is no cost happening, there will
when this thing gets fully implemented because, in practice, this court
decision has not been fully implemented in practice across the country,
but that will be coming if we fail to enact H.R. 935.
This bill removes the needless and duplicative regulation that
threatens public health and imposes an expensive burden on public and
private entities trying to safely approve pesticides.
This is a bipartisan bill. It has passed out of this House last
Congress by a two-thirds majority. We had partisan antics going on
Monday night. We had people switch their votes under pressure for
partisan reasons, and that is not good government.
This bill will help protect the environment and human safety when you
especially look at West Nile virus and all the other mosquito diseases
we are finding that are coming about.
We have to allow our certified pesticide applicators, our mosquito
control districts to do their job, and if the private sector wants to
go in here and have to do all this extra permitting--we are not
talking--when you hear about general permit, you think, oh, I just get
a permit for the season, and I am good to go.
That is not what the general permit means. What it means is you have
to go every time you do an application, if it is near or close to a
wetland or water body, apply for a permit, put in that permit where the
location is going to be, probably the date.
Well, say it is raining that day or it is too windy. Do you have to
reapply for your permit? That is kind of up in the air still, so there
are a whole bunch of issues out there, plus the costs, the time to do
it, the bureaucracy, the red tape, and the costs.
Mr. Speaker, I think the one that is really bizarre is if you are a
homeowner and you want to apply a pesticide to your yard and if you are
near a water body or a wetland, whatever, you have to apply for a
permit because of this court decision.
This will bog down the NPDES permit process, and it will delay and
add costs, and it puts farmers in jeopardy to get their crops to
maintain and get the yields we need to produce the wholesome food
supply in this country that our agricultural community produces and our
mosquito control districts that protect many of our citizens from West
Nile virus and other mosquito-borne diseases.
So this is critical that these bills pass because we are getting
close to the time when we are going to see very much damage being done.
We saw a little bit of it in 2012, in at least one large metropolitan
area, when they had to spray for mosquitoes aerially when they declared
an emergency when it got so far out of hand because they didn't do the
preventative measures.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to pass this bill, send it to the
Senate, and hopefully, the Senate takes it up and passes it to protect
the environment and health and human safety of the citizens of this
country.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 935.
This debate is not one about the usefulness of pesticide use in
modern society--which, clearly, pesticides have found such a role.
Whether to control nuisance species, such as mosquitoes or aquatic
invasive species, or to assist in the production of reliable
agricultural harvests, pesticides have proven useful in sustaining the
American livelihood.
At the same time, we must remember that modern pesticides can be
highly toxic chemicals that need to be thoroughly studied and used with
great care to limit the potential impacts to human health and the
environment. It was only a few decades ago that we learned the lessons
of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and the devastation to the natural
environment caused by the use of DDT.
Yet, even today, the U.S. Geological Survey has consistently found
the presence of pesticides and pesticide residues in our nation's
[[Page 13685]]
lakes, rivers, and streams, including many that serve as drinking water
sources for local communities. Contrary to statements made on Monday,
these are not simply the legacy contaminants of decades-old pesticides,
but also modern pesticides, such as those linked to bee-colony
collapse.
So, common-sense should dictate that we approach the issue of
pesticide use in or near our rivers, lakes, and streams with great
caution, and with an even greater understanding of the cumulative and
lasting impacts of pesticides on human health and water quality.
Unfortunately, H.R. 935 would abandon any caution related to
pesticide use in or near our nation's waters, and allow potential
polluters to return to the regulatory shadows.
Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 935 argue that the protections of the
Clean Water Act are simply duplicative of the requirements of FIFRA,
and are unnecessary to protect local waters from pesticide
contamination.
These statements are simply not supported by the facts.
As many of my colleagues noted during Monday's debate on this bill,
these two statutes, although complimentary with one another, have
entirely different focuses.
FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of
pesticides on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects
on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating
approved uses and restrictions.
However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining
the integrity of the nation's waters, with a primary focus on the
protection of local water quality.
It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved
pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirement is a surrogate
for protecting local water quality.
Similarly, contrary to statements made during Monday's debate,
FIFRA's risk assessment process for individual pesticides is no
substitute for the Clean Water Act's focus on local water quality.
First, the FIFRA labeling process for a vast majority of pesticides
do not address off-site, non-target, and sub-lethal effects of
pesticide drift that can grow stronger over time.
Second, the EPA risk registration process only considers the effect
of the active ingredients in a pesticide, and does not consider the
synergy of multiple ingredients in a pesticide formulation, or between
multiple pesticides in the environment. Yet, many of the unregulated,
inactive ingredients in pesticides have significant toxic effects in
their own right.
Third, the FIFRA re-registration process is a lengthy and ongoing
process with outstanding and missing health and environmental data
associated with pesticide reviews. As a result, EPA's assessment
process has been routinely criticized as failing to fully assess the
short- and long-term impacts of pesticides on human health,
particularly on children, and on the environment.
Fourth, under FIFRA, EPA does not track pesticide poisonings,
including short-term and long-term adverse effects, as pointed out
recently by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Finally, EPA presumes, under FIFRA, that if a pesticide is applied
according to its label, there will not be any unintentional pesticide
exposure to water--therefore, the risk assessment process does not
evaluate the impact of terrestrial pesticides on water quality, despite
the fact that these pesticides often are detected in waters--presumably
through drift or contaminated runoff.
Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 935 also argue that the costs of
implementing the Clean Water Act permitting requirements have been
excessive. However, I have yet to see one documented case where a
state, a mosquito control district, or a pesticide applicator has
incurred significant increased costs from complying with the Clean
Water Act for pesticide applications.
This administration worked hand-in-hand with these groups to ensure
that implementation of the Clean Water Act was consistent with current
practices, and was not going to be costly or burdensome. If we are
going to have a debate on the merits of this issue, it is incumbent
upon the proponents of H.R. 935 to show proof of any perceived burden--
but as of yet, no such proof has been provided.
As noted by my colleagues on Monday, there is no substantive reason
why this legislation is necessary, other than to limit the scope of
Clean Water Act protections over a source of known pollutants that are
causing water quality impairment in this nation.
There is no evidence of an emergency. There is no evidence of any
significant regulatory burden. And there is no evidence of any
substantial increase in compliance costs.
In my view, the proponents have made no argument why this legislation
is necessary, other than that the groups who want to restore their
regulatory anonymity have asked for it.
We need to ensure that potential sources of water pollution continue
to be brought out of the shadows, which would be accomplished by
defeating H.R. 935.
Mr Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called
``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act,'' which would roll back clean water
protections and allow untracked pesticide pollution in our rivers and
streams.
More than two and a half years ago, the Environmental Protection
Agency put in place basic pesticide protections by requiring a general
permit for the direct application of pesticides into waterways. Nearly
2,000 waterways are already contaminated by pesticides, harming fish
and amphibians and potentially accumulating in people who eat those
fish. The commonsense permit does not affect land applications of
pesticides, maintains existing agricultural exemptions, and allows for
immediate spraying to protect the public from vector-borne diseases.
Today's legislation would roll back the permitting rule, leaving
pesticide application unmonitored and our waterways vulnerable to
contamination. I urge a ``no'' vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 935 is postponed.
____________________
HOUR OF MEETING ON TOMORROW
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF ARKANSAS POLICE OFFICER AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRAINING ACADEMY INSTRUCTOR MARK WILLIAMS
(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, today, I want to honor the life of longtime
Arkansas police officer and Law Enforcement Training Academy
instructor, Mark Williams.
Born and raised in El Dorado, Mark began his law enforcement career
in his hometown with the El Dorado Police Department in 1977, serving
as a patrolman, detective, and sergeant.
Mark also served as a supervisor in the Hope Police Department's
Patrol Division before joining the faculty of the Arkansas Law
Enforcement Training Academy in 1994, where he trained new police
officers until his retirement in 2013.
Mark's commitment to Arkansas didn't end there. He was also a gifted
musician, who served as an Artist in Education, playing his guitar to
entertain and educate children across south Arkansas.
I extend my deepest condolences to Mark's wife, children, and
grandchildren on their loss. May they find comfort in knowing that
Mark's legacy lives on with the thousands of Arkansas police officers
he trained over nearly two decades at the academy and in the countless
children and Arkansans he inspired with his music.
____________________
HONORING THE 138TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE UNITED STATES
COAST GUARD ACADEMY
(Mr. COURTNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 138TH
anniversary of the founding of the Revenue Cutter School of
Instruction, the predecessor of today's Coast Guard Academy, on July
31, 1876.
On that day, the Academy's first training exercise was held aboard
the
[[Page 13686]]
two-masted topsail schooner Dobbin, with a class of nine cadets. The
class boarded the Dobbin in Baltimore, Maryland, for a 2-year training
mission led by Captain John Henriques. Training aboard the ship
emphasized seamanship and navigation, as it still does each summer when
cadets still sail onboard the Coast Guard Barque Eagle.
Today, the Coast Guard Academy, located in New London, Connecticut,
since 1910, is the home to a corps of nearly 1,000 cadets, 200 of whom
graduate each year.
The Coast Guard Academy produces almost half of the service's corps
of commissioned officers and has graduated distinguished leaders such
as Thad Allen, Bob Papp, and the present commandant of the Coast Guard,
Admiral Paul Zukunft, who lead our Coast Guard and serve the Nation.
Today, it is led by the first woman officer to lead a United States
military academy, Admiral Sandra Stosz.
As a cochair of the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus and the
representative of Connecticut's Second District, home to the Coast
Guard Academy, I am honored to recognize its distinguished beginnings
and the longstanding traditions of leadership and excellence which
continue to serve our country.
____________________
MEDICARE'S 49TH BIRTHDAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DeSantis). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I rise today to
celebrate the 49th anniversary of the Medicare bill. The impact of
Medicare on the lives of millions of Americans over the past 49 years
has been extraordinary. As a result of this program, Mr. Speaker,
millions of Americans have lived longer, more productive, and healthier
lives.
I am very fortunate and honored to be able to say that I was one of
the few Members still here who cast a vote for Medicare in 1965.
Earlier that year, I joined with the gentleman from California, Cecil
King, and I introduced, as my very first piece of legislation, a bill
that would have provided health care under Social Security and an
increase of benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I said at that time:
Our senior citizens have far too long been neglected in
this, the most prosperous society on Earth. Many of them,
after leading productive lives prior to their twilight years,
have been so overburdened with medical costs that they have
been denied the rewards that should come with retirement.
I am proud to say that in my nearly five decades since the enactment
of Medicare, the program has accomplished its mission of providing
retirement security for America's seniors and care for those suffering
from disabilities and debilitating diseases; yet Medicare continues to
face threats from some of the same opponents that have opposed its
enactment back in 1965.
They continue to seek to cut Medicare's guaranteed benefits and push
seniors into private plans, which value profits over health outcomes.
{time} 1930
Today we present another path forward, one in which Medicare's
benefits are protected by expanding health care security and insurance
coverage to more Americans, not fewer.
Since 2003, I have introduced H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved
Medicare for All Act, which would create a national publicly funded,
privately delivered single-payer health care system. Studies have shown
that enacting H.R. 676 would save nearly a half trillion dollars by
slashing the administrative waste associated with the private health
care system.
Another $100 billion would be saved by using the purchasing power of
the Federal Government to reduce pharmaceutical prices to the levels
that exist in other industrialized nations.
Lastly, by slowing the growth of health care costs, H.R. 676 would
save $5 trillion over the next decade, thereby ensuring that the
guarantee of affordable public health insurance will be there to be
enjoyed by future generations.
And so for all of these reasons, H.R. 676 is one of my most important
pieces of legislation in my way of thinking, and I am proud that it now
has 60 cosponsors. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Massachusetts
(Ms. Clark) for being the 60th sponsor. But I would be remiss if I did
not reiterate my strong support for President Obama's landmark health
care legislation, the Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act's results speak for themselves. As of this
month, the percentage of uninsured Americans is now the lowest on
record. The Affordable Care Act has protected as many as 129 million
Americans with preexisting conditions from being denied health care
coverage or being charged higher premiums. It has provided free
preventive health care services such as mammograms, birth control, and
immunizations to the 100 million Americans who are on private insurance
or Medicare. Around 60 million Americans have gained expanded mental
health benefits. And since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, almost
8 million seniors have saved nearly $10 billion on prescription drugs
as the health care law closes Medicare's doughnut hole.
But, as with any complex law, implementation can be difficult and
there will be unforeseen issues. Those issues have been seized by some
opponents against expanding health care who hope to eliminate health
insurance for those who cannot afford it. This is unacceptable.
While we must continue to defend the Affordable Care Act, we must
also work to ensure that any future changes to the Affordable Care Act
take us in the direction of the universal health care enjoyed by
virtually all of the citizens of other industrialized countries.
I hope Members of Congress and the American public will join me to
fight for a day when, in the wealthiest country on Earth, no one has to
suffer and die unnecessarily because their health care system
prioritizes corporate profits over their health.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
STUCK IN THE SENATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you being down with me here
tonight. It took me awhile to get my materials over here because the
topic I have tonight is the topic of what this House has been doing to
make a difference in the life of families across this country. That is
the good news. I have to confess, I am here with good news/bad news
tonight.
This is the stack of bills that this House has passed, again, to make
a difference in the lives of families, to makes a difference in small
businesses, to grow the economy, to create jobs, the bills this House
has passed collaboratively that sit collecting dust in the United
States Senate. That is the bad news part of tonight.
It is fair enough if folks think this process is broken. It is fair
enough if folks think there is too much partisanship in Washington, but
what we have here are the successes. What we have here are not the
hypothetical ``if only'' bills. What we have here are the bills that
have actually left this House and sit in the United States Senate. It
is 356 bills, Mr. Speaker, 356 bills that have left this House that sit
collecting dust in the Senate. We did a hashtag, Mr. Speaker:
#StuckInTheSenate. We all remember, ``I am just a bill sitting on
Capitol Hill,'' that Saturday morning cartoon. This is not a
dictatorship. We had that conversation a little bit earlier this
afternoon. It is not a dictatorship. It is a collaborative effort, and
the House has collaborated to pass over 356 bills that have gone to the
Senate to do nothing.
Now, again, it is good news/bad news day. Let me start with something
that is good news, because if folks don't believe there is opportunity
for success, I
[[Page 13687]]
could imagine how folks would give up, not just folks here in this
Chamber, but folks across the country, families across the country.
This, Mr. Speaker, you may remember it, H.R. 803, the Workplace
Innovation and Opportunity Act. This passed the House. It passed the
Senate. It was signed by the President. This has become law. This was a
bill to consolidate a variety of workplace training programs. We talk
so much about a trained workforce, how it is we get Americans who may
be transitioning in their life, are transitioning home from Iraq or
Afghanistan, transitioning from an industry that is in decline to an
industry that is growing, how do we get those folks trained.
I credit Dr. Virginia Foxx with this. She is one of my colleagues
here in the House. I serve with her on the Rules Committee, but she
also serves on the Education and the Workforce Committee. She has been
working to try to consolidate programs, take money from programs that
were not effective and move the money to programs that were effective.
Imagine that. Imagine that. Here she is, a conservative Republican, and
what she was trying to do was take money from places that weren't
working and put it into places where it would make a difference for
moms and dads and kids. And she did it. She did it.
Now, what we passed out of the House was strong, Mr. Speaker. We went
out and we found every single program that was failing in America and
we brought them together and put them into a single pot and sent it
over to the Senate. The Senate said: No, we don't think all of those
programs are failing. We don't want to move that big of a package. We
want to do something smaller. They ended up consolidating about half of
what we consolidated in the House.
But guess what. When you elect Rob Woodall dictator, then I get to
have it my way every day. Until then, this is a collaborative effort
here: the House, the Senate, and the President.
So we worked with the Senate, and we worked out our differences. We
found that package of consolidation that we could all live with, and we
sent it to the President and we got a signature. That is what the
American people expect. That is what my constituents expect. They
expect us to work together to get things done, not sacrificing
principle, not compromising on values, but finding consensus because we
all agree that American workers need help. We all agree that moms and
dads in transition need to find a better way to feed their families.
We can spend tax dollars better. We found a way to do that here. I
call it common sense, Mr. Speaker. It is not supposed to take a rocket
scientist to sort some of these issues out. It is supposed to be common
sense.
Did I mention #StuckInTheSenate, Mr. Speaker? If I didn't, I want to
mention it right now because here is one that really gets me.
We were just talking about hiring more moms and dads. It is called
the Hire More Heroes Act. Do you remember it, Mr. Speaker? We passed it
out of this House with over 400 votes. Now, young high school students,
middle school students, they might not know how many Members there are
in the House. There are 435 Members in this House, and more than 400 of
them said we should pass the Hire More Heroes bill, but it is stuck in
the Senate. Over 400 folks voted ``yes,'' only one voted ``no,'' so I
don't want to hear about bipartisanship in the House. I don't want to
hear about Republican this and Democratic that.
Mr. Speaker, 400-plus folks said let's pass this bill. I will tell
you what it does. The Hire More Heroes Act says one of the highest
rates of unemployment we have in this country are men and women in
uniform coming home from overseas. It says that we have small employers
in this country, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, most of the employment
in this country is not driven by the big guys. It is driven by small
employers. We heard from small employers in this country who said: I
want to hire those veterans, but I am worried about that 50-employee
threshold that throws me into this brand-new round of ObamaCare
regulations.
Guess what this House did, Mr. Speaker. More than 400 out of 435 got
together and they said, if you are a small business owner in America
and you want to put unemployed veterans to work but you don't because
you are worried about some Federal Government regulation dealing with
ObamaCare, we will waive that regulation for you. Hire all of the
veterans you want to, and be not afraid of Federal Government
regulation.
Think about that. Think about that. It is what I think about. It is
why I ran for Congress. It is why my friends on the other side of the
aisle ran for Congress. We came to make a difference--to make a
difference. Who among us doesn't want to see unemployed veterans get a
job? Who among us doesn't want to see small businesses succeed? We came
together, more than 400 of us, to pass the Hire More Heroes Act, but it
is stuck in the Senate.
Why? Why? Over 400 of us, almost every Democrat--we lost one--but
every Republican, almost every one of us voted ``yes'' to make a
difference for small businesses, get them the labor that they need and
make a difference for veterans looking for a job.
That was a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and still is, and it is stuck in
the Senate. It is not stuck because we can't come to agreement on it,
Mr. Speaker. It is not stuck because Republicans are intransigent. It
is stuck because the Senate can't get these bills moving.
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking folks to just come together and do what
I want them to do. What I am talking about are things that we are
celebrating in this institution. I am not talking about things that
squeaked through by the skin of their teeth. I am not talking about
Republican proposals that we jammed through with the might of the
majority. I am talking about commonsense proposals that make a
difference in people's lives.
I will give you another one. How about H.R. 4414, Mr. Speaker? It is
the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014. That doesn't
sound very exciting, does it? And you know what, it is not very
exciting for about 99 percent of Americans. But for Americans who have
to work overseas and who have seen their health insurance policies
canceled, quadrupled in price, folks who have struggled to find
coverage, what this says is, if you don't live in America but you are
working for an American company, really, you can sort out your
insurance needs on your own over there. If you don't live in America,
you don't have to comply with all these needs because--guess what--if
you are doing business in London, the health care system is different
in England.
{time} 1945
If you are doing business in Paris, the health care system is
different in France. If you are doing business in Moscow, the health
care system is different in Russia. The rules we passed here won't work
in those places. It is commonsense.
Had we not jammed that bill through Congress, that Affordable Care
Act, maybe we would have gotten to that, but I don't know. It is a
small group of people.
We passed a solution--let's look--269-150. I dare say those folks who
voted ``no'' wouldn't say they opposed the policy, they would say they
just thought it was a symbol of undermining ObamaCare in some way, they
didn't want to undermine the President. I say nonsense about
undermining the President. I want to make a difference in the lives of
families.
Ninety-two days, Mr. Speaker, 92 days this bill has been sitting in
the Senate.
Now, that is a minor piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that could
make a big impact, but for a small number of people. What about things
that make a big impact for a large number of people? What about those
things?
The REINS Act, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 367, the REINS Act says--and it is a
crazy bill, I will confess--it says before you pass a regulation, you
need to consider the economic impact of that regulation. Now, while
that is commonsense back home in Atlanta, it may seem crazy here in
Washington, D.C.
Before you pass a regulation, weigh the pros and the cons to see if
it is a
[[Page 13688]]
good idea or not, weigh those pros and the cons. It is a REINS Act
because we are just out of control here with regulation and we need to
have a thoughtful conversation about it.
H.R. 1105, the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation
Act. Trying to find ways for our small businesses to get access to the
capital they need in what have been incredibly tight credit markets.
H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act.
Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, we are passing bills--they are all
here, they are all sitting on Harry Reid's desk over in the Senate--
passing bills in an effort to make a difference in people's lives. If
it didn't matter, we wouldn't be interested in doing it. I don't have a
bill in this stack that is about making a political statement. I don't
have a bill in this stack that is about trying to be one up on the
other guy, trying to embarrass somebody, trying to call somebody out.
What I have in this stack--did I mention there are 356 bills in this
stack?--what I have in this stack are bills that could make a
difference to a struggling economy today--today. I say today. These
bills passed a week ago, a month ago, a
year ago or more. They could make a difference. They are
#StuckInTheSenate--356 bills.
I have got the great honor tonight, Mr. Speaker--I am not alone in
this endeavor, haven't been alone in passing 356 bills. It has been a
team sport from day one, team sport from day one--Republicans,
Democrats, folks from the North, folks from the South, folks
representing families from across the country.
Tonight, I have got Mr. Rothfus here, an 18-month Member of this
institution, who came, I wager, not to make a point, but to make a
difference, and has been doing that every day he has been in this
Chamber.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for organizing this
very informative Special Order tonight.
You are right: I came here to make a difference. I came here to be
part of a team that wants to relight America, relight the job market,
relight opportunity, relight the American Dream, because people are
hungry for it. They see this town that is out of control, they look at
this town, and if they visit this town, they marvel at the growth that
is happening in Washington, D.C.
I challenge everybody who visits Washington to count the construction
cranes they see and the explosive growth and the high-end shops that
open here and the concentration of wealth and power in this town. It is
a scandal to the rest of the country. I see these construction cranes
here on Pennsylvania Avenue. I would like to see those construction
cranes back in Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker.
But this is a very important discussion we are having about the
actions that this House is taking to relight the American economy and
how it gets snuffed out in the Senate.
As we have reviewed this evening, Mr. Speaker, the House has
continued to pass legislation that would move our country ahead, grow
our economy, add more jobs, and increase wages and prosperity. Then
there is the brick wall across the other side of the Capitol.
Nowhere is the Senate's inaction more evident than in the budgeting
and appropriations process we have here in Washington, D.C. The Senate
and House have together managed to pass all 12 appropriations bills and
complete the appropriations process on time by September 30 only four
times since 1977. It is shocking.
This House, Mr. Speaker, has been working to correct this problem. I
want to recognize the hard work of the House Appropriations Committee
and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle.
This year, the Appropriations Committee has already passed 11 out of
the 12 appropriations bills out of committee. Seven of those bills have
already passed the House here, most of them with strong bipartisan
majorities.
How many bills, how many appropriations bills has the Senate passed?
Zero. They have yet to pass a single one.
The Senate's failure to do its work is disappointing, but it is not
surprising. That is why I introduced the Congressional Pay for
Performance Act earlier this year.
The bill is simple. The House and Senate must each pass a budget and
all annual appropriations bills by August 1 or have their pay withheld
until the job is done. It applies that fundamental lesson that we learn
in our first job: if you don't do your work, you don't get paid until
you do. That is the lesson that millions of young Americans learned
working their first job this summer. It is the lesson I learned on my
first paper route. I didn't get paid if I didn't deliver the newspaper.
It is past time for Members of Congress to live by that lesson.
Beyond the Senate's failure to execute their constitutionally
prescribed job of appropriations, the House has passed, as you noted,
more than 350 bills, including many jobs bills, that Senator Reid
allows to collect dust in the Senate. Over 98 percent of these bills
have passed with bipartisan support, both Republicans and Democrats.
As of this morning, Mr. Speaker, 195 of these bills passed without
opposition. House Democrats introduced 60 of these bills that now
gather dust in the Senate. Again and again, the Senate refuses to act.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I may have misunderstood what you
said, because what my constituents believe is that it is partisanship
that has shut this down. That it is Republicans fighting with Democrats
and Democrats fighting with Republicans.
We are talking about over 350 bills that are sitting in the Senate
that have passed this House, that we have come together on this House,
you are saying 60 of those were introduced by Democrats?
Mr. ROTHFUS. Sixty of those bills, Mr. Speaker--you look at the stack
of paper that the gentleman from Georgia has with him here today--Mr.
Speaker, 60 of those bills were introduced by Democrats, and yet they
gather dust in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, we passed dozens of energy-related bills
designed to increase production, reduce prices, add family sustaining
jobs, and promote American energy independence. Bills like the Natural
Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, the Energy Consumers Relief Act,
the Northern Route Approval Act, which is going to get the Keystone XL
pipeline going, passed in May of 2013, 241-175. It has been sitting
over in the Senate for 434 days.
We have passed dozens of regulatory reform bills to promote job
growth and keep an out-of-touch and out-of-control Washington, D.C.,
bureaucracy in check. Those like the REINS Act that the gentleman from
Florida mentioned. A very simple bill. If a regulatory agency puts out
a regulation on the economy that is going to cost more than $50 million
to implement, suppressing job growth, bring it back here for an up-or-
down vote. Let's restore the constitutional responsibility for both the
Senate and the House, who have that responsibility for making the law.
Let us take accountability for that. If there is a regulation that
merits approval, we are going to vote for it. It is called being
accountable. But you can't fire these bureaucrats who come up with
these regulations that have a negative impact on our economy.
We have also passed the Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and
Requiring Transparency Act, known as the ALERRT Act. It is an effort to
improve thoughtful consideration of the consequences of regulation.
I offered an amendment to the ALERRT Act. The amendment requires the
capital bureaucrats to acknowledge whether their regulations will have
a negative impact on jobs or wages in a particular industry.
Any such regulation will be subject to additional review to ensure
that the benefits justify the costs to families and communities. The
principle is simple: if Washington bureaucrats are
[[Page 13689]]
going to implement rules that take wages or jobs away from hardworking
Americans, they should take responsibility for and justify their
decisions. It is important that regulators think through the impacts,
costs, and burdens that red tape imposes on families and communities,
and it is time for the Senate to come to the support of those
individuals and those communities and take up the ALERRT Act.
We have passed several tax-related bills to help individuals keep
more of their hard-earned money and to help small businesses add jobs
and increase wages, like the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act and the
Student and Family Tax Simplification Act.
We have also heard stories of people whose hours have been cut
because of the 30-hour work week in the President's health care law.
But the House has acted. That is why we passed the Save American
Workers Act to restore the traditional 40-hour work week and help those
who want the opportunity to work more hours and see their wages go up.
The Senate has to act. Time and again, Mr. Speaker, the House has
acted but the Senate has not.
I really thank the gentleman from Georgia for shining a light on what
is going on at this Capitol, the production that is coming out of this
side of the Capitol and then hits the wall on the other side. It is
time for the Senate to act, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. WOODALL. I would like to ask the gentleman if he would stay just
1 more minute. I see you are down here with three lovely young women
from the next generation of Americans. When they grow up, they are
going to be the leaders of this country.
You mentioned energy in your presentation. I have got to be honest
with you, I didn't come to deal with those big issues that are
sometimes amorphous. I came to deal with the issues that make a
difference in families' lives today, tomorrow, and in the next
generation.
We talk about energy, we talk about streamlining production, we talk
about the Keystone pipeline, but I live in Georgia. We are not drilling
any wells in Georgia. I can't tell much of a difference at the price of
the pump. I don't have that many families who say: This is going to
make a difference in my pocketbook, this is going to make a difference
for a job right here in Atlanta, Georgia. But you come from a different
part of the country.
Can you see the difference that these bills make, not from a
Republican/Democrat partisan perspective, but from a real world
difference, real dollars in families' pockets back home?
Mr. ROTHFUS. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Georgia
notes that western Pennsylvania has a growing energy industry. We are
seeing a tremendous number of jobs coming in, family sustaining jobs.
Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, when somebody gets a job in that field and
they start to get that paycheck--and every American who gets a paycheck
sees this--there is some stuff that is taken out. There is a FICA
charge, a Medicare tax charge, and Federal taxes.
Mr. Speaker, that is how we are paying for Social Security, that is
how we are paying for Medicare. When people pay their income taxes, it
is how we pay for the defense of our country. This is a dangerous
world, Mr. Speaker.
We need to have an economy that is generating the kind of jobs where
people can get back to work and get those salaries and wages so that
when they pay taxes, they are paying for Social Security, Medicare, and
veterans benefits. We have got a boom like you have never seen before,
Mr. Speaker.
The gentleman from Georgia has all these bills there that show the
work that this House is doing, all to help this economy get growing
again.
If you want to be paying for Social Security, if you want to be
paying for Medicare, if you want to be paying for veterans benefits, we
have got to grow this economy at 4 percent, at 5 percent, yes, at 6
percent. So many people, Mr. Speaker, have said, that is not going to
happen, we can't get there. It happened. It happened in the 1980s, it
happened in the 1990s. We can do this. We are a blessed land, Mr.
Speaker, and in western Pennsylvania we see that.
{time} 2000
We are having a big debate right now with respect to the President's
greenhouse gas emissions, and there is testimony being taken across the
country, including in Pittsburgh. We have to use our resources.
Under his plan, in 2008, when the President was running for his seat,
he promises, ``Electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.''
No single person should have the authority to impose a policy on a
country that would cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket.
That is why the REINS Act is so important. That is why Senator Reid has
to move the REINS Act to the floor of the Senate, to have this Congress
have a voice. Our Constitution has an executive branch, a legislative
branch, and a judicial branch. The legislative branch is where those
policy decisions should be made.
Mr. WOODALL. I am looking at the Northern Route Approval Act poster
you have got behind you, and I am looking at the ``days in the Senate''
column. It says it has been 434 days that that bill has been in the
Senate.
You are a new Member in this body. I have only had a voting card for
3 years. I know it is a collaborative process, but as I look at that
434 days in the Senate, does it mean that we have sent over a proposal
to expand energy production to make those family-providing jobs that
you mention and the Senate didn't like our idea, and so they sent us
back a different proposal, and we have dropped the ball? Is that a
possibility?
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is asking
questions about what is happening on the Senate side. They are simply
not acting.
It was 241-175. I think the last time I counted, there are some 234
Republicans in this House. It was 241, so there are Democrats voting
for this bill.
There is almost universal support for Keystone XL. The President
could allow it to go forward. Thousands of jobs are in the waiting--
thousands of jobs where people would be paying Social Security tax and
Medicare tax and increasing the supply of North American energy being
able to be refined in this country, which means American jobs refining
that.
So what is happening over there in the Senate? It is not coming up.
We get phone calls all the time from our constituents, and it is
important that constituents call their Members of Congress, who are
their employees. We are the employees of the American people. The
Senators are the employees of the American people because they pay our
paychecks.
Their hard-earned tax dollars are what fund the paychecks for
Senators and the paychecks for the Members of this House. We are the
employees of the American people.
So we welcome phone calls from our bosses, our employers out there.
They need to be calling their employees in the Senate and saying: Why
aren't you approving the Keystone XL pipeline? We need those jobs. Why
aren't you approving the REINS Act?
We don't think one person should make the decision that would turn
off the lights in this country, turn off the lights at power plants,
turn off the lights in coal mines, turn off the lights in factories
because the prices are going too high.
When the President said that electricity rates will necessarily
skyrocket, if you are opening up a plant and you are looking at that,
that is a cost. If the income doesn't exceed the cost, that factory
isn't going to get built.
So there are folks across the country--entrepreneurs--who want to get
things going. They want to hire people, but then they look at the cost,
and they say: no, we are going to put our money elsewhere.
We need people investing in this country because that is what is
going to cause this country to boom again, and look at some of the tax
bills we passed out of this House, which wait in the Senate--where is
the Keystone XL pipeline? Where is the Northern Route Approval Act
right now?
[[Page 13690]]
I can't answer the question that the gentleman from Georgia asks, but
I think maybe the Senators could answer that question if their bosses--
the people who pay their salaries--would call them.
Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman said it so well. This isn't about one
person. This isn't about one Chamber. This isn't about one part of the
government. We are all in this together. Families in western
Pennsylvania and families in north Georgia are in this together. We
will rise or fall as a Nation together.
I go back to what you said when you first took the well. There are so
many awful stories about Washington, D.C., and the way that we work
together. Some of them are true, and many of them are just lore, but I
believe you said--and my staff handed it to me after you said it--that
about 254 of the 356 bills that are stuck in the Senate passed this
House either unanimously or with more than two-thirds of the Members
voting in favor of them.
I don't know everything about western Pennsylvania, but I know you
don't get elected to Congress there because you are interested in
propounding wild views that make no difference to people. You get
elected there because you care about people and you want to do the
things that matter. You know who the boss is, and it is those folks
back home.
When I think that about this stack of bills, it would be so easy for
people to dismiss it as: well, those are those crazy Republican ideas,
and this is just some sort of political stunt.
How many times have we heard that it is a political stunt? Why are
those guys talking about those bills? It is because of what you said.
Sixty of these bills introduced by Democrats passed this Chamber, and
254 of these bills stuck in the Senate passed with two-thirds of us
coming together--or more--to send them over to the Senate.
We have an obligation to work together. The answer to the question is
that, after 434 days, the Senate hasn't said no. The Senate hasn't
said: we have a better idea, so we will send this back to you. The
Senate didn't say: you are focused on the wrong pathway; let's look at
a different route approval.
The Senate did nothing.
Mr. ROTHFUS. You raise a good point because the way the process is
supposed to work, one side of our Capitol--the House--will pass the
bill or maybe the Senate will pass a bill, and then there might be a
slightly different bill passed out of the other Chamber, and then the
two sides would come together in a conference, and there would be some
negotiating. There is some compromise going on.
Prior to coming to Congress, I had a job of negotiating contracts.
Your client would tell you when you go into that negotiating room:
whatever you do, make sure you get A and B into that contract.
So you know what your marching orders are, but you understand the
other side has come in, and they have been told by their client: make
sure you get C and D in that contract, whatever you do.
The art is that the two of you get together and you negotiate. You go
back and forth. Are you going to get 100 percent? You never do. That is
negotiating. That is life, but here, we passed these bills. We are
waiting to negotiate. They are not even acting.
I go back to the appropriations process, which is fundamentally
broken. Since 1977, you have only four times that the House and the
Senate got this job done by September 30. That is a scandal.
Everybody in this country knows that April 15 is an important date.
You have got to pay your taxes that day. You can't call the IRS and
say: Hey, can I get a continuing resolution on that? Can I have 3
weeks?
The gentleman from Georgia pointed out that I have two of my young
children with me. We know that the Tuesday before Labor Day, school
starts. Am I supposed to able to call the principal and say: hey, we're
not ready? Can I have a continuing resolution on that summer, so we can
have 3 more weeks to get ready?
It shouldn't happen. The spending bills will be passed, whether it is
through a continuing resolution that will extend it until December or
January or February or March. Why can't it get done by September 30? It
is an act of the will.
If the other side of the Congress--the Senate--hasn't passed any,
where can you even begin to have that negotiation between the two
different ideas and what is in those bills? We would love to negotiate
with Senator Reid.
We would love to negotiate. In fact, it has worked. I think you
pointed out the SKILLS Act which, again, the House passed some 16
months ago. It took a while for the Senate to get going. It finally
did. We passed the Water Resources Reform and Development Act last
summer. We finally got it to the Senate and got together. It got done.
We passed a temporary patch for the highway trust fund that we sent
over to the Senate. The Senate had some other ideas, so they are making
some changes, but this is the process that is supposed to work. One
House moves; the other House moves. They are not even moving, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. WOODALL. I think about those seven appropriations bills you
talked about. I want to remember the numbers. We have gotten 12 out of
committee. We passed seven on the floor of the House. We have sent
those over to the Senate.
Again, I don't know if the Senate is going to take our ideas or
reject our ideas or come up with their own ideas, but they have done
none of those things. They haven't taken our ideas, they haven't
rejected our ideas, and they promulgated absolutely no ideas of their
own.
I don't enjoy being down here. This is not #kickthesenate. This is
#StuckInTheSenate. It is not that there is not a way forward. You have
described the way forward. It is not all my way. It is not all your
way. It is not all anyone's way. It is a negotiated pathway forward.
When I ran for Congress, that is what I expected. When my
constituents sent me here, that is what they expected.
Mr. ROTHFUS. It isn't my way or the highway, but if you have one part
of this Congress--the Senate--not even acting, what is the
communication there? It is no way.
We invite the Senate to act. We invite the Senate to come and start
to talk about the Keystone XL pipeline and the thousands of jobs that
are waiting, talk about the REINS Act, talk about the ALERRT Act to
require the bureaucrats in this wealthy and powerful Capitol to take a
look at the regulations that they are putting out and making an
assessment whether those regulations are going to hurt wages or jobs.
I talk to people who are capped at 29\1/2\ hours. They can't get
above 30 hours, Mr. Speaker, so we passed legislation that, again, sits
in the Senate. We need to boom this economy again. That is how you pay
for the critical programs that we have.
We have to use the God-given resources we have in this country--yes,
prudently, smartly, and in a responsible way. There are ways to do
that.
We have made tremendous progress in this country over the last 50
years. I am from Pittsburgh, and they talk about, back in the day, that
you had to bring two shirts to work because, by noon, your shirt would
be dirty.
We are making tremendous progress with the environment. I have
another bill that I am trying to get this House to move, so we can send
it over to the Senate to help that progress continue, called the SENSE
Act, H.R. 3138. Again, I hope to get this House to move it, but we have
to get the Senate to act.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend for focusing on those commonsense
points.
Again, when I open up the newspaper, what I hear is it is about
partisan nonsense and it is about election-year politics. When we are
talking about over 350 bills and we are talking about 60 of those bills
being introduced by Democrats, but passed with Democrat and Republican
support here in the House, when we are talking about 250 of those bills
being passed with more than a two-thirds vote--many of those
unanimously--what it tells me is we are not in the business of trying
to make a point.
[[Page 13691]]
We are in the business of trying to make a difference, and if we had
a willing partner in the Senate, we could absolutely make that
difference.
I yield to my friend from Indiana, a former secretary of State, which
has you in the executive side of things. You actually had to be
responsible for getting things done. I guess that is my frustration
with the Senate.
I just need somebody to stand up and be a partner and take
responsibility for moving a few of these things forward, trying to make
a difference in people's lives.
{time} 2015
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman
for organizing this here tonight.
I think the gentleman is exactly right. We need leadership. Leaders
are supposed to lead. When you look at what the gentleman rightly put
here on the House floor in terms of the stack of work that sits in
Harry Reid's--the Senate majority leader's--in-box, you realize what
leadership isn't, and that is a real problem.
If my constituents, Mr. Speaker, saw that pile in my in-box, I don't
know how much longer I would last. I wonder what the citizens and
voters and taxpayers of Nevada think at this point.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education, I rise today to discuss with my
colleagues the importance of improving education in our country.
This House has done excellent work in that regard. We understand here
in the House--and parents, teachers, and school administrators are all
too aware--that the current state of our education system threatens the
American Dream for the current and future generations of students.
I know that we want to help create a better world and the possibility
of a better life for our young students. Leaving the world in better
shape than we found it is as much a part of our American exceptionalism
as is the freedom we enjoy that allows us to pursue the American Dream.
To our credit, frankly, when American citizens see what is not being
done in the Senate, they can look to the House for some great things
that have been accomplished in terms of righting what is wrong on
education.
Right now, sadly, we are not faring well on the international
education stage. Our children are not reading at grade level, while
math and science performance by U.S. students trails far beyond that of
our counterparts in other developed countries. We are not competing to
win in a 21st century world.
The comical irony of that--if it weren't just so plain sad--would be
that the American education system is failing the students that its
most passionate advocates claim to want to help. Sure, you can argue
that somehow while we aren't universally successful, our best and
brightest rival any in the world, and our leading institutions will
continue to provide the high-quality instruction that will keep us
afloat, but I would say to the gentleman of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, that
the America I know, the America that I believe in--the America that my
constituents and that, I think, Americans across the country believe
in--doesn't include a two-tiered system. We want everyone to have an
equal opportunity. We want everyone to only be limited by the capacity
of their dreams.
At the subcommittee level, in what we call K-12 education and in a
more broad sense on the Education and the Workforce Committee and then
on the floor of the House, we have done some things to right that ship,
as I explained.
One of those bills that passed the House was H.R. 10, the Success and
Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act. This was a bipartisan
bill. It passed on 5-9-14, just this year. The vote tally, Mr. Speaker,
was 360-45. It has been in the Senate for 82 days. 360-45 is a huge
bipartisan victory. It is one of the biggest bipartisan victories we
have had on the floor of the House.
This is a charter school bill. It is school choice. I believe charter
schools--like a majority of the people on the floor of this House
believe--play a critical role in creating educational options for all
children. Charter schools encompass two key principles American
families want from our Nation's education system: choice and
flexibility.
These innovative institutions will empower parents to play a more
active role in their children's educations, open doors for teachers to
pioneer fresh teaching methods, encourage State and local innovation,
and help students escape poor-performing schools.
Why do we want to continue to shackle students to poor-performing
schools and give them no choice and take away that equal opportunity
for them to be successful? This bill, Mr. Speaker, did it. This bill
now sits in Harry Reid's in-box.
Across the Nation, charter schools are leading the way in innovation
and in improving education outcomes. In my home State of Indiana, for
example, the Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School in Indianapolis--
which serves a predominantly low-income and minority student body--
expects every student, no matter his or her background or
circumstances, to have a college acceptance letter upon graduation.
No matter his or her background or circumstances, one has to have a
college acceptance letter upon graduation. The school's rigorous
curriculum and laser focus on preparing students for higher education
has helped 100 percent of its students to date gain acceptance into
college. This bill sits, awaiting action in the Senate. It is not
leadership.
Mr. WOODALL. I would just like to ask my friend because, in serving
on the committee, you have an insight that most of us don't have.
I am looking at those numbers, at 360 Members of this House voting
``yes.'' That is more than you need to pass a constitutional amendment,
for Pete's sakes.
Mr. ROKITA. That is right.
Mr. WOODALL. That is about as close to unanimous as we generally get.
I am looking, and it hasn't been at the Senate for 1 week or 2 weeks.
It has been there for almost 3 months so far.
What have they said? Have they said, We have got a better idea, and
they have sent back an alternative to the committee? What have you
heard?
Mr. ROKITA. I would love at this point--I think we all would--to hear
them say: We have a better idea, we are going to take it up, and we
will show you.
I would take that as progress, sir. This is what we have heard:
silence.
Mr. WOODALL. These are not partisan issues. Education is not a
partisan issue. Children are not partisan issues. We have votes with
360 Members of this body. Again, this is the hyperpartisan House--so
the news tells me--and two bills right there in front of you are making
a difference in people's lives. They could make that difference today,
and yet the Senate does nothing.
I have been preaching the ``Stuck in the Senate'' hashtag message, I
will say to my friend, because I still believe. I told folks when we
started this hour tonight that this is a good news/bad news hour. The
good news is I am sitting on top of a stack of 356 bills that this
House has passed in a bipartisan way, and the bad news is that they are
stuck in the Senate.
I believe that perhaps you and I, as young Congressmen, can't move
the Senate, but I believe the American people still can move the
Senate.
Mr. ROKITA. I think the gentleman is exactly right, if the American
people show the Senate that the American people care as we know they
do. This is still the home of the free. This is still an open republic,
and it is still we, the people, who are in charge. We can make the
change happen if we show the ``leaders'' of this country that we care.
Mr. WOODALL. It is a ``we'' question. I thank my friend. There are
folks who get wrapped up in the partisan issues of the day, and there
are those folks who have committed themselves to finding willing
partners wherever those partners may be.
What I have seen of you in our 3 years of working together is that
you came here to do things that mattered, and whoever you have to
partner with and however late you have to work and
[[Page 13692]]
however early you have to get up--whatever you have to do--if this job
is worth doing, it is because it is making a difference in people's
lives, and I am grateful to you for that.
It may be a Midwestern values night. I have got the gentleman from
Indiana, and I have been joined by a gentleman from Illinois, who has
also been a true champion, Mr. Speaker. You didn't have the great
pleasure of coming in with this big freshman class of 2010, but what
was so neat about it to me was that, in showing up to freshman
orientation, I met these two guys for the very first time, and I met my
new Democratic colleagues for the very first time.
Truthfully, when we talked about why we came here, I couldn't tell
the difference between the two because the American people sent a crowd
of folks here to do the things that mattered, and we have partnered to
do those.
The gentleman from Illinois is one of those great partners, and I
would be happy to yield.
Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you so much. I want to thank my good friend from
Georgia for hosting this hour.
It is so important to talk about what really matters to people--our
constituents, hardworking families--who are just trying to make it
through, to get by, and to have hope for a bright future.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, troubled over a recent email I received
from a constituent of mine. Jessica from Lake in the Hills in Illinois
wrote me with concern about her current economic condition.
She is a single mother with two teenagers, but like many Americans,
she recently lost her job amidst the slow economic recovery. Of course,
she is greatly concerned about providing for her children, now that her
main source of income has dried up.
As Gallup recently confirmed, many Americans like Jessica are having
to spend more on items they have to buy and less on items they choose
to buy. This mandatory spending is squeezing out everything else in
their budgets.
The rising costs of basic necessities, like groceries, gas, and
utilities for middle class families like Jessica's, smothers them as
the cost of day-to-day living goes up and up. At the end of the month,
there is little left over for them to choose to buy something for their
homes, for their families, or for themselves.
This is heartbreaking and frustrating because the House has passed
legislation to lower energy prices, create jobs, improve work-life
balance, and do many other things to help people.
Energy prices are an ever-present concern for Americans who drive
their kids to school, commute to their jobs, cool their homes, run
their manufacturing plants, or harvest their crops.
The House passed Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That
Works Act, and it would do just that, cut prices at the pump by opening
new Federal lands to energy development. The Small Business Capital
Access and Job Preservation Act would grow Main Street jobs by reducing
regulatory burdens on American businesses.
The Working Families Flexibility Act would help workers better manage
their work-life balance. That is especially crucial for families like
Jessica's who are stretched thin between caring for their families and
working just to earn a living.
The House has also acted on behalf of veterans, and I am so proud of
this. When our servicemen and -women return home, the last thing they
should have to worry about is unemployment.
It is our duty in Congress to ensure there are jobs available for our
veterans, but the employer mandate in the President's health care law
has discouraged many small businesses from hiring more workers at a
time when our economy is still struggling to recover.
H.R. 3474, the Hire More Heroes Act, is commonsense legislation that
relieves the employer mandate burden on businesses that want to hire
veterans.
It is just astounding to me that the Senate still refuses to take up
this legislation that would help our veterans. Still, I do have hope. I
have hope that we can work across the aisle to help address the
problems of the middle class.
That is what the American people sent us here to do. Just this month,
the House and Senate passed and the President signed H.R. 803, the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or the SKILLS Act, which
helps reform and modernize our Federal jobs training programs.
By 2022, our country will lack millions of skilled workers with
degrees beyond high school, such as paralegals, welders, radiology
technicians, and police officers. Federally funded job training
programs help Americans of all working ages gain the knowledge and
skills necessary to reenter the workforce, retrain for new jobs, or
increase their value to their current employers.
When far more people in my home State of Illinois have given up
looking for work and have left the workforce than have found new jobs,
our communities need the tools necessary to match available jobs with
available and trained workers.
H.R. 803 will help put local workforce investment boards in the
driver's seat to tailor their services to fill the local jobs of the
21st century. It also streamlines a confusing maze of programs and
ensures the business community's voice is heard, putting businesses
above bureaucrats.
At the same time, it ensures that we have strong accountability over
the use of taxpayer dollars. H.R. 803 is a good example--when regular
order is followed and both sides agree to talk and work out their
differences--that the House can pass important legislation.
We have also passed the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, a bill I
cosponsored, which permanently prevents States and local governments
from taxing Internet services. Taxing the on-ramp to the Internet is
just bad policy.
It hurts lower income families the most and penalizes Americans for
communicating with family or for looking for a job online. Again, this
bill passed with strong bipartisan support.
The Science Committee recently passed the RAMI Act, which will help
the strong manufacturing base we have in Illinois and others across the
country. The bill creates a network of nationwide regional institutes,
each specializing in the production of a unique technology material or
process relevant to advanced manufacturing.
Small- and mid-sized manufacturers can expand their research and
development capabilities and train an advanced manufacturing workforce.
The Senate also introduced a companion bill, and I trust the RAMI Act
will become law soon. When it does come down to it, I truly believe we
can all agree on about 80 percent of the issues facing this Nation.
Building relationships and working on common goals can help us
address the other 20 percent without being divisive.
{time} 2030
But where does this leave middle class families right now? They are
still finding their paychecks don't go as far as they used to go.
Energy prices are still high, and groceries aren't getting any cheaper.
More than 350 bills are stuck in the Senate. Many of those would help
Americans get back on their feet again. We don't need political
posturing. We need real solutions for hardworking individuals and
families. Let's help families like Jessica's and get these bills passed
through the Senate now.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend. It is exactly that commitment to
working together to make a difference that I think folks long for in
this place. And it is exactly what you have there, H.R. 803, the
Workplace Innovation Act. It is true. That is one of our success
stories.
But you first came to the floor to support that in March of 2013. The
reason we are able to call this a success is because the Senate finally
got around to dealing with it in June of 2014--over a year. It could
have been making a difference in people's lives.
I am thrilled that now we are making that difference, but we wasted a
year. And the family that you talked about, a family struggling to try
to decide what tomorrow is going to look like, doesn't have a year to
wait.
[[Page 13693]]
The Internet Tax Freedom bill you discussed just came out of this
body this summer. That is something the Senate could take up
immediately. As you said, it came out of here with wild bipartisan
support. It could begin to make a difference tomorrow--tomorrow.
I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. HULTGREN. I agree with you. And families like Jessica's can't
afford to wait any longer. They want help. They are not looking for
something to be given to them. They are just looking for opportunity.
They are looking for hope, and that is the legislation that we have
passed, any legislation like this that just makes sense.
As I travel around my district, it is in the western suburbs of
Chicago. As I travel around and talk to job creators, small businesses,
entrepreneurs, people who are starting up small businesses or want to
start up small businesses, I ask them over and over again--I would love
for them to hire 20 more people, but I ask: What would it take for you
to hire one more person, just one more person? And over and over again
it is common themes of: deal with the things that are causing us to
struggle. They are convinced they can continue to make a great product,
provide a great service, serve their customers, beat all competition
all throughout the world if they can just have an opportunity, if
government can get out of the way.
Their fear is uncertainty that is coming out of Washington, D.C.,
uncertainty under high taxes, increase of taxes and different things,
so much regulation that is out there, and now the high cost of health
care, uncertainty there as well.
We have taken some commonsense steps, as my good friend from Georgia
has pointed out so well. So many of these votes have been strong,
bipartisan votes, people on both sides of the aisle working together,
cosponsors on both sides of the aisle getting this done, oftentimes
with well over 300 votes, and yet it languishes over in the Senate. 356
bills stuck in the Senate.
It is about time that we get that moving. Families like Jessica's, so
many other families across this Nation want that help, want us to get
out of the way, want the Senate to act, move things forward, and have
that hope and opportunity once again.
I thank my good friend from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend. He is such a great leader. Bringing
voices together is that skill set that sometimes this institution
lacks, and he has it in spades.
As I close tonight, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear, this
isn't a partisan stunt. This isn't Republican machinations. 356 bills
sit in the Senate right now that, if the Senate moved them, could begin
to make a difference in the lives of American families.
I want to tell you about those bills: 98 percent of them passed with
a bipartisan vote. 98 percent of these bills passed with a bipartisan
vote. 254 of these bills passed with either no opposition or two-thirds
support. Almost 200, no opposition at all; 60 introduced by my
Democratic colleagues.
Making a difference for America is not a partisan exercise, Mr.
Speaker, but it is a sacred trust. I am so proud of this House for
moving forward on these bills to make a difference. I know that we can
work together to encourage Harry Reid to do the same. I know our
friends across the country, the bosses of the United States Senate, can
encourage the Senate to do the same.
This country is thirsty for leadership. I am proud of my colleagues
on both sides of the House for providing it. I look forward to
partnering with the Senate and the President to move these bills into
that difference-making position for those families across this country.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK REAUTHORIZATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters) for 30 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today we have Democrats on the Financial
Services Committee here where we have gathered on the House floor to
talk about the Export-Import Bank, which supports hundreds of thousands
of jobs and levels the playing field so that American businesses, large
and small, can compete successfully in the global markets.
Tomorrow, Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership will leave
town for a 5-week congressional recess, and legislation to renew the
Export-Import Bank hasn't even seen a vote in our committee. When we
return in September, there will be just 10 legislative days to renew
the bank before its charter lapses on September 30.
This ideological push to abolish the Ex-Im Bank is an irrational
crusade to destroy an agency that supports hundreds of thousands of
jobs and propels economic recovery without costing taxpayers a dime.
The result could be the end of an institution that, over the past 5
years, has supported 1.2 million private sector American jobs, and over
200,000 jobs last year alone.
Additionally, the Ex-Im Bank reduced our deficit by returning over $1
billion to taxpayers last year alone through interest and fees. Still,
critics of the bank say it is a risk to taxpayers, that it picks
winners and losers, and that it interferes in the free market and,
therefore, creates a less efficient economy. For all of those reasons,
it should be abolished, they say.
But first, let me say, this notion that there is such a thing as pure
free enterprise, that if left to its own devices would flourish with
total efficiency and self-discipline and allocate resources and spread
risk in such a way that accrues to the benefit of everyone in society,
this notion of just pure free enterprise simply doesn't exist.
In fact, I thought one of the lessons we learned from the recent
financial crisis is that markets must be embedded in systems of
governance. The idea that markets are self-correcting, many of us
thought, had received a mortal blow.
Regardless of the outcome, Republicans have already created
uncertainty for thousands of American companies trying to compete
against businesses in China, Korea, and across Europe, all of which
have their own version of the Ex-Im Bank.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter from Mr.
Steve Wilburn, who is the CEO of the green energy company FirmGreen,
who lost $57 million in contracts because of uncertainty surrounding
the future of the Ex-Im Bank.
At this time, and before us sharing this information with you, I
would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, thank you to Ranking Member Congresswoman
Maxine Waters.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Export-Import Bank
and current legislation, H.R. 4950, to reauthorize the bank introduced
by my freshman colleague and fellow Financial Services Committee
member, Congressman Heck from Washington.
The Export-Import Bank has been helping United States businesses of
all sizes sell their products around the world for over 80 years. But
despite the bank's proven track record of creating jobs, helping
American businesses compete globally, and reducing the Federal deficit,
a faction of House Republicans want to close the door of this important
Federal agency forever.
Mr. Speaker, shutting down the Export-Import Bank makes no sense to
me, and it makes no sense to my constituents. In my congressional
district, Ohio's Third, 10 companies, including six small businesses,
have grown because of the Export-Import Bank. These businesses have
been able to expand sales internationally and create jobs locally
because of the Export-Import Bank.
Earlier this month I received a letter from the CEO of Yenkin-
Majestic Paint, a manufacturer in my district. In his letter, he
writes: ``Normally we would not write in context of Washington
crosscurrents about the bank. However, it would be very unfortunate if
the Congress cannot reach a responsible bipartisan reauthorization of
this work to encourage commerce for American-made products abroad and
to help expand U.S. employment from
[[Page 13694]]
sales beyond what is available on the home front.''
Mr. Speaker, this is just one of many letters I have received from
affected constituents.
I have also heard from a young man who works at International Risk
Consultants, a Columbus-based company that provides guidance to small
businesses to export internationally. He writes: ``The Ex-Im Bank
offers trade finance solutions that work for small businesses that
cannot find alternatives in the private market.''
He closes his letter in this way, I think most telling: ``Perhaps the
most devastating effect of not reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank will be
visited upon the many firms that never began exporting but would, if
they were introduced to Ex-Im Bank solutions.''
Mr. Speaker, Congress should not allow an extreme faction of the
Republican Conference to execute an ill-conceived and destructive plan
to close Export-Import Bank. My constituents deserve better. Ohioans
deserve better, and the American people deserve better.
I urge the House Republican leadership to bring H.R. 4950, a bill
with over 200 cosponsors, to the floor so we can keep the Export-Import
Bank operating and, more importantly, keep Americans working.
General Leave
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous material in the Record on the topic of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I will read into the Record a
letter from Steve Wilburn, CEO of the green energy company FirmGreen,
who lost a $57 million contract because of uncertainty surrounding the
future of the Ex-Im Bank. I will read you excerpts from his letter.
Mr. Wilburn attended the Ex-Im Bank panel I organized in April, and
last month we invited him back to be one of our Democratic witnesses at
a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the Ex-Im Bank. He is
among the best witnesses we have ever had at a hearing.
In his letter, Mr. Wilburn explains that FirmGreen's export potential
has been directly affected by the uncertainty of reauthorization of Ex-
Im Bank U.S. and the aggressive financial terms offered by the Korean
Ex-Im Bank.
Attached to his letter is another letter from a company in the
Philippines, Green Energy Solutions, informing him that his business
lost a $57 million contract. The letter begins: ``Dear Mr. Wilburn, in
view of the uncertainty of the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank and
project finance structure you proposed have become problematic. We have
made the decision in May, this year not to proceed with your project
offering.''
{time} 2045
Mr. Wilburn goes on to say: ``In summation, as a combat-decorated
veteran, small business owner, job creator, exporter, and concerned
citizen, I believe we should not unilaterally disarm and abandon the
very governmental agency that allows U.S. manufacturers and other U.S.
exporters to fairly compete on the world's trading stage.''
Mr. Speaker and Members, the main criticism of the bank that I would
like to discuss right now is the assertion that the bank is the
embodiment of corporate welfare, benefiting a handful of large
companies, which they claim represents crony capitalism.
Last April, I held a panel on the Ex-Im Bank which included a number
of small business owners from across the country. They came here to
Washington to discuss their work with the bank and how the bank helped
their companies compete in the global marketplace. Every one of those
panel members were extraordinarily decent people, hardworking business
owners who create jobs and pay taxes and have families and a civic
sense of duty. And this is why I am so offended by this label of
``crony capitalists'' that critics like to attach to users of the bank.
Those of us who know what it is like to live behind a label
understand how they work. Once you are able to put a label on something
or to someone and it sticks, then you could be done with them. And if
enough people can be convinced that customers of the Ex-Im Bank are
crony capitalists, well, there is nothing left to do but get rid of
them.
It is so important to note that while a good amount of the bank's
support goes to large companies, the vast majority of Ex-Im
transactions--nearly 90 percent--help small businesses. In fact, if the
Ex-Im Bank were abolished today, it would affect small- and medium-
sized businesses just as much, or more, as large exporters--perhaps
more, given the distinct challenges and risks small businesses face
when looking to export.
Moreover, large U.S. exporters that benefit from high dollar values
of Ex-Im financing also have large domestic supply chains which
consists largely of small- and medium-sized businesses that benefit
indirectly but in very important ways from Ex-Im support.
At a later time, I will be entering into the Record excerpts from
Brek Manufacturing and Hansen Engineering.
This letter is from Mr. Greg Lay, vice president of Hansen
Engineering. I will read this letter first from Hansen Engineering:
Hansen Engineering company is one of many small businesses
in the South Bay area of Los Angeles, California, that is
dependent on Boeing contracts to support the business. Ninety
percent of our contracts support Boeing aircraft, either
directly or indirectly, through our prime aerospace companies
throughout the world. My company staffs approximately 60
employees who live in the South Bay and surrounding areas and
depend upon the support of Boeing for the well-being of their
families.
Without the reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank, it would be
impossible for us to have a big impact on the health of our
businesses and its employees and their families.
Next we have a letter from Brek Manufacturing:
Brek Manufacturing company is a small business in
California with 170 employees who have a critical interest in
foreign sales of Boeing commercial aircraft. The Export-
Import Bank plays an important role as an intermediary in the
sale of these aircraft.
This letter is to express our support for the Ex-Im Bank,
as it is key to securing additional sales of Boeing
commercial aircraft.
He goes on to say:
Our representatives who support the military should also be
concerned with the Ex-Im Bank because of the role it plays in
supporting jobs and companies like ours, both large and small
across the country.
He further states:
We supply critical aircraft structural components which are
key to successful, safe air transport and air defense. There
are many others like us who represent thousands of high-
skilled and well-paying positions with good benefits.
Please express our support for the Ex-Im Bank to your
colleagues. We are counting on them to do the right thing and
support American manufacturing jobs.
At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Heck) who is a leader with the bill that would reauthorize the Ex-
Im Bank, if we could get the support from the opposite side of the
aisle that we need.
Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the ranking member of the committee
very much.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer four elegant, simple,
straightforward reasons why it is so critically important that the U.S.
Congress reauthorize the Export-Import Bank prior to its expiration on
October 1, and they are simply as follows: the Export-Import Bank
creates jobs; it helps small businesses; it promotes fiscal
responsibility; and it advances economic growth.
With respect to jobs, it has already been cited that in the last 5
years alone, the Export-Import Bank is responsible for the creation of
over a million jobs, 205,000 jobs in just the last year.
But here is what has not been said: export-related jobs in America
pay 13 to 18 percent more than non-export jobs. So it doesn't just
create jobs; it creates good jobs. And it helps small businesses.
Nearly 90 percent of all transactions of the Export-Import Bank are
with small businesses. And to put a fine point on that, last year, it
[[Page 13695]]
was 3,413 small businesses, businesses like Pexco in Fife, Washington,
which makes traffic signs to promote safety during construction. Pexco
recently sold $125,000--a small order by any measure--to the
Netherlands, I think it was. Only one entity would guarantee payment
because no one else could collect across international borders. And
that entity, of course, was the Export-Import Bank.
Stac, another veteran-owned business in Sumner, Washington, with
eight employees, they do exporting. They are going to hire three new
employees on the basis of their international sales. But do you know
what is incredibly frustrating for somebody who comes from the private
sector? It is, frankly, the woeful deficiency in understanding, because
the small business support that the Export-Import Bank provides does
not stop with direct loans and loan guarantees to small businesses
because big businesses buy goods and services from small businesses as
well.
The greatest airplane maker in the world, Boeing airplanes, uses
15,000 businesses in their supply chain, and 6,600 of them are small
businesses.
I was recently on an Alaska flight from Sea-Tac to National Airport
in Washington, D.C., and a friend of mine named Eric Hahn, who works at
General Plastics in south Takoma, was sitting a couple seats behind me.
As everybody was gathering on the plane and shoving their luggage up
above and getting seated, Eric jumped up, and he said, ``Denny, do you
see this? Do you see this?'' And he was pointing at the plastic between
the two overhead bins. He said, ``We made that. We made that.'' General
Plastics has 185 employees, another small business.
The Export-Import Bank promotes fiscal responsibility. It has been
more than a generation since there was any red penny supporting or
subsidizing the Export-Import Bank, in the wake of reforms adopted
during the Reagan years. Indeed, last October, more than $1 billion
transferred to the U.S. Treasury. If we deauthorize the Export-Import
Bank, our deficit is going up. Who wants that to happen? And finally,
the Export-Import Bank promotes economic growth.
Let me give you a series of facts. We cannot change these facts by
wishing them away. Fact number one: 95 percent of the consumers in the
world live outside our borders--95 percent-plus, actually. Another
fact: since 1980, global trade has increased something like fivefold--
fivefold. And let me give you another fact: if we in America want to
keep our middle class, we had better learn how to sell to the growing
middle class throughout the world. And the Export-Import Bank is an
outstanding tool to do that.
You know, America's economy is projected to grow by only about 2.4
percent a year over the next 10 years. And do you know what the shame
of that is? The shame of that is, it is not fast enough to absorb even
the kids coming out of high schools and postsecondary education and
colleges. We simply have to grow this economy faster. And there is no
better way than to participate in the exploding global economy.
Every developed nation on the face of the planet has an export credit
authority. And, in fact, about 60 in all, theirs are larger than ours
either in absolute dollars or in terms of a percentage of their gross
domestic product. Why? Why would we unilaterally disarm? Why would we
unilaterally disarm?
Finally, let me say this. Right now, tonight, as we sit, as we speak,
the people of China are pouring billions of dollars into the
development of a commercial aircraft. They call it the C-919. They say
it will be available for sale within 2 years. Frankly, I think it is
going to be longer than that. It will be 3 or 4 or 5 years. But
whenever it is, they are going to create even more fierce competition
for an industry that is a bulwark of America's manufacturing base, a
bulwark. And what about China's export credit authority? It is six
times larger in absolute dollars than America's. And as a percentage of
GDP, it is 35 times larger.
So I ask the Members of the House, let us not wake up 63 days from
now with no export credit authority. This is the 16th time, by my
count, we have reauthorized the bank. Almost every time by virtually
unanimous support. And there are more than 300 votes on this floor to
pass it, if they will bring it to a vote.
In the name of jobs, in the name of small businesses, in the name of
fiscal responsibility, and in the name of economic growth, let us
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al
Green), and I thank him for the leadership and the support that he has
shown for the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank you, Madam Ranking Member of the full
committee. I am exceedingly proud to be a part of this effort. And I
want to you know that when we succeed, it will be due in no small part
to the energy that you have provided to help us get this legislation
through.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck)
for H.R. 4950, an outstanding piece of legislation. It extends the
Export-Import Bank for 7 years, and it will increase the cap to $175
billion. I think it is an outstanding piece of legislation. And, of
course, I am one of the persons who is supporting it.
Mr. Speaker, let me start by indicating that the Export-Import Bank
is not one of the too big to fail institutions. It wasn't involved in
the credit default swaps. It wasn't involved with derivatives. It
wasn't involved with no-doc loans. It wasn't involved in all of these
exotic products that nearly caused the collapse of the economy.
If the truth be told, the Export-Import Bank was one of the reasons
why the economy was able to survive. It has been thriving. It has done
well. It pays for itself by virtue of the loans that it makes, by
virtue of the fees that it collects, by virtue of the products that it
insures. The Export-Import Bank makes good sense.
I find no businesspeople in my community who are in opposition to the
Export-Import Bank. It is not too big to fail, and it should not be too
small to save. We ought to do what we have done 16 times in the
previous 80 years, and that is, reauthorize the Export-Import Bank in a
clean bill, and do it with very little fanfare.
Unfortunately, that is not the circumstance that we confront
presently. Unfortunately, there are persons who believe that the
Export-Import Bank no longer serves a useful purpose.
Well, it serves a useful purpose for the people in my district. And
the facts speak for themselves. In my district, between 2007 and 2013,
in the Ninth Congressional District, we had a total of 88 export-
importers.
{time} 2100
We had 39 small businesses, 13 minority-owned businesses, and four
women-owned businesses, and we are proud of these businesses that are
owned by women because we still contend that when women succeed,
America succeeds. The Export-Import Bank is on the agenda to help women
succeed.
I would add that there are businesses that have indicated that they
are supportive. I have a letter from a company in Houston, the style of
it is the South Coast Products Company, and I just shall read an
excerpt from their letter. I have many letters to read, but I shall
pick a few and just read excerpts.
This one reads--and it is addressed to the Honorable Maxine Waters:
We are a small manufacturer in Texas that exports thread
and valve lubricants primarily to the oil and gas industry.
We have used Export-Import Banks' export credit insurance for
13 years. During that time, our export business has grown by
a factor of 15 because of the security offered by our policy
with Export-Import.
I shall go to the last paragraph which reads, ``Please emphasize to
your colleagues that Ex-Im Bank is not corporate welfare''--this is a
business, a business that has written this to us--``or a charity of any
kind. It facilitates U.S. exports, especially for small businesses like
us, while supporting itself. Please do not let them put our livelihoods
on the chopping block for their own political gain.''
This is from South Coast Products, a Texas business.
I would also like to read a letter from the Greater Houston
Partnership. The Greater Houston Partnership is the
[[Page 13696]]
preeminent chamber of commerce in my area. It is called the partnership
because we do things differently in Texas, and the partnership has also
joined in this letter by a good many other entities that I shall name
after having read an excerpt from this letter.
It reads:
The Houston region continues to enjoy strong economic
growth driven in large part by the Export-Import Bank. In
order to keep momentum, it is crucial that Congress supports
tools encouraging businesses to expand into new markets and
create new jobs. The Export-Import Bank of the United States
is one of these tools, and we ask that you support this
legislation.
The letter is addressed to me.
It goes on to add:
Small- and medium-sized businesses in our region also
benefit directly from Export-Import. Small businesses account
for nearly 85 percent of Ex-Im Bank's transactions; further,
these transaction figures do not include the tens of
thousands of small- and medium-sized businesses that supply
goods and services to large exporters using the bank.
This is signed by the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, the
Baytown Chamber of Commerce, the Brenham/Washington County Chamber of
Commerce, the Clear Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Beaumont
Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Tomball Area Chamber of Commerce, the
Houston East End Chamber of Commerce, the Houston Northwest Chamber of
Commerce, Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce, League City Chamber of
Commerce, Pearland Chamber of Commerce, West Chambers County Chamber of
Commerce, and the Wharton Chamber of Commerce.
I close simply with these words: businesses are supportive of the Ex-
Im Bank. People understand the necessity for it. We but only need to
have a vote on it to get it continued.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Members, you have heard about businesses in
any number of districts that receive the support from the Ex-Im Bank.
I would like to read to you excerpts from a letter from Chairman
Hensarling's district. This is from Fritz-Pak, and this letter is about
how the Ex-Im Bank helped save his business.
His name is Gabriel Ojeda, president of Fritz-Pak Corporation, and
this is the excerpt I would like to read:
During the past 5 years, we have grown our international
sales from 15 percent to over 35 percent of our business. We
now have major trading partners in over 30 different
countries, including Brazil, Russia, India, and Taiwan. Most
recently, we exhibited our products at Bauma International
Trade Fair in Munich, Germany.
So what is Fritz-Pak Corporation today? We are an American
manufacturer of the best concrete admixtures in the world,
and we sell them as far as Yellowknife, Canada, and as far
south as Wellington, New Zealand. We may be small, but we
think big. In an age where everything seems to be made
someplace else, we are thriving here in the USA and in no
small part due to the services provided by Ex-Im Bank.
Lastly, I would like to read excerpts from Mr. Mike Boyle of BES&T in
New Hampshire. The CEO and president of BES&T is Mr. Michael Boyle, and
he sent us a very good letter last week.
Mr. Speaker, at a later time, we will enter into the Record these
letters that we are not able to read this evening. I thank you, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters in support of the Export-
Import Bank:
1. Letter from Steve Wilburn, President and CEO, FirmGreen, July 21,
2014
2. Letter from Greenery Solutions, Inc, June 23, 2014
3. Letter from Brek Manufacturing to Ranking Member Maxine Waters
4. Letter from Hansen Engineering Company, July 23, 2014
5. Statement from Fritz-Pak, June 17, 2014
6. Letter from Boyle Energy Services & Technology, Inc, July 22, 2014
July 21, 2014.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Waters: I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the Ranking Member, Chairman Hensarling,
all the Committee Members and staff, for the opportunity of
testifying before the House Committee on Financial Services
on June 25, 2014.
It was an extreme honor to appear before the Committee.
Only in America can a disabled Veteran small business owner
like me, hope to share the national stage with a multi-
billion international conglomerate, and have my voice heard
on such a critical issue as the Reauthorization of the Export
Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank US).
I remain deeply concerned over the continuing negative
comments and name calling emanating from many members of
Congress concerning the Reauthorization of the Export Import
Bank of the United States. I believe such public comments are
harming US Exporters and helping to embolden our overseas
competitors. As stated in my testimony, ``Words have
consequences.'' FirmGreen lost an order worth $57 million due
to the uncertainty created by a vocal minority of
Congressional critics opposed to Ex-Bank Reauthorization.
I feel that the current economic recovery occurring in the
US is fragile. We are experiencing mounting trade deficits. I
firmly believe that the decades-long decline and
deterioration of the once formidable United States industrial
and manufacturing base is having a negative effect on our
economy and our national security.
In 1970, more than a quarter of U.S. employees worked in
manufacturing. Today, the number is only one in 10. Over 76
percent of current jobs in the US are in the Service Sector.
Ensuring the viability of our manufacturing and industrial
sectors is critical to providing jobs that pay good wages, is
important to the recovery of our struggling economy and is
vital to the defense of our Republic.
In my opinion, we cannot continue to be a global power
capable of responding to serious threats to US interests
worldwide, without the support of a strong industrial
manufacturing base.
According to declassified CIA reports, China has overtaken
Japan and is now second to the United States in terms of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In recent years, led by a
strong expansion of its Industrial and Manufacturing Base.
China has more than doubled the USA's rate of growth in GDP.
According to the CIA's World Fact Book, as of 2013, China
and the European Union are ahead of the United States in
Exports. More troubling than the shrinking dollar amount of
US exports, is a growing trade deficit in ``manufactured''
goods.
In order for US Exporters to recover from the recent
economic downturn and create jobs, they must have access to
sufficient working capital and credit support. Since the near
total collapse of the Global Banking system in 2008, Export
Credit Agencies (ECA's) and Development Finance Institutions
(DFI's) have played an increasingly important role in
financing exports.
While US commercial banks are still recovering, sources of
capital for US exporters have become constrained. On the
world stage, nations and private clients seeking to import
manufactured goods and technology have increasingly looked to
the competitively priced financial products provided by ECA's
and DFI's. Chinese, Japanese and Korean competitors to
FirmGreen, and other US Exporters have easy access to very
attractive finance terms being offered by the Chinese,
Japanese and Korean ECA's.
FirmGreen's export potential has been directly affected by
the uncertainty of reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank US and the
aggressive finance terms offered by the Korean ExIm Bank
(KEXIM). (See Attached Letter from Greenergy, Solutions,
Inc.).
In many of the international markets where FirmGreen
competes, ECAs are providing the only project finance
available. In the energy infrastructure marketplace, fully
nine out of 10 projects that get done on a true project
finance basis have ECA support.
``JBIC remains a global leader for energy and
infrastructure project finance; KEXIM is rising in
prominence, particularly in energy; Chinese institutions are
also very active and increasingly willing to work with other
International finance providers as opposed to going it alone
as they have done in the past.'' (Source Baker and McKenzie
2013 Report on the Rise of ECA's and DFI's).
The Export-Import Bank of the United States allows US
Manufacturers, such as FirmGreen, to compete on an equal
basis with the project finance terms being offered by foreign
ECA's and DFI's. Ex-Im Bank US provides valuable comfort to
US commercial banks, allowing them to provide the longer
tenor loans that are essential for many US Exporters, and
vital for FirmGreen's creditworthy energy and infrastructure
projects.
In summation, as a combat decorated Veteran, small business
owner, job creator, exporter and concerned citizen, I believe
that we should not unilaterally disarm and abandon the very
governmental agency that allows US Manufactures and other US
Exporters to fairly compete on the world's trading stage.
I strongly urge members of Congress to support the
Reauthorization of Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steve Wilburn,
President, CEO.
____
June 23, 2014.
Mr. Steve Wilburn,
Chief Executive Officer, FirmGreen, Inc., Newport Beach, CA.
Dear Mr. Wilburn: In view of the uncertainty of the
reauthorization of the Exim
[[Page 13697]]
Bank, and project finance structure you proposed had become
problematic, we have made the decision in May this year not
to proceed with your project offering.
Our previous partner-developer has provided us assurance of
the certainty of obtaining satisfactory finance from the
Export Import Bank of Korea for our Cavite Biomass-Waste-to-
Energy Project.
With previous discussion with you, we had the impression
that your company, FirmGreen can provide the best technology
for our project, but without terms similar to what being
offered by the Exim Bank of Korea, it will be impossible for
our company to conclude a transaction.
If you can produce a Letter of Interest (LOI) from the Exim
Bank of the United States by June 30, 2014, our company will
reconsider using FirmGreen technology for the project and
reconsider retaining FirmGreen as the project Technical
Operator for this important project.
The roadmap to obtaining the long term project finance
commitment on favorable terms is critical in our decision
making process.
We hope that this all be worked out to the satisfaction of
both our companies.
Very truly yours,
Ruth P. Briones,
President/CEO, Greenergy Solutions Inc.
____
August 26, 2014.
Hon. Maxine Waters.
Dear Ranking Member Waters: Brek Manufacturing Company is a
small business in California with 170 employees, who have a
critical interest in foreign sale of Boeing Commercial
Aircraft. The Export-Import Bank plays an important role as
an intermediary in the sale of these aircraft. This letter is
to express our support for the Ex-Im bank, as it is key to
securing additional sales of Boeing Commercial Aircraft.
Our company produces approximately 40 percent of our output
to Boeing Commercial Aircraft customers, with the other 60
percent representing military customers.
With the decrease of the military business available, it is
critical that the commercial sales be kept as high as
possible to preserve the industrial infrastructure that this
company and that of other companies in our industry
represent.
Our representatives who support the military must also be
concerned with the Ex-Im Bank because of the role it plays in
supporting jobs in companies like this one, large and small,
across the country.
Although our company is not a household name like Boeing,
we supply critical aircraft structural components which are
key to successful, safe air transport and air defense. There
are many others like us who represent thousands of high
skilled and well paid positions with good benefits.
Please express our support for the Ex-Im Bank to your
colleagues. We are counting on them to do the right thing and
support American manufacturing jobs.
Regards,
William A. Conrad,
Director of Contracts.
____
July 23, 2014.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
Ranking Member, House Financial Services Committee.
Dear Congresswoman Waters, Hansen Engineering Company is
one of many small businesses in the South Bay area of Los
Angeles California that is dependent on Boeing contracts to
support our business.
Hansen Engineering is a manufacturer of machined aerospace
parts and assemblies with 90% of our contracts supporting
Boeing aircraft either directly or indirectly through other
prime aerospace companies throughout the world. My company
staffs approximately 60 employees who live in the South Bay
and surrounding areas and depend upon the support of Boeing
for the wellbeing of their families. Without the
reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank it would have a big impact
on the health of our business, its employees and their
families.
This is a critical time for manufacturing and small
businesses in America. Without the Export-Import Bank, many
of Boeing's customers could decide to purchase commercial
airplanes produced outside of the United States. Hansen
Engineering Company is in strong support of legislation to
approve the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the
United States.
Thank you for your support of the Export-Import Banking
reauthorization initiative.
Sincerely,
Greg Lay,
Vice President,
Hansen Engineering Company.
____
[June 17th, 2014]
How Ex-Im Bank Helped Save My Business
(By Gabriel Ojeda, President of Fritz-Pak Corporation)
In 1998, I began the American Dream. I had been working for
another company for over 14 years when I decided it was time
that I work for myself. I was managing the concrete
admixtures division there, and when it came up for sale, I
borrowed money from everywhere I could and purchased it. I
incorporated my new business, Fritz-Pak Corporation, in the
state of Texas, where we are proud to manufacture all of our
products to this day.
Concrete admixtures are chemicals used in construction to
make handling, placing, and creating high performance
concrete easily and efficiently. The most obvious examples
are retarders and accelerators. During the summer, concrete
will start to set faster due to the heat, so you use a
retarder to slow down the setting time. In the winter,
concrete will set slower due to the cold, so you use an
accelerator to speed it up. Those are just two examples, and
in total, we sell about 40 different specialty products.
____
Back in 1998, the sales distribution was only 15%
international. To be honest, I only maintained the
international accounts I inherited from the original sale of
the business. We were fortunate that concrete construction in
the USA started to take off, so I didn't really have a need
to expand internationally. I grew the business from less than
$1 million in sales to over $3 million by 2007. However, the
recession that began in '07/'08 hit the construction industry
hard.
Data from the US Geological Survey shows that US cement
consumption in 2007 was 117 million metric tons (MMT),
falling to 99 MMT in 2008 and 72 MMT in 2009. Likewise, our
sales fell from over $3 million to under $2 million. Concrete
construction in the US was deteriorating rapidly, along with
our profits, sales, and our workforce. After a particularly
hard round of layoffs in 2009, we were in complete survival
mode, and I was beginning to consider selling the company.
With the American construction market failing, my son came
to me with the idea to start promoting our products overseas
to compensate for the loss in revenue. Expanding
internationally had always appealed to us, but trying to come
up with a cost efficient and safe method for selling our
products in other countries during the worst recession in our
lifetime seemed like a pipe dream. How can we sell $50,000
worth of goods to customers half way around the world we've
never even met? How can we increase our payment cycle from 30
days to 60 days when we are struggling just to make payroll
every month?
However, after speaking with our bankers at Comerica, we
were put in touch with Export-Import Bank. With the help of
Ex-Im, we were able to insure our international receivables
at minimal cost. With an affordable safety net, we were able
to sell more volume with increased terms to compensate for
international shipping. During the past 5 years, we've grown
our international sales from 15 percent to over 35 percent of
our business. Partners in over 30 different countries
including Brazil, Russia, India, and Taiwan. Most recently,
we exhibited our products at the BAUMA International Trade
Fair in Munich, Germany. In addition, our products were used
in the construction of the Sochi Winter Olympics in Russia.
So what is Fritz-Pak Corporation today? We're an American
manufacturer of the best concrete admixtures in the world,
and we sell them as far north as Yellowknife, Canada and as
far south as Wellington, New Zealand. We may be small, but we
think big. In an age where everything seems to be made some
place else, we're thriving here in the USA. And it is in no
small part due to the services provided by Ex-Im Bank.
____
Boyle Energy Services &
Technology, Inc.,
Manchester, NH, July 22, 2014.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mrs. Waters, Ma'am, BES&T needs every effort you and
your team can expend to help with the Re-Authorization of the
Export Import Bank of the United States.
You see we are at a great moment in time. Our company,
through our exporting, has invented a technology and been
awarded US Patents for that technology which dramatically
reduces the cost of commissioning energy facilities being
built anywhere in the world. In fact we have recently been
awarded an Innovation in Energy Award by the Coalition for
Global Leadership for this technology. We are about to break
through from being a small business to a midsize company
working globally. Our revenues are going up dramatically by
our ability to export our unique services, engineering and
field equipment that helps our clients save millions of
dollars.
I have a small line of credit from the Bank of America. I
would not be able to support bid bonds and other financial
work on the project without EXIM support. At present BOA does
not have a means of securing the collateral against our
credit while it is in foreign countries, nor does it support
financing foreign receivables without EXIM. It is my
experience that most US domestic banks behave the same way.
While it might be possible to search for a new bank we do not
have the resources, time, nor network to re-qualify a bank
with what we do. It would be disastrous to us. BOA has taken
10 years to understand our business.
Since undertaking our R&D program in 2003-2008 we have gone
from 4 million in revenue in 2003 to nearly 30 million now.
We have gone from 10 employees to nearly 50. But ma'am these
are not minimum wage jobs. We pay the top salaries in the
world for
[[Page 13698]]
what our people do. We pay 100 percent blue cross blue shield
health insurance, 401K, life insurance etc. I have high
school graduates who are considered by the energy industry as
the best people in the world at what they do making more than
$150,000 per year. BES&T is poised to triple in size again.
Additionally we gave over $150,000 to charity this year in
celebration of our 20th anniversary as a company. We feel it
is our civic duty to help those in need as we excel around
the world.
We represent what America does best. We innovate through
entrepreneurialism. We take that innovation and we run with
it all over the world and here in the US. We hire our friends
and neighbors who buy homes and cars and send their kids to
college. We promote good will in the countries we work and
make friends around the world.
I grew up on welfare in Massachusetts, needed school
lunches to get through the day and chose to go into the Navy
as an enlisted Boiler Technician for 6 years. At every turn I
have leveraged the support of the United States and the
states in which I lived to create a positive American life
for me and for others. Our business is a direct result of the
training I got during my enlistment. Now we rely on the EXIM
bank for help while we push forward once more. I feel an
incredible sense of pride and patriotism that the Export
Import Bank of the United States stands with me and my
employees. It's one of the great tools for small business in
the country.
Several years ago I had the privilege to meet Chairman
Hochberg at an outreach meeting hosted by Senator Shaheen of
New Hampshire. Since then I have been invited by the Chairman
to voice my opinion to him and the board of directors on a
wide variety of subjects relating to the banks support of
small business. What I can tell you is this, from the top
office of the Chairman to the people who work for the bank,
EXIM bank is committed to working and improving services for
small businesses. I have been witness to countless
improvements on behalf of small companies and the Chairman
listens to the small business community and so does the
board. They are committed to working with us, and it shows.
Mrs. Waters if there were a better, or cheaper way we would
have done it. Small businesses always look for that edge.
Right now our work with EXIM is highly valuable to our global
growth. We work in 17 countries tonight. American women, men
and equipment. We rely on EXIM for credit insurance and for
our line of credit with BOA. We have never defaulted nor had
a claim. We pay heavy fees and costs for this privilege. EXIM
is a partner for us in our success.
I would ask you to convince the Chairman that this platform
will hurt us, badly. I buy millions of dollars of equipment
year on year to help with our exporting. We buy from vendors
in Texas, and Tennessee, and California. All of these people
would be hurt as well.
This is not a fight we should be undertaking at this time
in our recovery. BES&T will continue to add jobs, and pay our
taxes on the profits we incur. We will take care of our
people and our neighbors. We will honor your trust and
support.
If I may be of any assistance to either you or Chairman
Hensarling in this matter please call upon me at once.
Please re-authorize the EXIM bank its good for America, and
BES&T.
Respectfully,
Michael P. Boyle,
President/CEO.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank because helping Arizona
businesses expand their manufacturing capacity and exporting ability
creates jobs and grows our economy.
The Export-Import Bank fills gaps in private financing, stepping up
where the private sector can't or won't.
Last year, Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg visited my
district to help small and growing businesses increase their global
exports right from our own backyard. From Fiscal Year 2007 to Fiscal
Year 2014 the agency supported $176 million in exports from AZ-09
companies.
One of those companies, MarTek Inc. of Tempe, Arizona, was reluctant
to sell their semiconductor equipment to customers in Asia. They were
concerned that once the equipment left their building, there was no
guarantee they would get paid.
Because of the large price associated with the equipment, their
customers were unwilling to pay for the equipment in advance with the
same fears that the equipment would not ship or be a quality product.
The Export-Import Bank offered MarTek a solution. The bank issued an
insurance policy so MarTek could make sales and have some guarantee
they would be paid. Thanks to the Export-Import Bank MarTek now exports
to companies in Asia, Europe and the Americas.
Another business in my district that benefits from the Export-Import
Bank is Ulthera, Inc. of Mesa, Arizona, which manufactures medical
devices. Thanks to the Export-Import Bank Ulthera was able to access
additional debt financing at a critical point in their business. It's
now one of the fastest growing companies in Arizona with sales in over
30 countries outside the U.S.
As we all know, the Export-Import Bank's current charter is set to
expire at the end of September. A lapse in authorization would threaten
the competitiveness of these and many other Arizona businesses. I am a
co-sponsor of legislation to extend the Export-Import Bank's
authorization and will continue to work to reauthorize this important
investment in American jobs.
____________________
THE IMPACT OF A POROUS BORDER
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Joyce). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, one of my reasons for coming and taking
some of this time this evening was around a frustration I have had, and
I think this may be for a lot of us who are from a border State, who
have been watching both the press and a lot of our brothers and sisters
around this place speechify about immigration, about the border crisis,
and what is happening. If you are actually from Arizona, this isn't a
new issue for us. We have been bathing and living this for decades now.
I had that moment this last week, Mr. Speaker, where I realized maybe
the awareness in this body is starting to change to understand the
impact of a porous border and what it means to communities.
When I had one of my friends here from the Midwest come up to me and
ask me a number of questions because he had held a townhall--and it was
the first time he had had to face barrages of questions about
immigration, about the unaccompanied minors, about the populations
coming across the border, what were the potential threats, the disease,
the drugs--then I realized maybe I have partially had a
misunderstanding because, when I go home, the border is one of the key
questions we talk about because of the effects it has had on my home
State, in regards to education, incarceration, health care, and the
amount of the burden that my citizens in Arizona, my taxpayers, have
had to take on that ultimately were the responsibility of this Federal
Government.
I wanted to go through just a handful things, a couple of numbers
that we have found, talk about some of the mechanics that may be coming
at us tomorrow. I know many of us are going to have some different
views on legislation, where it takes us, but I want to get some of the
record straight here.
Do you remember, over the last 3, 4 years, particularly before the
2012 Presidential race, we kept hearing how secure the border was? I
remember my former Governor, Janet Napolitano, giving a speech telling
us that the border is more secure today than ever before.
Do you remember the rhetoric that the President was bathing in, in
early 2012, allowing himself to be called the ``deporter in chief''?
Well, Mr. Speaker, as we later found out--and we found out sort of
when many of the Democrat base activists started believing it and
started protesting the President, saying: How can our Democratic
President be the deporter in chief?
All of a sudden, the truth came out, and we found out that the Obama
administration had manipulated the way they calculate the numbers.
The previous administration, if you were a Mexican national--and this
is for the southern border--if you had been arrested within a couple
miles of the border, you were captured, taken back, and released back
over the border, then that did not count in the deportation numbers.
This President very conveniently apparently allowed them to redefine
the math.
There becomes one of our great frustrations. We have debates here on
this floor, and we realized how manipulated so much of the math is,
some of the underlying statistics that we will come down here and
quote, and we are holding the data, and we realize that we have we got
conned. We got played.
Mr. Speaker, if you are going to build public policy, and I don't
care if you
[[Page 13699]]
are on the left or the right, you have to have an administration that
is willing to play the data straight. If you are going to make public
policy on public data, give us honest data.
That becomes one of our great frustrations, Mr. Speaker, because I
will even have my hometown newspaper quote numbers that we found out
months ago weren't correct, were manipulated. They redefined the math.
So just keep that in mind.
Just something that came across my desk just before I was walking
over here, one of my county sheriffs--and you have to understand, in
Arizona, we have only 15 counties--our counties are big, but Arizona is
a small State relative to the rest of the country.
We are also the most urbanized State in the country, something that
most people don't understand. Most of our population lives in Maricopa
County and then the Tucson area.
So think, Arizona is the most urbanized State because the Federal
Government controls the vast majority of our land. It is also why you
have these incredible opportunities of a porous border because you have
distances where there is no civilization.
Our Pinal County sheriff was on the radio, apparently, today and had
a quote that we have had 123,000 illegals arrested in the Tucson
sector. I am assuming that is over this last calendar year.
I haven't been able to get a response on that one, but think about
that. Right now, so much of the national attention is the discussion of
what is happening along the Rio Grande, in Texas. Don't forget Arizona.
Don't forget what is going on in our State for so many years.
I had an economics professor years ago, that we had actually had this
discussion of if you were ever to try to truly understand the math and
how porous a border is, how would you build an economic model to truly
understand it?
He had this brilliant idea, and it still rings in the back of my head
because, multiple times, we have had this discussion of if we were
going to build a border enforcement bill before allowing anything else
to move in this body, do you have the border State Governors be the
ones to declare the border secure?
Well, do you really want to put that type of political pressure on my
Governor in Arizona, the Governor of New Mexico, small States where,
let's face it, some of the activist groups with their budgets could
manipulate our Governor's races, our elections? So what would be an
honest economic method?
My old professor had this one thing: look at the price of drugs on
the street, look at the price of certain types of labor; but he liked
the drug calculation because if illegal drugs that are being sourced in
other parts of the world and the price stays stable or is actually
going down on the streets across the country, particularly in
communities like Phoenix, which is often a distribution center, you
actually have an economic model to understand if the border is truly
secure.
Mr. Speaker, in conversations I have had with some law enforcement
over the last year, apparently, a lot of the illegal drug prices on the
streets in my community are stable or going down; but, yet, I had a
President who is willing to stand behind microphones--I had the head of
Homeland Security willing to stand behind microphones and declare the
border more secure than ever, but the underlying fact is, now, we know
we weren't being told the truth.
On occasion, we will go home, and we will hold townhall meetings and
discussion groups in the chambers, and some of the activist groups will
come and sit down with us and say: Why won't you do this? Why won't you
do that? Why won't you accept the Gang of Eight bill? Why won't you do
this?
You turn and say: How would you hand that type of policy, that type
of legislation to this administration? Do you really trust them? Do you
really trust the Obama administration to keep its word? Do you really
trust the Obama administration not to play games with the math? Because
we already have multiple occasions here where I can demonstrate to you
the math has been played you with.
So then I wanted to chase after something else that we came across.
How many speeches here, how many discussions, how many press
conferences, how many talking heads on evening cable have we seen over
the last month saying, oh, the unaccompanied minor issue, well, was a
surprise to all of us, we never expected this, if we had just known--
which is an amazing thing because I have a few documents here, and they
are budget documents, and we all know what goes into starting to model
and build budgets.
{time} 2115
Here is one. It is a newsletter from the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, and it was talking about some of the Catholic
services. They do wonderful work. They do it at some great prices. But
this was a newsletter from last November, so November 2013. On that
one, the Department of Homeland Security estimates more than 60,000
unaccompanied minors could enter the United States in 2014. It was out
there in writing.
Then we came across some other things that we found very interesting.
Here is actually from 4-13, so over a year ago, a number of budget line
items for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services in regards
to unaccompanied minors. The original 2014 budget request they had been
working on earlier was going to be $494 million, and somehow on 4-13,
so well over a year ago, they knew something was wrong and they added
another $373 million to that budget line item. Yet earlier today, I
watched a Member of the other side get behind a microphone and tell me
how surprised they were.
So let me pull what we voted for last January. Unaccompanied alien
children, line item, and this was woven into the continuing resolution
we did last January, so you know the numbers were worked up months
before that. We went from the 2013 estimate, $376 million, to $868
million. That is what we pushed out of here in January.
So back to that whole trust conversation, as we put forward policy in
dealing with our crisis on our border, don't forget States like Arizona
that have had to take this on for years and had to carry the burden of
the cost as those here in the Federal Government, here in this bubble
that is Washington, D.C., looked at a small State like Arizona and
said: Stop making so much noise; you are bothering us. Stop telling us
one thing in your speeches, but we can find documents that show your
staff knew something very different.
Tomorrow we will have a piece of legislation to step up and deal with
parts of the border crisis. It is not a half a loaf. It is not a
quarter of a loaf. It is not an eighth of a loaf. It is sort of the
heel of the loaf. But for those of us in Arizona, I believe it does a
handful of things that we have been demanding.
I have a piece of legislation to put 10,000 National Guard troops on
the border, and I had a little fun with a couple of Members who have
been here for a long time. I had one Member who has been here for a
long time, and she was just outraged that we would want to put that
many troops on the border. So I said: But you supported this in 2006
and 2008 when we had Operation Jump Start, and I think at that time we
put 7,000 National Guard troops on the border as auxiliary services to
the Border Patrol.
So think of that, 2006 to 2008, who controlled this body? It was the
Democrats. We had a Republican President, and Nancy Pelosi was the
Speaker here. And it is fascinating, now we are a few years later, that
formula has flipped. We are proposing it, and the very people who
supported it a few years ago now are just appalled. The duplicity
around this place sometimes is stunning.
One of the things that I support that will be voted on tomorrow, it
is not just putting National Guard troops, if our Governor so will;
there will be money behind it, the ability to pay for it. One more time
asking States like Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, that if you are going to
step up and take these responsibilities that belong to the Federal
Government, you need to cover our costs. I don't think it is enough
[[Page 13700]]
money that is in the bill, but remember, this is short term. What is
going to run tomorrow is actually only between now and the end of the
fiscal year, which is the end of September.
Updating the 2008 language, we have heard a lot of discussion about
this. The reality of it is we have a White House, Department of
Homeland Security, I believe, that has already been manipulating the
actual language. If you sit down and read it, it had to do with those
who were being exploited and being brought across the border,
trafficked. This is a little different mechanically than someone who
goes out and hires a coyote or a family who takes their children and
hires the services.
But nevertheless, we have been told over and over, if we don't update
the 2008 law, our hands are tied by so many of our law enforcement on
the border. So we are going to do that.
There are a couple of other mechanics here, but I want to make it
perfectly clear for many of us--and hopefully I am speaking for many of
my supporters and friends and family and my State--this isn't enough.
It may be just the beginning.
I do hope we get the chance to discuss the one issue here that
continues to be a bit of friction. The President's deferred action,
many of our friends on the left keep trying to tell us that that had
nothing to do with what we are seeing at the border, but as we have
already just walked through the documents, once the deferred action,
referred to as DACA, had gone into effect, they knew the numbers were
coming. They were calculating. We now have some charts that much of
this crisis was being watched for months. It finally just became
overwhelming.
Illegal immigration--and legal immigration--work on incentives and
disincentives. We have created incentives. This President has created
incentives to break our laws, and until we step up with a number of
policies that change those incentives, I believe we are partially
chasing our tail here. We will do some good things. We need to step up
the quality of our law enforcement and our border enforcement, but we
also need an administration that we can trust, an administration that
will tell us the truth, and an administration that will actually follow
our laws.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
THE CRISIS AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) for 30 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be
recognized to address you here on the United States floor of the House
of Representatives in this most deliberative body that we have and are.
I appreciate the comments and the position taken by the gentleman from
Arizona ahead of me. He is one who has lived along the border for a
lifetime. He deals with the issue every day, every week. He is one of
the individuals that I look to to inform me, but also I have taken a
real interest in it myself.
Even though I am from the heart of the heartland, from Iowa, Mr.
Speaker, I have a great appreciation for the Constitution and the rule
of law. Because of that, I have watched as the lawlessness has grown
along our border.
I will say that certainly in all of the time that I have been in this
Congress and in the years building up to it, and less so in the years
prior to that, and I take myself back to 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed
the Amnesty Act of 1986 due to the counsel that he had around him, I
believed at the time that he would veto that bill because of his
reverence for the rule of law would overcome all of the counsel that
came from the House and the Senate and the people around him. Well,
Reagan relented and signed the bill on the promise that we would
legalize roughly a million people in exchange for the enforcement of
the law thereafter and that there would never be another amnesty again
so long as this country would live.
The 1 million became 3 million, and the amnesties that were added to
that in smaller proportions added up to at least 6, perhaps 7, in
addition to the 1986 amnesty. And here we are today, having fought off
this amnesty these years for more than a decade that I have been
directly involved in the immigration policy, and we are on the cusp of
it again.
The President of the United States stood up there in front of you
where you are, Mr. Speaker, and he gave his State of the Union address
here on the floor of the House of Representatives and essentially, and
figuratively, he waved his ink pen at us and he said: Congress, you do
what I tell you on immigration. I want comprehensive immigration
reform. I want you to pass the Senate Gang of Eight amnesty act.
Now I am speaking figuratively, of course, because that is not a
direct quote of the President, but it is certainly the message that the
President delivered: Do what I tell you to do, or I will use my, in one
other setting, his cell phone, or his ink pen, to act in a unilateral--
he didn't say it, but he knows it--unconstitutional fashion.
I can think of another night during the State of the Union address
when our President came here and he spoke right in front of you, Mr.
Speaker, and he pointed down here to the Supreme Court and he lectured
the Supreme Court on what they should do, as if somehow he were article
III, somehow he was the man who commanded the Supreme Court of the
United States. And the camera was looking over at the Justices as the
President lectured them on the Constitution and the rule of law as if
the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the United States
Supreme Court needed to get a lesson from an adjunct professor of the
University of Chicago School of Law who taught Constitution law for 10
years in Chicago. He should go to school with every one of those
Justices, Mr. Speaker.
And one of them, the television cameras repeated it over and over
again until they read the lips, and they interpreted his lips to say
``not true, not true.'' That seat that that camera was focused on has
been empty ever since. It has been empty ever since because that
Justice, and I suspect a number of other Justices, decided I am not
going to listen to that again. I am not going to listen to a President
that is out of bounds, a President who believes somehow he can lecture
to the judicial branch of government, that he can lecture to the
judicial branch of government, that he can stand here at this rostrum
as a guest of the House of Representatives and wave his ink pen or
finger at us and announce that we shall do in this Congress what he
commands or he will do so in a unconstitutional fashion. Essentially,
what did the President say? So sue me. The President says: I am going
to do what I am going to do. I know it is lawless, it is
unconstitutional, so sue me.
So today we passed here on the floor of the House of Representatives
a resolution that declares that the House of Representatives has
standing to go before the court to command the President to take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.
We have had multiple hearings before the Judiciary Committee in the
House of Representatives. We have had excellent constitutional scholars
come forward. There hasn't been one who can carry water for the
President's position and hold his own under the scrutiny of the
constitutional lawyers and other scholars that we have on the Judiciary
Committee who take them apart one by one, argument by argument, piece
by piece. And yet the President of the United States persists in
asserting that he can be article I, the legislative branch of
government, the United States Congress, and he can be article III, the
judicial branch of government, and the sole commander of the executive
branch, article II.
He is the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. He leads from
behind. He stepped back and followed the French into Libya, and he
waited for the British to go before the House of Commons and vote down
David Cameron's initiative to go into Syria, and then the President of
the United States, following--and leading from behind is the very
definition of following--the President of the United
[[Page 13701]]
States then offers to Congress, through trial balloons through the
press, that he would like to have Congress endorse military action in
Syria.
Where is our leader? Where is our Commander in Chief? Well, he is off
in the never, never land of advancing administrative amnesty, calling
together his smartest, leftist lawyers that he can find, Mr. Speaker,
and saying to them: Put your think tanks together. You guys go grab the
best brains you can find, attached to the leftist brains you are, and
see if you can come up with a strategic plan that I can grant some
administrative amnesty to the maximum number of people because, Lord
knows, there aren't enough undocumented Democrats in America. We need
more of them. We need an endless supply and endless stream of them. And
where do they come from? Well, they come across our southern border
primarily, although they come in other ways.
{time} 2130
And Democrats in here, when the President says to Congress: Thou
shall pass the bills that I tell you to pass or I am going to use my
pen to unconstitutionally--that is in parentheses, Mr. Speaker--enact
executive edicts that will do what I want done, regardless of whether
it has the support and the will of the people or not--we are the
support and the will of the people--when the President said that he is
going to enact those immigration unconstitutional executive edicts,
when the President uttered that, I saw a little less than half of this
Chamber rise in a spontaneous standing ovation, enthusiasm for the
President's statement.
It reminds me of the one Democrat who said: I am marching for
abortion rights because my mother didn't have that opportunity. Who
would say that? If your mother didn't have the opportunity to have an
abortion, but you want to march so that you wish she would have, that
means you wish you had never been born. And this Congress with less
than half of it, a bunch of Democrats over here, cheered the President
when he said: I am going to usurp your article I legislative authority,
and I am going to write legislative law with my pen the way I see fit.
And they cheered.
These are the same people that stood here on the floor of the House a
year ago last January and took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution of the United States so help them God. And they say:
Well, we were glad when the President decides he is going to roll over
Congress, roll over the House, roll over the Senate, roll over the
judicial branch by intimidating them into, some say, a decision on
ObamaCare that would not conform with the constitutional directives
that they have.
We are in a mess, Mr. Speaker. We are in a mess, and we have the
President of the United States poised during August, when this Congress
has every year been out of session because our Founding Fathers and our
early, early leaders recognized that Washington, D.C., gets to be a hot
and humid place in the month of August, and you need a little break to
get out of the circle of the Beltway that causes Potomac fever to go
back to your districts so you can look real people in the eye and hear
from them. That has been the tradition of this country.
Some people complain that Members of Congress actually go home. I
would say on the other way around, if we didn't go home we would hear a
lot of complaints. It is important that we go back to our districts and
go out and hear from the people that we have the honor and privilege to
represent, and we will do that, maybe as early as tomorrow, Mr.
Speaker.
But the President is poised to follow through on his threat to issue
the edict, not a lawful act, not a lawful executive order, an edict,
that he would give a lawful status to 5 or 6 million illegal aliens,
many of them, maybe most of them, probably not all of them, criminal
aliens.
He has issued orders to the Department of Justice to examine how they
can get an early release for people who are in our prisons who have
been sentenced. That is hundreds of thousands, as many as 400,000
felons that the President would release on the streets of America. He
has released criminals to the tune of 36,000-plus out onto the streets.
That is in one category. There is another category of tens of thousands
more.
And he has opened up our borders by signing the documents and the
Morton Memos--not physically signed, he had his subordinates do that--
and the Morton Memos say we are not going to enforce a law against
people who didn't commit a felony or aren't guilty of these three
mysterious misdemeanors. And they said that if you came into the United
States illegally, theoretically through no fault of your own, if you
did so before your 18th birthday and you did so before December 31 of
2011, then you get to stay for the duration of this permit that he
manufactures lawlessly out of thin air.
And then he manufactures a work permit so that these people can
compete for jobs against naturalized and natural born American citizens
and green card holders, who likely did it the legal way.
Because he gets a political kick out of this, a political bonus out
of this, because he is bringing in undocumented Democrats, and they
have a plan to document them so they can vote, we have a situation here
where the constitutional underpinnings of America are in crisis mode.
The employment in America is at great risk and under great threat, and
the security of our border is very weak.
I went down, Mr. Speaker, last weekend, down to the southern tip of
Texas, down to the mouth of the Rio Grande, planted a flag right there
at the southern tip where the waters of the Rio Grande flow out into
the sea, and then followed the river to Brownsville and went through
the ports of entry at Brownsville, other facilities in Brownsville, on
up into McAllen and to the ports of entry there, to the border patrol
centers there, to a resettlement center there, and on up all the way to
Laredo.
And from what I saw and what I heard, from our Border Patrol, from
our Customs and Border Protection, from the Department of Public Safety
in Texas, and others, they are good people, a lot of them with uniforms
on, that are doing a good job, doing the best they can with what they
have to work with.
We have a lawless order from the President, DACA, Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals, which is more accurately DACA, Deferred Action for
Criminal Aliens. DACA has become the magnet that the coyotes have used
to advertise throughout the Central American countries, in particular,
El Salvador, Honduras, and also Guatemala. People that are already in
the United States oftentimes will save up money, maybe borrow money,
and send it down to Central America to the tune of, the lowest number
that I pick up is $4,000 a head, on up to 5, 6, 7, 8, maybe even
$9,000, for the coyotes to transport an illegal alien into the United
States.
They are coming into America in the southern tip of Texas and the Rio
Grande Valley sector of the border in numbers that work out this way.
The unaccompanied alien children, UACs as they are known, and referred
to sometimes as ``unaccompanied alien juveniles,'' number this way:
this fiscal year, from October 1 to June 15, 57,000 UACs, unaccompanied
alien children--57,000. That number has surely grown to over 60,000,
probably over 70,000, predicted to go to 90,000 for this fiscal year.
The peak of this thing seems to have passed behind us. We are either
in a temporary lull, or we have seen the peak behind us. But, in any
case, when we think of numbers in the area of 60,000 unaccompanied
alien children coming into the United States, that is only 20 percent
of the overall population coming in. So we are at 300,000 or more. But
of those roughly 60,000--the number that we surpassed--here is how they
break down: 80 percent male, 20 percent female.
The 80 percent male and the 20 percent female also need to take into
account that these are not kids that range from age 1 day to 1 day
before their 18th birthday, Mr. Speaker. These are unaccompanied alien
children that have a demographic breakdown that works like this: 80
percent male, 83 percent that are either the ages of 15, 16,
[[Page 13702]]
or 17. Once they are 18, they are no longer qualified as UACs--83
percent.
So I do the simple math, Mr. Speaker, and I say: 0.8, 80 percent,
times 0.83, 83 percent, 15, 16, or 17 years old--that means that 66.4
percent of these unaccompanied alien ``children'' are young men ages
15, 16, and 17 years old. They come from the most violent countries in
the world. The six most violent countries in the world are south of
Mexico. It is not Mexico, it is south of Mexico, Mr. Speaker. Eight of
the 10 most violent countries in the world are also south of Mexico.
It is a fact, according to the United Nation's data, that of the most
violent countries in the world, only Honduras is more violent than the
city of Detroit. Yet, there are those in this Congress that are
convinced, because the Central American countries have a high degree of
violence, that the people are leaving those countries because of the
violence, and they are scared and they are running off. Well, if that
is so, then one would think they would be running out of Detroit at a
pace similar to the pace they are running out of Guatemala and El
Salvador and other violent countries down there--probably run a little
faster out of Honduras than they are out of the other countries, than
they are maybe out of Detroit.
But as I said in a Judiciary Committee hearing, in response to the
witness' testimony that was there, I said: If we are going to bring
these kids to the United States because they are afraid where they are,
we had better not take them to Detroit because they will be in more
danger there, unless they came from Honduras. Those are the facts, and
those are the data. Yes, they come from violent countries, and they
come from countries that are controlled to a high degree by drug
cartels.
But here is what is happening. The families that are sending people
here usually have one or more members in the United States now. They
may have left their kids back in their home country in Honduras. They
will send money down there, they might borrow money. Then usually
locally they will hire a coyote that is going to smuggle them up into
the United States.
Then the family most often, not 100 percent of the time, but most
often, whoever is in custody of this young girl that might be 12 or 13
or 14, or on up to 17 or older, they go down to the local pharmacy,
where a prescription is not required, and they buy a monthly supply of
contraceptives, birth control bills, and they take it back and they
start giving those birth control pills to that girl, and then send her
across 2,000 to 2,500 miles of dangerous Central America and Mexico to
get on the train of death--it is called ``The Beast,'' and ride that
train up as near the Rio Grande as possible. Then that child has to get
off of there and make their way to the Rio Grande River, then pay a
coyote to get a ride across the river, and then submit themselves to
the U.S. authorities.
We went to center after center, we talked to people after people that
had been working with these unaccompanied alien children, and we asked
them how many of them are sexually assaulted, how many of them are
raped? And the answers came back a guess, but a range, a range between
30 percent and 70 percent.
Think of it, Mr. Speaker. Think of having a daughter and living in El
Salvador and deciding, I want to send her to her mother in the United
States or her aunt in the United States, or being an aunt in El
Salvador and you want to send your niece to her mother in the United
States. You get a wire that sends you down $5,000 or $6,000, and you go
out into the neighborhood and you solicit a coyote, and then you say, I
want to send this niece or my daughter up to America, but why don't you
wait a few days because I have got to go down and buy some birth
control pills and make sure she is ready for the trip, because I am
pretty confident she is going to be raped along the way.
That is what is going on, Mr. Speaker. It is not going on now and
then; it is going on from a third to 70 percent of the time for the
girls, and they told us that the numbers of boys were equivalent to the
numbers of girls who were sexually assaulted. That was a question that
was repeated over and over again.
So this President has done real damage and destruction to the rule of
law. The result of that is America is flooded with illiterate,
unskilled people into the job categories where we have the highest
available employment, the highest ratios of unemployment. The double-
digit unemployment exists in the lowest-skilled jobs. There is no
metric out there that suggests that we should be bringing more
unskilled people in, more people who are illiterate in their own
language into America, thinking somehow that that is work that
Americans won't do.
Nuts. There is no work that Americans won't do. There has been no
work that I won't do. I have done some of the toughest, nastiest, most
difficulty, and some of the dangerous jobs that the country has to
offer, and I haven't come close to doing the jobs that the United
States Marine Corps does on a regular basis.
What is the most dangerous job that we ask an American to do? How
about rooting terrorists out of places like Fallujah? How about taking
on radical al Qaeda extremists in places like Afghanistan?
When the Marine Corps goes into Fallujah for the first or second
battle, and we have seen what has happened since then, what do they get
paid to put their lives on the line? If you figure it at 40 hours a
week, something like $8.49 an hour, Mr. Speaker. That is back then when
I calculated it, when we had operations going on then. If you can pay a
United States marine $8.49 an hour to lock and load and go into a place
like Fallujah, you can't convince me that there is work that Americans
won't do, especially if it pays an appropriate wage and we respect the
work that gets done.
So we have a President who has decided he is going to defy the rule
of law, and he is going to manufacture law as he goes and create work
permits out of thin air.
{time} 2145
When we see this calamity of the huge hole in our southern border,
primarily at McAllen, Texas, the House of Representatives decides it
wants to overreact to the President of the United States, and since
they are afraid that they will somehow get the blame if nothing gets
done in the month of August, they decided to bring a piece of
legislation here to the floor.
This piece of legislation was written by a staff person that was once
that of John McCain, and we know what he has brought for immigration
policy. It has been very troubling to me to deal with the legislation
that he has supported, but I have this in my hand here on the floor,
Mr. Speaker.
It doesn't do what it is advertised to do. It doesn't do what needs
to be done, but it grants this. If there is an unaccompanied alien
child, here are the consequences for failure to appear to a hearing:
Any alien who fails to appear at a proceeding required
under this section, shall be ordered removed in absentia if
the government establishes by a preponderance of the evidence
that the alien was at fault for their absence from the
proceedings.
No evidence can be admitted into that proceeding after the fact, and
it can't be admitted if they don't anticipate that there is not going
to be an appearance of the alien, so that means the government has to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was the alien's fault
they didn't show up.
The only way I know that you can do that is if you have a video
camera on them, and they are sitting on the couch, Mr. Speaker. This is
a wide open hole that grants a pass under that provision. Then it says:
In General--at the conclusion of a proceeding under this
section, the immigration judge shall determine whether an
unaccompanied alien child is likely to be admissible to the
United States.
They get a new hearing under a new section created, which is 235, and
if the preponderance of the evidence indicates that they might receive
asylum and if they think they are likely to receive asylum in a
separate category, then 50 percent plus 1 is preponderance--likely is
50 percent plus 1. Fifty percent of 50 percent is 25 percent, plus
[[Page 13703]]
one, are the odds that they need to claim in order to receive a hearing
for asylum.
So if you have got a one in four shot at it, Mr. Speaker, you are
going to get a hearing for asylum. Then you are going to get an asylum
hearing, and then if you are turned down at the asylum hearing, you get
to go to a removal hearing. That is three bites at the apple. They are
all renewable; times two, that is six different bites at the apple.
No such thing exists for Mexican unaccompanied alien children. The
determination is made under the Wilberforce law of 2008 by the Border
Patrol whether or not they go back to Mexico.
They purport that this bill treats the other than Mexican
unaccompanied alien children the same as the existing law treats
unaccompanied alien Mexican children. Mr. Speaker, if it does, there is
language in here that then diminishes our ability to send the Mexican
kids back. That is what we have. We have a bill that has been whipped
to be something that it is not.
I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee tonight. There was a
long discussion and debate over it, Mr. Speaker, but here is what we
have: my amendment said that we have got to fix the 2008 William
Wilberforce language.
By the way, no Republican voted for that, not one. It was introduced
on December 9, 2008. It was taken up by a unanimous consent request
after everybody left town on December 10, 2008. It was passed by voice
in the House, sent to the Senate. The Senate caught the lateral and
passed it by voice to the President.
We didn't see that bill. It became a component of what they have
utilized as an open door; coupling the 2008 bill with an expansive
reading of the asylum language and the President's DACA language is
what is bringing these tens of thousands of unaccompanied alien minors
here, which are only 20 percent of the overall group that are coming.
There are also family units--usually, mothers with a child or
children. There are individual males coming in, in significant numbers.
I have said that we have imported at least 40,000 15-year-old, 16-year-
old, and 17-year-old boys--prime gang recruitment age--and that doesn't
give you the data on those that are 18, 19, 20, 25 to 31; and those are
just the ones that are covered under DACA.
I offered an amendment that would have cut off all funding to DACA.
It mirrors the Cruz-Blackburn language. It is good language, and it
should be part of this bill. It is not, by the information I have, Mr.
Speaker.
There is a 2008 fix that I wrote over a month ago that needs to be
part of this bill. It is not, by the report I am getting from the Rules
Committee, Mr. Speaker. I don't know that there was even a vote on it
up in the Rules Committee.
There is asylum language that has been offered by the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, that fixes some of the expansive
utilization of asylum that is allowing for people to be distributed all
over the United States at taxpayers' expense. That is not part of this
bill, Mr. Speaker.
We don't have a deliberative process in this Congress because they
are not going to allow a legitimate vote, and the language that is out
here is bad.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this bill that has come before us,
and I am going to have to consider what I do on the rule, but if this
House sends a message to support cutting off all funding to enforce or
implement DACA, that will be constructive because it will say to the
President: these are the Republicans that have at least a chance of
standing up against you if you decide that you are going to function in
a lawless, unconstitutional manner in the month of August--or any other
month--with regard to this granting any expansion of the lawlessness
that we have seen today.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
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 9 o'clock and 51 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess.
____________________
{time} 2338
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Sessions) at 11 o'clock and 38 minutes p.m.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5230, SECURE
THE SOUTHWEST BORDER ACT OF 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
5272, PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO DEFERRED ACTION FOR ALIENS; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5021,
HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ACT OF 2014; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. COLE, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report
(Rept. No. 113-567) on the resolution (H. Res. 696) providing for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 5230) making supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for
other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5272) to
prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens not
lawfully present in the United States, and for other purposes;
providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R.
5021) to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety,
motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the
Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes; and for other purposes,
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
SENATE BILL REFERRED
A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:
S. 2577. An act to require the Secretary of State to offer
rewards totaling up to $5,000,000 for information on the
kidnapping and murder of Naftali Fraenkel, a dual United
States-Israeli citizen, that began on June 12, 2014; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled
a bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed
by the Speaker:
H.R. 4028. An act to amend the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 to include the desecration of cemeteries
among the many forms of violations of the right to religious
freedom.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The Speaker announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate
of the following title:
S. 1799. An act to reauthorize subtitle A of the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 39 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Thursday, July 31, 2014, at 9 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
6678. A letter from the Associate Administrator, Department
of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in
Texas; Change in Size and Grade Requirements for Grapefruit
[Doc. No.: AMS-FV-14-0015; FV14-906-2 FIR] received July 22,
2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6679. A letter from the Associate Administrator, Department
of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of
[[Page 13704]]
Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of
Administrative Rules and Regulations Governing Issuance of
Additional Allotment Base [Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0088; FV14-985-
2 FR] received July 22, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6680. A letter from the Supervisory Financial Program
Specialist, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Federal
Government participation in the Automated Clearing House
(RIN: 1530-AA05) received July 18, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
6681. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Tobacco Products,
User Fees, Requirements for the Submission of Data Needed to
Calculate User Fees for Domestic Manufacturers and Importers
of Tobacco Products [Docket No.: FDA-2012-N-0920] (RIN: 0910-
AG81) received July 21, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6682. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Amendments to Compliance Certification
Content Requirements for State and Federal Operating Permits
Programs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0162; FRL-9913-88-OAR] (RIN:2060-
AQ71] received July 24, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6683. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; Nitrogen Oxides
Exemption Request [EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0895; A-1-FRL-9913-56-
OAR] received July 16, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6684. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Air Pollution from
Nitrogen Compounds [EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0400; FRL-9914-44-Region
6] received July 24, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6685. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The
2014 and 2015 Critical Use Exemption From the Phaseout of
Methyl Bromide [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0065; FRL-9911-OAR] (RIN:
2060-AR80) received July 24, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6686. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Amendments to Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program for Illinois [EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0046; FRL-9913-15-Region 5] received July 22, 2014,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6687. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Solvent Degreasing
Operations Rule [EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0214; FRL-9914-24-Region 5]
received July 22, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6688. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Redesignation of the
Bellefontaine Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard
[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0791; FRL-9914-22-Region 5] received July
22, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
6689. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Air Pollution
from Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and
Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations [EPA-R06-
OAR-2010-0890; FRL-9914-31-Region 6] received July 22, 2014,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6690. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Interim Final Determination to Stay
and Defer Sanctions, Clark County Department of Air Quality
[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0495; FRL-9914-17-Region 9] received July
22, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
6691. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.202(b),
Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Moran, Texas)
[MB Docket No.: 13-102] [RM-11696] received July 28, 2014,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6692. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Closed Captioning of Internet
Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility
Act of 2010 [MB Docket No.: 11-154] received July 21, 2014,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
6693. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for
General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a
report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998;
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
6694. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea
Scallop Fishery and Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework
Adjustment 25 [Docket No.: 140305202-4478-02] (RIN: 0648-
BE07) received July 21, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
6695. A letter from the Acting 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 #4, #5,
#6, #7, #8, and #9 [Docket No.: 140107014-4014-01] (RIN:
0648-XD329) received July 21, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
6696. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Special Local Regulations for Marine Events, Nanticoke
River; Bivalve, MD [Docket No.: USCG-2014-0138] (RIN: 1625-
AA08) received July 28, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6697. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Notice of Arrival Exception [Docket No.: USCG-2013-0797]
(RIN: 1625-AC12) received July 17, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6698. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Special Local Regulations; Beaufort Water Festival,
Beaufort, SC [Docket No.: USCG-2014-0005] (RIN: 1625-AA08)
received, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6699. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River, Miles 255.0 to
256.5, Florence, AL [USCG-2013-0753] (RIN: 1625-AA08)
received July 17, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6700. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; United States and Canadian Military Exercise
Jump Training, Lake Erie, Hamburg, NY [Docket No.: USCG-2014-
0260] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July 17, 2014, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6701. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Safety Zone; Meridian Health Fireworks, Navesink River,
Rumson, NJ [Docket No.: USCG-2014-0353] (RIN: 1625-AA00)
received July 17, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6702. A letter from the Regulatory Ombudsman, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Incorporation by Reference; North American Standard Out-of-
Service Criteria; Hazardous Materials Safety Permits [Docket
No.: FMCSA-2014-0135] (RIN: 2126-AB73) received July 28,
2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6703. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Restricted Area R-5304C; Camp Lejeune, NC
[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0272; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-5]
(RIN: 2120-AA66) received July 28, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6704. A letter from the Paralegal Specialist, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Elkin, NC [Docket No.: FAA-
2013-0046; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-1] received July 28,
2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6705. A letter from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Foreign tax credit guidance under
section 901(m)
[[Page 13705]]
received July 22, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
6706. A letter from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Rules Regarding the Health Insurance
Premium Tax Credit [TD 9683] (RIN: 1545-BM23) received July
28, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on 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. COLE: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 696.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
5230) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes; providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5272) to prohibit certain
actions with respect to deferred action for aliens not
lawfully present in the United States, and for other
purposes; providing for consideration of the Senate amendment
to the bill (H.R. 5021) to provide an extension of Federal-
aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit,
and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, and
for other purposes; and for other purposes (Rept. 113-567).
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 Ms. ESHOO (for herself, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Hanna, Mr.
Swalwell of California, and Ms. DelBene):
H.R. 5255. A bill to enhance the procurement of information
technology by establishing a United States Digital Government
Office and United States Chief Information Officer, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS (for herself, Mrs. Capito, Ms.
Jenkins, Mrs. Ellmers, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Valadao,
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Ms. Granger, Mrs.
Lummis, and Mr. Fitzpatrick):
H.R. 5256. A bill to encourage compensation transparency;
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS (for herself, Mrs. Capito,
Mrs. Wagner, Mrs. Ellmers, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr.
Valadao, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, and Mr.
Fitzpatrick):
H.R. 5257. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a deduction relating to the compensation of
the lesser earning spouse; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers,
Mrs. Wagner, Mrs. Ellmers, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr.
Valadao, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Ms. Granger,
Mrs. Lummis, and Mr. Fitzpatrick):
H.R. 5258. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to index the dependent care credit and income exclusion
for inflation; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HUFFMAN:
H.R. 5259. A bill to establish State infrastructure banks
for education; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mrs. Black,
Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, and Mr.
Kelly of Pennsylvania):
H.R. 5260. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to
prevent disability fraud, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California:
H.R. 5261. A bill to establish a North and Central American
and Caribbean border security cooperation initiative, enhance
the security of Mexico's southern border, improve United
States short term detention standards, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in
addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and the
Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. MEADOWS (for himself, Mr. Messer, Mr. Murphy of
Florida, Mr. Hudson, Mr. McIntyre, Mrs. Ellmers, Mr.
Coble, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Rokita, and Mr. Boustany):
H.R. 5262. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to exempt student workers for purposes of determining a
higher education institution's employer health care shared
responsibility; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. NADLER (for himself, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Clay, and
Mr. Costa):
H.R. 5263. A bill to promote and protect from
discrimination living organ donors; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on
Oversight and Government Reform, House Administration,
Education and the Workforce, and Financial 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. SCHOCK (for himself and Mr. Rangel):
H.R. 5264. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to make the work opportunity credit permanent; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HUDSON (for himself, Mr. Butterfield, Mrs.
Ellmers, Mr. Jones, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms.
Foxx, Mr. Coble, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Pittenger, Mr.
McHenry, Mr. Meadows, and Mr. Holding):
H.R. 5265. A bill to name the Department of Veterans
Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Hamlet, North
Carolina, as the ``Edward `Ed' James O'Neal Department of
Veterans Affairs Clinic''; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Mr. LoBIONDO (for himself, Mr. Larsen of Washington,
Mr. Posey, and Mr. Murphy of Florida):
H.R. 5266. A bill to reauthorize the National Estuary
Programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts (for herself and Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen):
H.R. 5267. A bill to protect the pets of victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating
violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition
to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GINGREY of Georgia (for himself and Mrs.
Blackburn):
H.R. 5268. A bill to amend title 44, United States Code, to
prohibit the assembly or manufacture of secure credentials or
their component parts by the Government Printing Office; to
the Committee on House Administration.
By Ms. SPEIER (for herself, Mr. Meehan, Ms. Lee of
California, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Norton, and Ms.
Chu):
H.R. 5269. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to increase transparency and reporting on campus sexual
violence, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee
on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. GARAMENDI (for himself and Mr. Hunter):
H.R. 5270. A bill to promote the transportation of
liquified natural gas from the United States on United States
flag vessels, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. Cartwright, Mr.
Lowenthal, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Holt,
Ms. Norton, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Thompson
of California):
H.R. 5271. A bill to cap the emissions of greenhouse gases
through a requirement to purchase carbon permits, to
distribute the proceeds of such purchases to eligible
individuals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways
and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. BLACKBURN:
H.R. 5272. A bill to prohibit certain actions with respect
to deferred action for aliens not lawfully present in the
United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. BARBER:
H.R. 5273. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
expand the authority of veterans to transfer entitlement to
Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to dependents; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. BORDALLO (for herself and Mr. Faleomavaega):
H.R. 5274. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to allow voluntary agreements for Social Security and
Medicare coverage of employees of Guam and American Samoa; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, and Mr.
Ellison):
H.R. 5275. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to increase the amount of loan forgiveness for which teachers
in teacher shortage areas are eligible; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. CROWLEY (for himself and Mr. Paulsen):
H.R. 5276. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to treat bicycle sharing systems as mass transit
facilities for purposes of the qualified transportation
fringe; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. DAVIS of California:
H.R. 5277. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to require institutions of
[[Page 13706]]
higher education to have an independent advocate for campus
sexual assault prevention and response; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Ms. DeLAURO (for herself, Mr. Doggett, and Mr.
Levin):
H.R. 5278. A bill to prohibit the award of Federal
Government contracts to inverted domestic corporations, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. DeLAURO (for herself, Mr. Moran, and Ms.
Norton):
H.R. 5279. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to impose an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, to
dedicate the revenues from such tax to the prevention,
treatment, and research of diet-related health conditions in
priority populations, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. ELLISON (for himself, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Nadler, Mr.
George Miller of California, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Danny K.
Davis of Illinois, Mr. Sires, Mr. Conyers, Ms.
Norton, Ms. Fudge, Ms. Bass, Ms. Lee of California,
Mr. Takano, Mr. Holt, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Jackson Lee,
and Mr. Ryan of Ohio):
H.R. 5280. A bill to strengthen the current protections
available under the National Labor Relations Act by providing
a private right of action for certain violations of such Act,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HANNA (for himself and Mr. Kind):
H.R. 5281. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for tax preferred savings accounts for
individuals under age 18, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HARPER (for himself and Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi):
H.R. 5282. A bill to award posthumously a Congressional
Gold Medal to Medgar Wiley Evers, in recognition of his
contributions and ultimate sacrifice in the fight for racial
equality in the United States; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. HONDA:
H.R. 5283. A bill to establish national goals for the
reduction and recycling of municipal solid waste, to address
the growing problem of marine debris, to require the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
promulgate regulations to attain those goals, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. JOLLY:
H.R. 5284. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to make permanent the work opportunity tax credit and to
allow the transfer of such credit in the case of contracted
veterans; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Pitts,
Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Huelskamp, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr.
Latta, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Nunnelee, Mr.
Aderholt, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Weber of
Texas, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Long, Mr. Southerland, Mr.
Jones, Mrs. Black, and Mr. Jolly):
H.R. 5285. A bill to ensure that organizations with
religious or moral convictions are allowed to continue to
provide services for children; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. LARSON of Connecticut:
H.R. 5286. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for a more equitable geographic allocation of funds
appropriated to the Department of Veterans Affairs for
medical care; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Ms. Schakowsky,
Mrs. Lowey, and Ms. DeLauro):
H.R. 5287. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide a tax credit for expenses for household and
elder care services necessary for gainful employment; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico:
H.R. 5288. A bill to establish a National Care Corps
through which qualified volunteers provide care,
companionship, and other services to seniors and individuals
with disabilities; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. MURPHY of Florida:
H.R. 5289. A bill to establish the Indian River Lagoon
Nutrient Removal Assistance Grant Program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and
Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HECK of Washington (for himself, Mr. Jones, and
Mr. Kilmer):
H.R. 5290. A bill to establish a Military Community
Infrastructure Program to provide grants for transportation
infrastructure improvements in military communities, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 5291. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States with respect to goods exported for
processing abroad and reimported, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. REED (for himself and Ms. Slaughter):
H.R. 5292. A bill to provide public safety officer
disability benefits to officers disabled before the enactment
of the Federal public safety officer disability benefits law;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ROGERS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Forbes, and
Mr. Turner):
H.R. 5293. A bill to address non-compliance by the Russian
Federation of its obligations under the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services,
and Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD (for herself, Ms. Lee of
California, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Bordallo, Ms. Brown
of Florida, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Chu, Ms. Clarke of
New York, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms.
Castor of Florida, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Crowley, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms.
DeGette, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Ellison, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fattah, Ms. Fudge, Mr.
Garcia, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of
New Mexico, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Hinojosa,
Mr. Honda, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Lewis, Ms.
Lofgren, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico,
Ms. Matsui, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Negrete
McLeod, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr.
Rangel, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sablan, Ms. Linda
T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. David
Scott of Georgia, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Serrano,
Mr. Sires, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Takano, Mr. Tonko, Mr.
Vargas, Mr. Vela, Ms. Velazquez, and Ms. Waters):
H.R. 5294. A bill to improve the health of minority
individuals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on
Ways and Means, Agriculture, Education and the Workforce, the
Budget, Veterans' Affairs, Armed Services, the Judiciary, and
Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. SMITH of Nebraska:
H.R. 5295. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code,
with respect to apportionments under the Airport Improvement
Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. TAKANO (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Van Hollen,
Ms. Tsongas, and Mr. Garamendi):
H.R. 5296. A bill to require a demonstration program on the
accession as Air Force officers of candidates with auditory
impairments; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Ms. TITUS:
H.R. 5297. A bill to improve transparency in charity
regulation; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. TURNER:
H.R. 5298. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to exempt student workers for purposes of determining a
higher education institution's employer health care shared
responsibility; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TURNER (for himself and Mr. Fattah):
H.R. 5299. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow an enhanced credit for the rehabilitation of
buildings located in low-income communities; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. WAGNER (for herself, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Long,
Mr. Smith of Missouri, Mrs. Capito, Mr. McKinley, and
Mr. Guthrie):
[[Page 13707]]
H.R. 5300. A bill to require the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to primarily consider, and to
separately report, the domestic benefits of any rule that
addresses emissions of carbon dioxide from any existing
source or new source that is an electric utility generating
unit, in any such rule, and in the regulatory impact analysis
for such rule, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. WELCH (for himself and Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New
Mexico):
H.R. 5301. A bill to amend title VI of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal
renewable electricity standard for retail electricity
suppliers and a Federal energy efficiency resource standard
for electricity and natural gas suppliers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. MILLER of Florida:
H. Con. Res. 111. Concurrent resolution directing the Clerk
of the House of Representatives to make certain corrections
in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3230; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. NOLAN:
H. Res. 695. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives regarding steps that Congress should take
to restore democracy and change the way we do politics in the
United States by reducing the influence of money and
corporations and promoting the participation of the people in
politics and government; to the Committee on House
Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Rules,
and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Ms. DeLAURO (for herself, Mr. Israel, Mr. Barr, Mr.
Brooks of Alabama, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Coffman, Mr.
Cramer, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Ms. Herrera
Beutler, Mr. Holt, Mr. Issa, Mr. Loebsack, Mr.
Quigley, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Vela, and
Ms. Slaughter):
H. Res. 697. A resolution expressing support for the
designation of September 2014 as National Ovarian Cancer
Awareness Month; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. VALADAO (for himself, Ms. Chu, Mr. Meehan, Mr.
Garamendi, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr.
Ribble, Mr. Honda, Mr. Costa, Mr. Peters of Michigan,
Mr. Holt, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Kind, Mr.
Nunes, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Rush, Ms. Moore, Ms. Norton,
Ms. Meng, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. LaMalfa, Ms. McCollum,
Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Bordallo,
Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Schakowsky,
Mr. Crowley, Mr. Pocan, and Mr. Swalwell of
California):
H. Res. 698. A resolution condemning the attack that
occurred at the Oak Creek Sikh Gurdwara on August 5, 2012,
and honoring the memory of those who died in the attack; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
295. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, relative to Senate Resolution
No. 397 urging the Pentagon to explore alternatives to
increase the cost-effectiveness of maintaining the Army
National Guard in ways that do not adversely impact its
mission readiness; to the Committee on Armed Services.
296. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of
Tennessee, relative to Senate Resolution No. 61 urging the
Speaker and Clerk of the House of Representatives to release
the TBI report ``MLK Document 200472''; to the Committee on
House Administration.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California introduced a bill (H.R.
5302) to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor
to Special Forces Command Sergeant Major Ramon Rodriguez of
the United States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam
War; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 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 Ms. ESHOO:
H.R. 5255.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.
By Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS:
H.R. 5256.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Congress' legislative
powers under Article I, Section 8.
By Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS:
H.R. 5257.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Congress' legislative
powers under Article I, Section 8.
By Mrs. CAPITO:
H.R. 5258.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Congress' legislative
powers under Article I, Section 8.
By Mr. HUFFMAN:
H.R. 5259.
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. SAM JOHNSON of Texas:
H.R. 5260.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution, to
``provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
United States.''
By Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California:
H.R. 5261.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
By Mr. MEADOWS:
H.R. 5262.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which empowers Congress, in
part, to ``lay and collect Taxes'' and ``provide for the
common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . .
.'' The bill will exempt certain educational institutions
from taxes imposed by public Law 111-148, as amnded. Congress
has the power to repeal such taxes and provide for the
general welfare of those who have been and will be harmed by
their imposition.
By Mr. NADLER:
H.R. 5263.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clauses 3 and 18 of Section 8 of Article I of the
Constitution.
By Mr. SCHOCK:
H.R. 5264.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is
the power of Congress as stated in Article I, Section 8 of
the United States Constitution.
By Mr. HUDSON:
H.R. 5265.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
By Mr. LoBIONDO:
H.R. 5266.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of the
United States of America
By Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts:
H.R. 5267.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8
By Mr. GINGREY of Georgia:
H.R. 5268.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, clause 3, granting Congress the power
``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes.''
By Ms. SPEIER:
H.R. 5269.
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 1, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
By Mr. GARAMENDI:
H.R. 5270.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
By Mr. VAN HOLLEN:
H.R. 5271.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
``This bill is enacted pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of
the United States Constitution.''
By Mrs. BLACKBURN:
H.R. 5272.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8: To make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any
Department or Officer thereof
By Mr. BARBER:
H.R. 5273.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
[[Page 13708]]
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States
By Ms. BORDALLO:
H.R. 5274.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 4 Section 3
By Mr. COHEN:
H.R. 5275.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The changes made by this bill to the Higher Education Act
are within Congress' authority under Article I, section 8,
clause 1 of the Constitution.
By Mr. CROWLEY:
H.R. 5276.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: ``The Congress shall have
Power to law and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises .
. .''
By Mrs. DAVIS of California:
H.R. 5277.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
By Ms. DeLAURO:
H.R. 5278.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3 of the United States
Constitution
By Ms. DeLAURO:
H.R. 5279.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States.
By Mr. ELLISON:
H.R. 5280.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution;
clause 18 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution;
section 5 of Amendment XIV to the Constitution.
By Mr. HANNA:
H.R. 5281.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Clause 1 of Section 8 of
Article 1 of the United States Constitution.
By Mr. HARPER:
H.R. 5282.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution
By Mr. HONDA:
H.R. 5283.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
section 8 of article I of the Constitution
By Mr. JOLLY:
H.R. 5284.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 1, Section 8 of Article ' of the United States
Constitution which reads: ``The Congress shall have the Power
to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to
pay Debts, and provide for the common Defense and General
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties and Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.''
By Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 5285.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The Congress enacts this bill pursuant to Clause 1 and
Clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the United States
Constitution and Section 5 of Amendment XIV to the United
States Constitution.
By Mr. LARSON of Connecticut:
H.R. 5286.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
By Ms. LEE of California:
H.R. 5287.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
United States Constitution Article 1
By Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico:
H.R. 5288.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
By Mr. MURPHY of Florida:
H.R. 5289.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1 section 8 Constitution of the United States,
which states the Congress shall have power to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
United States.
By Mr. HECK of Washington:
H.R. 5290.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 5291.
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. REED:
H.R. 5292.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1--promoting the general
welfare
By Mr. ROGERS of Alabama:
H.R. 5293.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1 Section 8
By Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD:
H.R. 5294.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article X, Section Y, Clause Z
By Mr. SMITH of Nebraska:
H.R. 5295.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 3 (related to regulation of Commerce
among the several states).
By Mr. TAKANO:
H.R. 5296.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States.
By Ms. TITUS:
H.R. 5297.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United
States Constitution.
By Mr. TURNER:
H.R. 5298.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution: The
Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but
all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution: The
Congress shall have Power * * * To regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
Indian Tribes.
By Mr. TURNER:
H.R. 5299.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution: The
Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but
all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States
By Mrs. WAGNER:
H.R. 5300.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
The Congress shall have Power * * * to regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in
any Department or Officer thereof.
By Mr. WELCH:
H.R. 5301.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: The Congress shall have
Power To . . . make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and
all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.
By Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California:
H.R. 5302.
``The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this
legislation is provided by Article I, section 8 of the United
States Constitution (clauses 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), which
grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to
provide and maintain a Navy; to make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and to make
all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing
powers.''
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions, as follows:
H.R. 32: Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Cuellar.
H.R. 129: Mr. Lewis.
H.R. 279: Ms. Kuster.
[[Page 13709]]
H.R. 292: Ms. Jackson Lee.
H.R. 303: Mr. Himes.
H.R. 333: Mr. Gallego, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr.
Murphy of Florida, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois.
H.R. 440: Mr. Delaney.
H.R. 460: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 523: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 543: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 647: Mr. Reed and Mr. Jolly.
H.R. 676: Ms. Clark of Massachusetts.
H.R. 690: Mr. Lance, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Brown
of Florida, Mr. Horsford, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr.
Murphy of Florida, Mr. Foster, and Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 725: Mr. Thompson of California.
H.R. 728: Mr. Bera of California.
H.R. 792: Ms. Hanabusa.
H.R. 831: Mr. Israel.
H.R. 851: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 954: Ms. Norton and Mr. Takano.
H.R. 975: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 1020: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 1070: Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Butterfield, and
Mr. Sires.
H.R. 1074: Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Ms. Granger, and Ms.
Waters.
H.R. 1148: Mrs. Brooks of Indiana and Ms. Bonamici.
H.R. 1179: Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1250: Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 1284: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 1318: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1339: Ms. Norton, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Connolly, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, and Ms. Edwards.
H.R. 1387: Mrs. Hartzler.
H.R. 1428: Ms. Esty.
H.R. 1431: Mr. Murphy of Florida.
H.R. 1449: Mr. Veasey.
H.R. 1462: Mr. Cooper and Mr. Barletta.
H.R. 1507: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 1527: Mr. Cicilline.
H.R. 1563: Mr. Bera of California and Mr. Engel.
H.R. 1620: Mr. Lance, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Farenthold, Mr.
Ruppersberger, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Himes, Mr. Cuellar, Mr.
Murphy of Florida, Mr. Foster, Ms. Kaptur, and Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 1696: Mr. Lewis, Mr. Tierney, Ms. Chu, and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 1725: Mr. Cicilline and Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 1812: Mr. Garcia.
H.R. 1852: Mr. Palazzo, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Engel, Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Roskam.
H.R. 1878: Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Brown of Florida,
and Mr. Crenshaw.
H.R. 1910: Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 1921: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 1953: Mr. Daines.
H.R. 2001: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 2056: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 2086: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 2116: Ms. Esty.
H.R. 2169: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 2323: Mr. Stivers.
H.R. 2417: Mr. Wenstrup.
H.R. 2450: Mr. Loebsack.
H.R. 2457: Mr. Quigley.
H.R. 2468: Ms. Esty, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York,
and Mr. Cicilline.
H.R. 2504: Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Murphy of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and Mr. Larsen of
Washington.
H.R. 2506: Mr. Bera of California.
H.R. 2536: Ms. Sinema, Mr. Womack, and Mr. Foster.
H.R. 2540: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 2594: Mrs. Bustos.
H.R. 2662: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 2673: Mr. Fleming and Mr. Wenstrup.
H.R. 2707: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 2745: Mr. Massie.
H.R. 2835: Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Mr. Amodei.
H.R. 2841: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 2870: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
H.R. 2957: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 2994: Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Barrow
of Georgia, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Ms. Moore, Mr. Rooney, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Coble, Mr. Bachus, Mr. LoBiondo, and
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
H.R. 3123: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi and Mr. Hastings of
Florida.
H.R. 3276: Mrs. Bustos.
H.R. 3327: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 3395: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 3426: Mr. Guthrie.
H.R. 3456: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 3471: Mr. Engel.
H.R. 3555: Mr. Carter.
H.R. 3560: Mr. Swalwell of California.
H.R. 3600: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 3680: Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 3708: Mr. Harris and Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 3711: Ms. Clark of Massachusetts.
H.R. 3714: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 3717: Mr. Collins of New York.
H.R. 3722: Mr. Fleischmann.
H.R. 3740: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 3742: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 3833: Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 3850: Mr. Cartwright and Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 3852: Mr. Cartwright and Ms. Clark of Massachusetts.
H.R. 3877: Ms. Esty.
H.R. 3899: Mr. Matheson.
H.R. 3940: Mr. Latta.
H.R. 3991: Mr. Marino and Mr. Petri.
H.R. 3992: Mr. LoBiondo, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Cohen, Ms.
Kaptur, and Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 4149: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 4158: Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California.
H.R. 4162: Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 4172: Mr. Valadao and Ms. Titus.
H.R. 4190: Mr. Hall and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 4214: Mr. Simpson and Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 4216: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Scott of
Virginia and Mr. Richmond.
H.R. 4221: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Payne.
H.R. 4252: Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, and Mr.
Renacci.
H.R. 4319: Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 4365: Mr. Larson of Connecticut and Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 4378: Ms. Shea-Porter.
H.R. 4385: Ms. Jenkins.
H.R. 4426: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Swalwell of California.
H.R. 4427: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 4498: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 4504: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 4510: Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. Young of
Indiana, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr.
Lynch, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr.
Kildee, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California and Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 4525: Mr. Deutch, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Peters
of Michigan, and Mr. Owens.
H.R. 4544: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 4567: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 4577: Ms. Clarke of New York and Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi.
H.R. 4584: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 4620: Mr. O'Rourke.
H.R. 4632: Mrs. Bustos.
H.R. 4664: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 4674: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 4682: Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Bishop of New York,
Mr. Gallego, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Salmon, Mrs. Bachmann,
Mr. Stutzman, and Mr. Gary G. Miller of California.
H.R. 4717: Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 4723: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 4726: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 4748: Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Neal.
H.R. 4763: Mr. Honda and Mr. Swalwell of California.
H.R. 4793: Mr. King of New York, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Rangel,
and Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 4811: Mr. Bachus.
H.R. 4815: Mr. Veasey.
H.R. 4818: Mr. Rangel and Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 4833: Ms. Clark of Massachusetts.
H.R. 4837: Mr. Connolly.
H.R. 4847: Mr. Cuellar.
H.R. 4857: Mr. Takano.
H.R. 4863: Mr. Rush.
H.R. 4864: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 4865: Ms. Titus.
H.R. 4886: Mr. Peterson, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms.
Chu, and Mr. Nolan.
H.R. 4906: Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 4930: Mr. Simpson and Mr. Yoder.
H.R. 4933: Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Kinzinger
of Illinois, and Mr. Valadao.
H.R. 4942: Ms. Sinema and Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 4951: Mr. Gallego and Ms. Sinema.
H.R. 4960: Mr. Kline, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Petri, Mr.
Higgins, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Cooper, and Ms. Esty.
H.R. 4964: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 4970: Mr. Delaney.
H.R. 4989: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California.
H.R. 4995: Mr. Cook.
H.R. 5002: Mr. Welch.
H.R. 5007: Ms. Sinema.
H.R. 5009: Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Kilmer.
H.R. 5011: Ms. Sinema and Mrs. Bustos.
H.R. 5014: Mr. Rokita.
H.R. 5023: Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 5051: Mr. Delaney and Mrs. Davis of California.
H.R. 5052: Mr. Simpson and Mr. Smith of Texas.
H.R. 5059: Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 5064: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 5069: Mr. Joyce.
H.R. 5071: Mr. Bridenstine.
H.R. 5078: Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Rigell, Mr. Walberg, Mr.
Calvert, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Weber of
Texas, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Posey, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Flores.
H.R. 5082: Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 5088: Mr. Rangel and Mr. Gallego.
H.R. 5101: Mr. Takano, Mr. Ellison, and Ms. Brown of
Florida.
H.R. 5110: Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Long, Mr. Calvert, and
Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 5113: Mr. Rothfus.
H.R. 5130: Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Conyers, Ms.
Norton, and Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 5137: Mrs. Black and Mr. Gibbs.
H.R. 5143: Mr. Marchant.
H.R. 5146: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Kelly
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Gerlach, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Shuster, Mr.
Marino, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Rothfus, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Dent,
Mr. Pitts, and Mr. Cartwright.
[[Page 13710]]
H.R. 5160: Mr. Byrne, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Roe of Tennessee,
Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Flores, Mr. Posey, Mr.
Mulvaney, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Carter, Mr. Kelly of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Price of Georgia, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, and
Mr. McCaul.
H.R. 5168: Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Deutch, and Mr.
McGovern.
H.R. 5179: Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 5182: Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Esty, and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 5185: Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Holt, Mr. David
Scott of Georgia, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Norton,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Rooney, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mrs. Capito, Ms. Lee
of California, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Honda, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms.
Speier, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Moore, and Ms.
Matsui.
H.R. 5194: Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. King of
Iowa, Mrs. Black, Mr. Stockman, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Stutzman,
and Mr. Diaz-Balart.
H.R. 5207: Mr. Tiberi.
H.R. 5219: Mr. Honda, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California, Ms. Lee of California, and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 5226: Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. David Scott of
Georgia, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Massie, Ms. Gabbard, and Mr.
Amash.
H.R. 5227: Mr. Long and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 5238: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 5239: Ms. Norton, Mr. DeFazio, and Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 5245: Mr. Coble and Mr. Butterfield.
H.R. 5253: Mr. Sanford.
H.J. Res. 68: Mr. Loebsack.
H.J. Res. 119: Mr. Peters of Michigan.
H. Con. Res. 27: Mr. Calvert.
H. Con. Res. 69: Ms. Esty and Mr. Veasey.
H. Con. Res. 107: Mr. Sherman, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Rokita, Mr.
Reichert, Mr. Roskam, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Schweikert,
Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mrs. Noem, Mr. Gibbs, Mrs.
Wagner, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Gardner, Ms. Castor
of Florida, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Barletta, Ms. Foxx, Mr.
Swalwell of California, Mr. Royce, Mr. Neal, Mr. Engel, Mr.
Olson, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Langevin.
H. Con. Res. 110: Mr. Pitts, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Franks of
Arizona, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Aderholt, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr.
Scalise, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Speier, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Thompson of
California, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Lee
of California, Mr. McKinley, and Mr. Clawson of Florida.
H. Res. 35: Mr. Smith of Texas.
H. Res. 208: Mr. Doyle and Mr. Nadler.
H. Res. 231: Mr. Braley of Iowa and Mr. McClintock.
H. Res. 281: Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Higgins.
H. Res. 440: Mr. Fitzpatrick.
H. Res. 489: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H. Res. 518: Mr. Loebsack.
H. Res. 522: Mr. Kilmer.
H. Res. 536: Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H. Res. 587: Mr. Vargas.
H. Res. 620: Mr. Deutch, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr.
Gallego, and Mr. Labrador.
H. Res. 683: Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Peters of
Michigan, Mr. Peters of California, Mr. Hunter, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. McKinley, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Sherman.
H. Res. 689: Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Norton, Mr. Payne, Ms.
Moore, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Rush.
[[Page 13711]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. GARY C. PETERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. PETERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday July 29, 2014 I
inadvertently voted ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 4315 (rollcall
463). I wish the Record to reflect my intention to vote ``no'' on H.R.
4315.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE CITY OF FORT BRAGG'S 125TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. JARED HUFFMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the City of
Fort Bragg on the occasion of its 125th Anniversary Celebration on
August 5, 2014.
For a century and a quarter, the remarkable citizens of Fort Bragg
have helped the city evolve from a small lumber and fishing town to a
city renowned for its beauty and small town feel. With just over 7,000
residents, Fort Bragg is a destination for sport fishermen, abalone
divers, and visitors wishing to enjoy one of the most beautiful
stretches of coastline in California.
In 1889, the City of Fort Bragg was incorporated on the site of a
former military fort and Pomo Indian reservation with C.R. Johnson,
president of the Fort Bragg Redwood Company, as its first mayor. His
company established the plans for the city, which maintains many of its
original historic features today.
The City of Fort Bragg is a Mendocino County treasure, a gateway to
the Redwoods, and due to the enduring dedication of its residents, the
city will surely continue to be a wonderful place to live and visit for
years to come. Please join me in expressing hearty congratulations to
the City of Fort Bragg on the occasion of its 125th anniversary.
____________________
HONORING MR. HARRY WURTH
______
HON. STEVE ISRAEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr.
Harry Wurth, an esteemed citizen of my congressional district who
committed his life to his country and to his fellow veterans. Mr.
Wurth, a longtime resident of Albertson, NY, passed away on June 14,
2014 at the age of 87. A veteran of World War II and a leader of the
United States Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of New York, Mr.
Wurth's life was an example of what it means to serve one's nation.
After graduating high school in 1945, Mr. Wurth enlisted in the Navy
and was deployed to the Pacific Theatre toward the end of the war.
Aboard the aircraft carrier, the USS Belleau, he served as deck crew
and later as a baker. He was honorably discharged at the end of the
war.
Mr. Wurth committed the remainder of his life to serving New York
veterans. In 1964 he joined the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 3211 in
Hicksville, New York, and rose to Post Commander in 1969 and All State
Commander. A frequent visitor to VA hospitals in Northport and St.
Albans, New York, in 1972 he was elected Chaplain to the Nassau County
VFW Council.
Mr. Wurth continued his dedication to the VFW in various positions on
the Nassau County and State level. He was elected Chaplain and
Commander of VFW District 1 in 1978, and in 1981 he transferred to the
Albertson VFW Post 5253. Rising to New York State VFW Chief of Staff in
1993, Mr. Wurth led the effort to establish 19 new Veterans' Posts in
New York.
From 1994 to 1996 he continued to move up the ranks in the State
Council, rising to VFW State Commander. At the time of his passing Mr.
Wurth was the Quartermaster for the Albertson VFW post and
Quartermaster of the Nassau County VFW Council.
Mr. Wurth passed away while attending this year's NY State VFW
Convention. Until his death, Mr. Wurth never ceased serving our country
and veterans alike. I am honored to have had the pleasure to serve as
Mr. Wurth's representative. His life will forever be remembered as one
of service and commitment to his fellow countrymen.
____________________
RECOGNIZING GEORGE FLASINSKI FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE SONS OF THE
AMERICAN LEGION
______
HON. PATRICK MEEHAN
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. George
Flasinski, the Commander of the Sons of the American Legion, Detachment
of Pennsylvania. In his time as Commander, George Flasinski has been an
invaluable leader of the detachment and has shown a strong commitment
to the Four Pillars of the American Legion.
The Sons of the American Legion is the nation's largest wartime
veterans service organization. The Legion is committed to supporting
our veterans and service members, honoring our country, and mentoring
youth in our community.
Under Mr. Flasinski's leadership, the membership of the Pennsylvania
Sons of the American Legion has risen to nearly 60,000 members. George
has organized two Honor Flights to Washington, DC for World War II
veterans. Mr. Flasinski has also raised funds for Pennsylvania's
homeless veterans and the American Legion's Child Welfare Foundation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank George Flasinski and the Sons of the American
Legion for their dedication to honoring our nation's heroes and
inspiring our nation's youth to emulate them. George Flasinski has
shown exceptional guidance in his service as Detachment of Pennsylvania
Commander, and I applaud his successes and wish him the best of luck in
his retirement.
____________________
HONORING LEROY R. COLES UPON HIS RETIREMENT
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge and honor the
unparalleled work of Leroy R. Coles--former Buffalo Urban League CEO.
Mr. Coles' work, knowledge, and expertise have left a mountainous,
positively-influential footprint not only on the Western New York Area,
but nationwide.
Mr. Coles received much of his early social and cultural development
as a participant in the Buffalo Urban League programs--which strive to
enhance education and youth empowerment, economics, health and quality
of life, civic engagement, as well as civil rights and racial justice.
During the historic and tumultuous times of the 1960s and 1970s, Mr.
Coles bravely and actively participated in the March on Washington and
continued to march for the rights of others through the 1990s.
Furthermore, Mr. Coles was especially active in promoting peace and
racial harmony during and after the 1960 riots and the desegregation of
public schools in Buffalo, New York.
Upon returning to the Western New York area in 1972, Mr. Coles was
appointed as president and chief executive officer to the Buffalo Urban
League--the same establishment where he began laying his foundation of
ethics. Mr. Coles led the Buffalo Urban League through a variety of
locations, steadily building programs and services to meet the emerging
needs of the minority citizens of Buffalo, New York and Erie County.
Mr. Coles was especially successful in leading the Buffalo Urban
League in grant development at the national and state level in order to
bring new services to the Western New York community, resulting in
additional project
[[Page 13712]]
initiatives such as the small business loan program for women and
minorities who were rejected by banks. Additionally, Mr. Coles
advocated for the development of Advanced Vocational Education and
Progressive Advanced Vocational Education and Exploration programs for
young at-risk students seeking to improve their academic and social
skills.
The accomplishments of Leroy R. Coles are extraordinary and uniquely
admirable. From being the first African-American trustee of Erie
Community College, to president of the National Urban League's
Association of Executives, or to his induction into the Buffalo Urban
League's Quarter Century Club, Mr. Coles' work ethic shines brightly
through.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the
commendable hard work and positive influence that Leroy R. Coles has
brought to Western New York and the nation as a whole. I encourage
Americans to use Mr. Coles as an exemplar in how to carry one's self as
an individual. Furthermore, I am grateful for the hard work that Mr.
Coles has continued to put forward, making Western New York as a whole
a better place for all.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE RICH HISTORICAL HERITAGE OF MONESSEN, PENNSYLVANIA
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the rich
heritage of Monessen, Pennsylvania, and to remember two important
events which took place 150 years ago and ultimately helped shape the
town's history.
This year marks the sesquicentennial of the birth of one of the key
figures in Monessen's founding, William Henry Donner. Donner was
instrumental in the development of the town, using a cash bonus of
$10,000 to turn twenty acres of land on the banks of the Monongahela
River into Monessen's first factory, the National Tin Plate Company. In
doing so he created the town's initial industry, one that went on to
grow and thrive. He was a member of Monessen's first school board and
spearheaded efforts to build the Monessen Water Company, as well as
Monessen's first school building. His work was crucial to the emergence
of Monongahela as a vibrant community, and he played a major part in
spurring its growth.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize another great
figure in the history of Southwestern Pennsylvania who also was a
founder of Monessen, James M. Schoonmaker. Schoonmaker was born in
Peebles Township in 1842, and was a student at Western University of
Pennsylvania when the Civil War broke out. He enlisted in the army and
was assigned to the 1st Maryland Calvary, where he quickly established
himself as a competent leader. In 1862, Schoonmaker was given the
authority by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to raise the 14th
Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment, of which he was made colonel. His
actions in leading soldiers during the Third Battle of Winchester in
1864 were crucial in helping the Union achieve victory, and for his
heroic efforts he was awarded the Medal of Honor. This September marks
the 150th anniversary of that famous cavalry charge.
On August 16th, The Greater Monessen Historical Society in
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania will celebrate the City of Monessen's
annual Founders Day at Monessen City Park, commemorating these two
events. I wish to thank the Society and its President Dan Zyglowicz for
keeping alive the memory of these important leaders, and preserving our
region's history for the next generation. We must never forget the
lessons of the past, and their work is a crucial way to make sure these
Pennsylvania leaders continue to be a part of our heritage for decades
to come.
____________________
HONORING THE TOWN OF ELIZABETH, MISSISSIPPI
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
remarkable Town of Elizabeth, Mississippi.
The town of Elizabeth, Mississippi is located on U.S. Highway 61,
approximately 1 mile north of Leland and 2 miles east of Stoneville. In
March 1889, a deed was issued to Mr. Joshua Skinner for a railroad
depot in the area. At the time, the place was named ``Athol'', but it
was later changed to its current name ``Elizabeth''.
In 1889, Elizabeth was advertised as ``a new town with an
unparalleled future, located in the heart of the famous Yazoo Delta . .
. the richest and most fertile section of the earth where king cotton
reigns supreme.'' Elizabeth had the unique distinction of being located
at the crossroads of the first two main railroads in the Delta: the
Louisville, New Orleans, and Texas RR (which later became the Illinois
Central RR) and the Georgia Pacific RR (which eventually became the
Columbus and Greenville RR).
The town of Elizabeth was designed along the west and south sides of
both railroads. Elizabeth emerged early on as a mercantile city, with
numerous businesses started up due to the existence of the rail lines.
The town can no longer boast a commercial center. Leland has taken that
role. However, it does retain its identity as Elizabeth. It boasts a
modest population of nearly 200 people and a beautiful roadside park.
In 2013, DuPont Pioneer opened a new 30,000 square foot research center
near Elizabeth that focuses on soybean breeding and product development
as well as corn product testing and characterization for farmers in the
Delta.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Town
of Elizabeth for its dedication to serving others.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 25, I missed a
series of rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay'' on No. 453 and ``yea'' on No. 451, No. 452, and No. 454.
On Monday, July 28, I missed a series of rollcall votes. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on No. 455, No. 456, and No. 457.
On Tuesday, July 29, I missed a series of rollcall votes. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on No. 458 and No. 459. I would
have voted ``nay'' on No. 460, No. 461, and No. 462. I would have voted
``yea'' on No. 463 and No. 464.
____________________
OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
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 $17,613,035,203,018.10. We've added
$6,986,158,154,105.02 to our debt in 5 years. This is over $6.9
trillion in debt our nation, our economy, and our children could have
avoided with a balanced budget amendment.
____________________
IN COMMEMORATION OF THE 7TH ANNIVERSARY OF PASSAGE OF H. RES. 121
______
HON. ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA
of american samoa
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 7th
anniversary of the passage of H. Res. 121, an historic resolution which
expresses the sense of the U.S. House of Representatives that the
Government of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept
historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its
Imperial Armed Force's coercion of young women into sexual slavery,
known to the world as `comfort women', during its colonial and wartime
occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands from the 1930s through the
duration of World War II.
H. Res. 121 was passed on July 30, 2007, and I commend my good
friend, Congressman Michael Honda of California, for introducing it. I
admire his courage and devotion for causes that matter. As a Japanese-
American, he gave voice to this cause in a way no other could and,
because of him, this Resolution stands as a testament of his advocacy
for and on behalf of those who suffer.
[[Page 13713]]
I also commend Dong Suk Kim of Korean American Civic Empowerment
(KACE) for his grassroots efforts in bolstering support for H. Res. 121
which led to its successful passage. His contributions made a
significant difference.
I also commend the Honorable Nancy Pelosi. In my opinion, her
decision to bring H. Res. 121 to the Floor for House consideration was
the key factor that made passage possible. As the first woman in
American history to serve as Speaker of the House, her clarion call for
equality and empowerment for women is of consequence globally and
historically. Her personal commitment to the women who still bear the
scars from the Imperial Armed Force's coercion will never be forgotten.
In 2007, it was my honor to hold the first hearing ever held on this
sensitive issue. Although this legislation had been introduced in the
U.S. Congress for more than a decade, including by my good friend,
former Congressman Lane Evans, no Committee had ever held a hearing on
the matter. But, in 2007, I determined that my first action as Chairman
of the House Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
would be to hold a hearing calling upon Japan to apologize for the war
crimes its Imperial Armed Forces perpetuated against innocent young
girls and women.
Congressman Honda testified before the Subcommittee as did three
survivors, including Ms. Yong Soo Lee, Ms. Jan Ruff O'Herne, and Ms.
Koon Ja Kim. I will never, ever forget the testimony of these three
women. They remain my heroes. Because of their courage, an official
record now stands forevermore on file with the U.S. House of
Representatives that speaks the truth about what Japan's Imperial Armed
Forces did to them. Their childhoods were stolen. Their destinies were
disrupted. But their spirits were not broken because they know, like I
know, that God will one day set everything right and justice will
come--no matter what.
And so, I pay tribute to Ms. Lee, Ms. O'Herne, Ms. Kim and all those
they represented. It has been my honor to know them and also to know
all my grandmothers at the House of Sharing. I wish God's sweetest
blessings upon them.
I also thank President Park Geun-hye, then a member of South Korea's
National Assembly, for attending our Subcommittee hearing as an
observer. The Subcommittee was extraordinarily honored to welcome her.
Her presence at the hearing honored every young girl and woman ever
victimized by Japan's Imperial Armed Forces.
While I strongly urge the Government of Japan to formally acknowledge
and apologize in order to begin the reconciliation process, I bear no
animosity or ill-will towards the people of Japan. If given the choice,
I believe the people of Japan would also call for its government to
apologize for the atrocities its Imperial Armed Forces committed
against innocent young girls and women. But, regrettably, the
Government of Japan chooses to whitewash its history. However, sooner
or later, truth will prevail. Until it does, I will continue to do
everything I can to bring increasing awareness to this issue.
____________________
HONORING MICHAEL MAY, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMY BIEHL HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to honor Michael May, an outstanding leader and educator in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, for his time as Executive Director for Amy
Biehl High School (ABHS).
Founded in 1999, by public school teachers Tony Monfiletto and Tom
Siegel, ABHS fundamentally changed the idea of what a high school can
contribute to the students it educates. The founders envisioned a
school that not only prepared students for college, but held itself
accountable for a student's success after graduation. It is no
coincidence that during Mike's tenure, nearly 100 percent of ABHS
students attended college and 86 percent of those students graduated
with a Bachelor's degree.
More than that, Mike has inspired students to strive for academic
excellence while fulfilling their commitment to the community at large.
On March 18, 2014, I visited the school to recognize and congratulate
the students for their achievement of 65,000 hours of community service
to over 140 non-profit organizations. And on June 17, 2014, after
working closely with Mike, I introduced and the House of
Representatives passed the Albuquerque, New Mexico, Federal Land
Conveyance Act of 2014 (H.R. 3998), which allows ABHS to obtain
ownership of the Old Federal Court House and Post Office in the heart
of downtown Albuquerque. We will continue to work to enact this bill
into law, preserve this historic building, and provide students with a
first-rate education.
Mike always put his students first and even talked at length to the
Economic Forum of Albuquerque about the great work done by his school
to benefit the business community. When asked about ABHS's numerous
successes during his time as Executive Director, Mike said:
I would love to thank the community for the support of the
school and what we have accomplished. What we have
accomplished would not have been possible without the
commitment of so many people who have seen the value in what
we are doing.
This statement reflects Mike's selflessness and demonstrates the
respect and admiration that Mike has for our community in Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Mike's vision, passion, dedication, and hands-on approach
with students are one-of-a-kind. While he will be sorely missed, I have
no doubt that he will accomplish great things in his new role directing
the L'Ecole d'Humanite boarding school in Switzerland.
____________________
HONORING WEE CARE NURSERIES AND LEARNING CENTERS, INC.
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
landmark establishment within the City of Tchula that provides one of
the most critical and essential services for all working parents: Wee
Care Nursery and Learning Center, Inc.
Tchula's Wee Care Nursery and Learning Center began as Tchula Day
Care. Tchula Day Care opened its doors on September 3, 1991. The name
was later changed to Tchula's Wee Care Nursery and Learning Center,
Inc. On May 15, 1995, Wee Care Nursery and Learning Center #2 opened
its doors in Lexington, MS.
Tchula's Wee Care capacity is 142 and Lexington's is 169. Current
enrollment is 77 and 54 respectively.
At Wee Care Nurseries and Learning Centers, their mission is to
provide child care that meets the needs of each child and family in a
safe, educational environment.
They take pride in the Centers and focus on the individual needs of
each child, while providing quality, reliable and safe child care.
The goals of Wee Care Nurseries and Learning Centers are: (1) To
provide affordable, convenient, dependable child care services; (2) To
create a child care setting for social, cognitive, and physical
development; (3) To provide a nurturing environment; (4) To provide
learning experiences for children; and (5) To provide a preschool
program, readying children for lifelong learning.
Wee Care Nurseries and Learning Centers, Inc. believes that a high
quality early childhood program provides a safe and nurturing
environment that promotes the physical, emotional, social, and
cognitive development of young children while responding to the needs
of families. They believe in promoting an anti-bias, pro-social
curriculum that teaches children to value and respect themselves and
others for their own unique individuality. Each child is considered
unique in temperament and rate of development. Curriculum is planned to
enhance and challenge particular, distinct individual needs, interests
and abilities. The curriculum includes: manipulatives, art, music,
games, and outdoor play. They believe child-initiated, child-directed,
teacher-supported play is an essential component of developmentally
appropriate practice. Activities and relationships occur in a healthy,
positive and relaxed environment in which well-qualified staff provide
personal attention, guidance and nurturing to each child.
Wee Care Nurseries and Learning Centers, Inc. strives to maintain
continuity and consistency throughout the program by conducting helpful
staff planning, training and a variety of joint activities involving
various groups of children. In this context, all caregivers at Wee Care
Nurseries and Learning Centers are encouraged to express their
individual educational strengths as they work with children and in
their cooperative efforts with other staff members.
[[Page 13714]]
When you come to Wee Care Nurseries and Learning Centers, your child
will receive the best care the industry has to offer. All you need to
do is ``expect more.'' They have been fortunate to get special
recognition from: Greenwood Voters' League, Mississippi State
University, The Cities of Tchula and Lexington, Mississippi Building
Blocks and The Delta Foundation.
Wee Care Nurseries and Learning Centers are able to care for children
ages 6 weeks to 12 years. Along with regular childcare services, they
also provide before and after school care and a summer reading and math
enrichment program.
Wee Care Nurseries and Learning Centers, Inc. have a motto/slogan:
Building a better world one child at a time. Learning Today . . .
Leading Today!
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Wee Care
Nurseries and Learning Centers, Inc. for its past and present
dedication to providing impeccable, dependable childcare services in an
effort to help families of all backgrounds within the Tchula community.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE 49TH ANNIVERSARY OF MEDICARE
______
HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 49th
anniversary of Medicare, one of the most popular and successful social
insurance programs in the history of the United States.
When President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law on July 30, 1965,
less than 50 percent of seniors had health insurance and 35 percent
lived in poverty.
Now, over 52.4 million Americans are given health care benefits
regardless of their condition or income.
This includes over 40 million Americans age 65 or above and 9 million
disabled Americans receiving Social Security benefits.
Medicare saves lives and money, and here is why.
Since its creation Medicare has provided comprehensive health care
coverage for the senior citizens who cannot afford it.
Without Medicare, most seniors would not have insurance and be unable
to afford health care due to high costs or pre-existing conditions.
It provides 37 million seniors prescription drug coverage and offers
free preventive health screenings, including mammograms, diabetes, or
cancer screenings now thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
Medicare is not welfare. It is an cost-effective social program that
works.
In combination with the Affordable Care Act, I believe that
Medicare's future is even brighter.
These improved benefits include incentives for doctors and health
care providers to coordinate more smoothly, reduce waste and fraud, and
lower out of pocket costs for beneficiaries.
Forty-nine years after its inception, the program continues to do its
job and I hope that we can continue to support it.
____________________
IMMIGRATION
______
HON. GLENN THOMPSON
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the situation on our
southern border and the influx of unaccompanied migrant children is
both tragic and alarming.
As the House and Senate debate this matter, it's important for us to
recognize several areas of discussion that demand our attention.
To start, Mr Speaker, we know this influx has been building for some
time and that over the last several months it has grown at an even
faster pace.
Before 2009, the flow of unaccompanied children attempting to cross
the border was less than 10,000 per year.
These numbers have increased dramatically over the last few years.
While recent estimates over the past month appear to indicate the flow
is subsiding, we remain on pace to exceed 90,000 children for 2014.
We also know that more than 90 percent of all these children come
from just three countries--El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
While economic conditions in this region have been poor for quite
some time, they have not significantly changed in the last few years.
We also know that a law passed in 2008 with the best of intentions--
the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization--is making it more difficult to return unaccompanied
children to their families.
Unlike illegal immigrants from Mexico, who are required by law to be
processed and promptly returned home, the 2008 law guarantees minors
from these countries a court date and mandates extensive assistance for
temporary relocation as they wait out their pending appeal.
We also know that a large number of these individuals evade attending
these proceedings, and that ultimately, few minors are sent home. In
fact, most are able to stay for years, and a large number remain
permanently.
According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement data, only 1,669
children were deported in 2013 despite more than 26,000 apprehensions.
These statistics are stunning, Mr. Speaker.
There is no wonder that according to interviews conducted by the
Department of Homeland Security that more than 90 percent of these
children expect they will be able to stay in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, what's even more concerning is how many of the Obama
Administration's policies have not helped the current crisis.
For example, the President's 2012 policy for Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals gives these families hope that they might receive
some sort of amnesty. This policy not only is detrimental to the rule
of law and an overreach of executive authority, but it also sends the
wrong signal.
Mr. Speaker, all of this is a stark reminder of just how flawed the
President and Senate's immigration reform bill is. Granting amnesty to
11 million illegal immigrants would merely serve to reinforce the
perceptions that if you come to the U.S. illegally you will be
rewarded--and not only with a hearing, but full legalization. This does
not help the current situation, to say the least.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, billions in new spending as the President
has requested will not reverse the perceptions of a lenient enforcement
environment in the U.S.
Alternatively, what we do know is that this administration--and every
administration--must do more to secure the border.
What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that we must do more to stem this
migration influx, which should include changes to the 2008 trafficking
law.
What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that we must do more to leverage our
relations with Central America to support the expedited return of these
children in a humane fashion.
What we do know Mr. Speaker, is that we need the White House to
enforce the laws, better secure our border, and to put aside political
games and actually start working with Congress in a bipartisan manner.
____________________
HONORING ISAAC PALMER
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
remarkable person, Mr. Isaac Palmer.
Mr. Isaac Palmer was born on May 23, 1914 in Sharkey County,
Mississippi, the oldest of nine children born to the late Reverend
Littleton and Frances Nathaniel Palmer. Mr. Palmer was married to the
late Vera Lee Bell Palmer for over 50 years. He has eight children:
Betty, Geraldine, Odell, Isaac Lavelle, Nina, Patricia, David
(deceased) and Fred (deceased).
Mr. Palmer wanted to attend school badly; but, he had to leave school
when he was twelve years old, in the 6th grade, to work on the farm and
help provide for his younger sisters and brothers. However, he didn't
let this stop him. He learned to read, write and speak more fluently by
studying the Holy Bible. Mr. Palmer was a ``jack of all trades'', doing
things like driving tractors, farming, welding and being a mechanic,
just to name a few.
At an early age, Mr. Palmer accepted Christ as his Savior. He was an
active member of New Hope Baptist Church in Blanton, Mississippi, where
he served as Senior Deacon and Superintendent of the Sunday school for
many years. During this time, he led many children, friends and
acquaintances to Christ. He has been and remains a laborer for Christ
for more than 85 years.
Though Mr. Palmer only had a 6th grade education, he remains
passionate about helping and encouraging his children and other young
people to get as much education as possible. To help out, he would
drive his own children to and from Alcorn and Jackson State
[[Page 13715]]
Universities, as well as their friends who lived in the area (free of
charge), after working all day.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Isaac
Palmer for his dedication to serving and giving back to his family and
community.
____________________
STATEMENT OF INTRODUCTION
______
HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO
of guam
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a bill to amend section
218 of the Social Security Act to allow for the governments of Guam and
American Samoa to enter into voluntary agreements for Social Security
and Medicare coverage for their local government employees. This bill
provides parity to Guam and American Samoa with each of the 50 states
and other territories.
Section 218 of the Social Security Act authorizes the Social Security
Administration and State governments to enter into voluntary agreements
to provide Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) or
Medicare HI-only coverage for State and local government employees.
Under the current statute, the governments of the 50 states, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are eligible to enter into these
agreements with the Social Security Administration; however the
District of Columbia, Guam, and America Samoa are specifically excluded
from the definition of ``State'' for this section of the law. All 50
states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have entered into a Section
218 agreement to cover some or all of their government employees.
Guam and America Samoa's exclusion from this section prevents our
local governments from entering into a similar agreement with the
Social Security Administration. It prevents government employees in
Guam from receiving Social Security benefits similar to what is
provided to private sector employees on Guam who contribute to Social
Security. The Guam Legislature unanimously passed a resolution
requesting for me to introduce legislation that would remove Guam from
the exclusion of the definition of ``State'' for Section 218. The Guam
Legislature wishes to provide the government of Guam with the
opportunity to enter into a Section 218 agreement to have their
employees covered under Social Security. They have identified a local
funding source to begin contributions to the Social Security Trust
Fund.
In closing, I urge support for this bill to rectify this inequity and
provide government employees in Guam and American Samoa an equal
opportunity to contribute into Social Security. I thank Congressman
Faleomavaega for cosponsoring this bill, and I look forward to working
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this
legislation.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. KEVIN BRADY
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was called away yesterday, July
29, 2014, for an important meeting along with local officials at
Southwest Key, a shelter in my district for youth that crossed the
border illegally. I would like to submit my votes on the matters
considered by the House in my absence.
For rollcall vote No. 458, ordering the previous questions on H. Res.
693--the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4315--21st Century
Endangered Species Transparency Act, I would have voted ``yea.''
For rollcall vote No. 459 on adoption of H. Res. 693--the rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 4315--21st Century Endangered
Species Transparency Act, I would have voted ``yea.''
For rollcall vote No. 460 on Amendment No. 2 by Rep. DeFazio (D-OR)
to exclude scientific information published solely in internal Interior
Department publications from the definition of ``best available
science,'' I would have voted ``nay.''
For rollcall vote No. 461 on Amendment No. 3 by Rep. Holt (D-NJ) to
strike a provision which includes all data submitted by State, County
or Tribal governments as ``best available science,'' I would have voted
``nay.''
For rollcall vote No. 462 on Rep. Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) Motion to
Recommit H.R. 4315 with instructions, I would have voted ``nay.''
For rollcall vote No. 463 on passage of H.R. 4315--21st Century
Endangered Species Transparency Act, I would have voted ``yea.''
For rollcall vote No. 464 on H.R. 4809 to reauthorize the Defense
Production Act, to improve the Defense Production Act Committee, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
RAISING AWARENESS OF HEPATITIS C AND FORGING A PATH TO ITS ERADICATION
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize The Second Annual
African American Hepatitis C Awareness Action Day which was held on
Friday, July 25, 2014. Hepatitis C is a deadly and contagious viral
disease that attacks the liver and kills thousands of Americans each
year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), an estimated 3.2 million people in the United States have
chronic Hepatitis C virus infection, many of them unknowingly in the
absence of symptoms. African-Americans have been disproportionately
afflicted by the Hepatitis C virus more than any other ethnic group,
representing an estimated 22 percent of chronic Hepatitis C cases in
the United States.
The National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS, Inc. (NBLCA) has
played a tremendous role in raising awareness by organizing the African
American Hepatitis C Awareness Action Day. HIV infected persons are
more susceptible to contracting the Hepatitis C virus, thus it is
critical that people at risk are made aware in order to prolong a
quality life. NBLCA does the community and its residents an exceptional
service, surpassing its mission of educating African-Americans on means
to counteract HIV/AIDS and other health disparities across the nation.
NBLCA has serviced thousands of organizations through technical
assistance, development, and public policy. Their actions have
garnished over $2 billion in federal funding for HIV/AIDS, formulating
the first programs existing in the black community to address the
problems caused by the HIV/AIDS virus. Furthermore, NBLCA continues to
maintain chief consultant positions on various health related issues in
numerous national organizations. They remain partners with the
Congressional Black Caucus, the National Association of Black Social
Workers, and the National Caucus of Black State Legislators, totaling
over 500 black state officials being represented by the organization.
NBLCA is also a prominent partner of the National Baptist Ministers'
Convention, which represents 8.2 million African Americans.
Internationally, this well-accomplished organization has served as an
advisor on HIV/AIDS related issues to the United Nations, Gabon,
Central African Republic, Uganda, The Bahamas, and others.
During this week, NBLCA has partnered with health care organizations
and providers to provide communities with free screening services and
information on behaviors associated with contracting the Hepatitis C
virus. This initiative will allow many people who are unknowingly
infected with the Hepatitis C virus to receive treatment before the
virus causes fatal conditions such as liver cancer or cirrhosis. With
the establishment of alliances with community leaders, clergy, and
public officials across the nation, NBLCA has truly become a remarkable
asset inspiring a much needed element of change within our communities.
Fortunately for millions across the world suffering from this chronic
disease, an effective and curative treatment for the Hepatitis C virus,
Solvadi, has been developed by the U.S. based pharmaceutical company
Gilead Sciences, Inc. However, it is disappointing that the high cost
of Solvadi, $84,000 for a 12-week treatment, may leave the drug
inaccessible to many Americans reliant on Medicaid. State Governments
and health insurers in the U.S. will be challenged as they seek to
provide this curative treatment to a large population of beneficiaries
who otherwise could not afford it. Solvaldi is truly a triumph in modem
medicine but if it cannot be made affordable to all those in need of
treatment, it would certainly fail to serve its purpose. It is
especially disheartening to learn that Gilead has offered to supply its
ground breaking drug to foreign countries at up to a 99 percent
discount of the price within the United States. Hepatitis C is a
contagious chronic disease that often requires decades of treatment and
expensive organ transplant procedures. If made affordable, Solvadi
could save our country's health care system indefinite costs.
We are in the midst of a golden opportunity to rid the world of a
disease that has claimed
[[Page 13716]]
the lives of countless people. As evolution continues to give rise to
new disease that may plague future generations, we must make a fervent
national commitment to eliminating disease and ensuring the health of
our citizens as we have in the past against diseases such as polio and
smallpox. I am glad we have organizations such as the NBLCA, who is
fighting the good fight on the grassroots level. It would be a great
triumph for humanity and modem medicine to speak of Hepatitis C as a
disease of the past.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me
in raising awareness of such a debilitating disease and support
appropriations that grant funding to non-profit organizations like the
NBLCA across our Great Nation. These talented organizations do such a
tremendous job saving so many lives.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF KEVIN LEO OSWALD
______
HON. ALAN GRAYSON
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding
member of the Central Florida community, Mr. Kevin Oswald. Oswald was
recently awarded the Air Traffic Control Association (ATCA) Air Traffic
Controller of the Year Award.
As a controller, Oswald has seen the Kissimmee Gateway Airport grow
and expand from a small non-automated facility to a control tower with
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) radar, touch
screen communications and FAA flight data input/output (FDIO)
equipment. He has been an integral player in the success of the
Kissimmee Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) in achieving over 2.3
million operations without an operational error.
An excellent example of Mr. Oswald's controller abilities occurred on
December 19, 2013, when he was working as controller at the Kissimmee
ATCT. He observed a Beechcraft airplane that had been cleared for
landing and was over the approach end of runway 15 without the landing
gear extended. He immediately cleared the aircraft for a ``go around''
and explained the situation to the pilot. The pilot responded and on
the next approach made a safe landing. Later, the facility received a
letter from the pilot expressing his appreciation to Mr. Oswald and
stated that his actions prevented a catastrophe. Apparently, the pilot
had inadvertently silenced the gear warning light to accomplish a
single engine landing. The Pan Am International Flight Academy changed
its operations policies based on Mr. Oswald's actions.
Seeing a need to improve emergency response time, Oswald developed a
training program to assist both the Fire and Police departments to
better understand the Air Traffic Operations during an inflight
emergency. He contacted the Kissimmee Fire Department Training Director
and jointly they developed a plan to have all the fire and police
department personnel visit the tower for an extensive training and
observation course. This training has improved the emergency response
time for both departments.
Mr. Oswald was also instrumental in developing routes for the medevac
unit which flies out of Kissimmee Airport. He established standardized
procedures and expedited routes to allow the life-saving medevac unit
to operate in the quickest and safest way possible.
As a true team player, his efforts on a daily basis have
significantly helped the Kissimmee Airport to be recognized as a
destination of choice for individual pilots and aviation oriented
organizations. His devotion and dedication to duty make him most
deserving of the ATCA Air Traffic Control Specialist of the Year Award.
I am happy to honor Kevin Oswald for his accomplishments and
contributions to the Central Florida and aviation communities.
____________________
HONORING PASTOR E.L. KING
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
Pastor E.L. King, who is a former Educator in the Greenwood Public
School District, Extraordinary and public servant.
Mrs. Ethel King was born in Leflore County on June 8, 1959 to Robert
and Ethel L. Lawrence. At the age of thirteen, her mother died and she
was nurtured by her grandfather, Mr. Willie James Lawrence, along with
her seven siblings.
Mrs. King attended Greenwood Public School. She dropped out of school
in the twelfth grade in 1976 because she had her first child. She was
very independent and determined to make an easier life for her child.
She immediately went to work at Rocky Manufactory at the age of
eighteen. She remained there 3\1/2\ years. She left Rocky Manufactory
to work for Irvin Industry Automobile & Parts for 3\1/2\ years. After
seven years of working in a factory environment, she felt life had more
to offer her. She went on to take her GED and attended Mississippi
Valley State University in 1986. Before completing college in November,
1989, her daughter fell ill and later died with Leukemia in December,
1990. While at the University Hospital, she volunteered as a
coordinator to help parents cope with their children's illness. She
later volunteered with a candidate for a supervisor position in the 2nd
District in Greenwood.
Mrs. King was called into the Ministry in 1992. She completed her
Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice in 1993. After
completing her degree, her health failed. She continued to fight on in
1996. She went to work as a volunteer permanent substitute teacher at
Dickerson Elementary School under the leadership of Mrs. Vivian
Redmond. Later she was hired as a full-time substitute teacher. Mrs.
King was very dedicated to educating children.
In 1998 she was hired at Bankston Elementary School as an assistant
teacher until her health failed again. She retired in 2006. After
retiring from the school system, Mrs. King worked as a Notary Public of
the State of Mississippi under Governor Haley Barbour. She also
volunteered with the Fannie Lou Hamer Foundation in Leflore County.
Later, she became Pastor of Monument of Grace Church II in Lexington,
MS for three years under the leadership of Bishop L.J. Johnson.
Pastor Ethel L. King has made an impact on the lives of many children
and adults alike, encouraging them through the scripture, ``. . . but
seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all things
shall be added unto you.''
Pastor Ethel L. King is married to Edward E. King and they are the
proud parents of two beautiful daughters and eight precious
grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Pastor
Ethel L. King, a Former Educator, a Pastor who is yet inspiring others
and often giving of herself to make many lives better.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE HILLCREST COMMUNITY CIVIC ASSOCIATION ON ITS 25TH
ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of
Representatives to join me in celebrating the Hillcrest Community Civic
Association (HCCA) on its 25th anniversary, which will be celebrated in
September.
Ward 7's Belva T. Simmons, was the founder and 1st president of the
HCCA. The idea for the HCCA was conceived on the front lawn of Dennis
and Gloria Logan, on August 8, 1989, National Night Out Against Crime.
The HCCA past and current Presidents are: Belva Simmons, Paul Savage,
Pastor Franklin G. Singer, HI, Vincent Spaulding, and Karen Lee
Williams.
Located just east of the Anacostia River in Ward 7, Hillcrest is a
beautiful and increasingly diverse neighborhood. Among its residents
are D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray, former Metropolitan Police Chief Isaac
Fulwood, former U.S. Marshal James Palmer, and other notable public
figures, as well as teachers, doctors, lawyers, government workers,
civic leaders, professionals, retirees, and blue collar workers.
In the early 1900s, Hillcrest was referred to as part of East
Washington Heights. The initial developer, Andrew Randle and his United
States Realty Company, is responsible for establishing the Pennsylvania
Avenue southeast gateway that paved the way for development of
Hillcrest under the Alger Company. Both early developers had inserted
into some of the residential property deeds racial covenants to
preclude African Americans from renting or purchasing homes in East
Washington Heights. In fact, these deplorable covenants continue to
remain as burdens on the land, but cannot be enforced due to a 1948
U.S. Supreme Court case known as Hurd vs. Hodge.
HCCA is a proud force joining members together in a community that
stands for equality, diversity, civic pride and fellowship, while
opposing crime and threats to its beloved community. HCCA has adopted
Beers, Randle
[[Page 13717]]
Highlands, and Winston Elementary schools. HCCA has partnered with the
Palisades Community Civic Association. The community continues to grow
and acquire new members and diversify.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in
congratulating the Hillcrest Community Civic Association of Ward 7 on
25 years in the District of Columbia.
____________________
RECOGNIZING SARA BARBA, CALVIN FRAUENFELDER, KATHRYN KORNACKI, AND
NATHAN VANNOY
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sara Barba,
Calvin Frauenfelder, Kathryn Kornacki, and Nathan Vannoy for their hard
work and dedication to the people of Colorado's Sixth District as
interns in my Washington, DC office for the Summer 2014 session of
Congress.
The work of these young men and women has been exemplary and I know
they all have bright futures. They served as tour guides, interacted
with constituents, and learned a great deal about our nation's
legislative process. I was glad to be able to offer this educational
opportunity to these four and look forward to seeing them build their
careers in public service.
All four of our interns have made plans to continue their work in
public service next year with various organizations in both Colorado
and Washington. I am certain they will succeed in their new roles and
wish them all the best in their future endeavors. Mr. Speaker, it is an
honor to recognize Sara Barba, Calvin Frauenfelder, Kathryn Kornacki,
and Nathan Vannoy for their service this summer.
____________________
IN HONOR OF FRANK DeCLERQ
______
HON. JUAN VARGAS
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Frank DeClerq for the
outstanding commitment and dedication he has demonstrated to the
community of San Diego throughout his 35 years of service in the Fire
Department.
Throughout his career, Frank DeClerq has been an advocate for the San
Diego City Firefighters and their families. He earned the rank of Fire
Captain in the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department. As a fearless leader
he has worked with the Fire Department Management, elected officials,
and industry experts to advocate for the enhancement of firefighter
health and safety.
Frank DeClerq believes that a firefighter's sworn duty to serve their
community extends to their off duty time as well. He has consistently
demonstrated this belief by supporting numerous charities such as: the
Muscular Dystrophy Association, the San Diego Burn Institute, San Diego
Firefighter Aid, San Diego 9/11 Memorial Stair Climb, San Diego Youth
Sports, and Local 145 Holiday Giving Programs for Low Income Families,
among others. Frank DeClerq has not only influenced the welfare of
firefighters of Local 145 as their leader, but also promoted the
welfare of our residents throughout San Diego and the region.
____________________
EDUCATION IS THE ONLY ANSWER
______
HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Lee R.
Johnson, a man for whom I have great, great respect, is very concerned
about the type of education young people are receiving today.
Mr. Johnson spent a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Army.
Since leaving the U.S. Military, he has become a leader in East
Tennessee.
I bring to the attention of my Colleagues and other readers of the
Record the wise words of Mr. Johnson.
My Life From Zero to 101
(By Lee R. Johnson)
EDUCATION IS THE ONLY ANSWER
America's New National Education Mission Statement: America
must educate and mentor all of our young men and women so
that they are prepared to be academically and financially
competitive in all walks of their lives no matter where they
choose to live and work in this global society.
Globalization has brought us to the realization that the
entire world is more important than ever. Globalization has
forever changed the way that we should judge the education
system in the United States, and there is no going back!
Think, for instance, about the way that we often compare our
local public school system with the same type of system in
neighboring cities, counties, and states. We even compare our
local system with the national average. When we judge our
school system in this way, the future of our education system
looks good. But if we judge our education system on a
worldwide basis, we can see that our system actually deserves
a failing grade. If our students are to compete successfully
in a global culture and economy, our school systems will have
to undergo a major overhaul. Our students (who will become
our future workers, supervisors, and CEO's) must be prepared
to compete--as never before--with the rest of the world. Most
Americans have not yet come to realize what a problem this is
now and how much more problematic this worldwide competition
will become in the future. If we fail to recognize this
problem, we will never find the answer to global competition,
and we will be left far behind.
To understand how other nations impact most areas of our
lives, consider President Ronald Reagan's answer when he was
asked about the strength of America's military. He answered
that he did not determine the strength of America's military;
instead, he added, that the enemies of the U.S. determine the
strength of our military. The same can be said of our
education system. Competitors in every corner of the world
will determine what our education system must be like. Our
system should be flexible and constantly updated to meet
ever-changing global demands or the United States will fail
to keep up.
Drastic Change is the Only Answer
Education is the largest business in America today, and so
education must be run as a business! Teachers, principals,
school board members, school superintendents, members of
state legislatures, governors, and federal government leaders
who don't believe this should get out of the American
education system immediately!
In the business world, a business must be operated in real
time--even better five, ten, fifteen even twenty years in the
future--certainly not 25 years in the past. Our school
systems should be just as up-to-date! At the present time in
our nation's school systems, it takes years to change a
simple policy or even to add or drop a single subject. With
the changes in the world today, we must find a way to be
flexible enough to change twenty-five percent of our entire
education system within one year and continue to make changes
every year until we get our school systems back on track. If
not, our country will be in serious trouble--unable to
compete in a global economy.
To date, our government and our leaders in the education
field have not even been able to define what a proper world-
class education is. We don't even have a national education
``Mission Statement''--what we expect from our children when
they finish each of the four levels of training (pre-K
through elementary years, middle school years, high school
years, and college/university years). A ``Mission Statement''
is essential to our understanding of the definition of a
``world-class education.'' I give our government and all of
our so-called learning institutions an ``F'' for their
failure to understand what the problems are in our education
systems. Many people, who realize that this problem exists,
would describe the situation by use of this age-old saying.
``the blind leading the blind.'' And when the blind lead the
blind, everyone goes around in circles--never getting
anywhere.
If America fails to adopt this mission statement and carry
through on its implementation, then our students will not be
prepared to measure up to other students around the world. We
cannot fail our children and grandchildren! After all, they
are the most cherished treasures of our hearts and our most
valuable resources. We must be ``on mission'' to provide
these students of ours with a world-class education.
____________________
HONORING MRS. DEBORAH MOORE
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
remarkable Unsung Hero in Cleveland, Mississippi.
Deborah Moore is the Associate Vice President of Community Relations
at Delta Health Alliance. Mrs. Moore is assigned to the Indianola
Promise Community where she provides administrative oversight and
technical assistance to the community and organizations. Mrs. Moore
worked one year as Project Manager IV at Delta Health Alliance before
being promoted to Assistant Vice President and then to Associate Vice
President.
[[Page 13718]]
Mrs. Moore is a retiree from the state of Mississippi where she
served 27 years in community and economic development. She spent the
last 12 years of her career before coming to Delta Health Alliance at
Delta State University's Center for Community and Economic Development
in Cleveland, MS where she served as AmeriCorps director for two
programs and then as director of the Center for Community and Economic
Development the last five years. In her role as director of the Center
for Community and Economic Development she assisted grass-root
communities by empowering individuals, strengthening relationships and
developing projects and programs to strengthen communities. Moore has
extensive work with proposal writing having secured grants in excess of
$15,000,000.00.
Mrs. Moore is a member of several nonprofit boards, the Mississippi
Center for Nonprofits, Cleveland Youth Council and Friends of the
Environment. She currently serves as chair of the board for the Delta
Fresh Foods Initiative. Moore serves in an advisory capacity for the
Breast Education-Early Detection Project and the School-based Asthma
Management Project at Delta State University. She also serves on the
advisory board of the Excel By 5 program in Cleveland, MS and is a
member of the Excel By 5 Coalition in Indianola, MS.
Mrs. Moore works tirelessly in assisting: the elderly by running
errands and doing other tasks they may desire; mentoring youth in
diverse subject areas, so they can become an asset to society and work
faithful with her husband's ministry to enhance congregants both
spiritually and naturally.
Mrs. Moore is a native of Cleveland, MS. She is a graduate of Delta
State University with a B.B.A. degree and a M.B.A. degree. She has a
certification as an Economic Development Finance Professional from the
National Development Council (NDC) and received her PhD from the
University of Southern Mississippi in Human Capital Development.
Mrs. Moore is married to Dr. Billy Moore and they are the proud
parents of two daughters, A'ndrea and Alicia.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mrs.
Deborah Moore, an amazing Unsung Hero, for her dedication and service
to mankind.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF DEXTER FOXWORTH
______
HON. ALAN GRAYSON
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month, to recognize Dexter
Foxworth. A recognized Central Florida community leader, Dexter is
known for achieving change through collaboration, partnerships, and
relationships.
Since 2012, Dexter has served as the Director for the Zebra
Coalition, whose mission is to foster hope, dignity, and self-respect
in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and all youth (LGBT+) community
and to provide them an opportunity to grow up in a safe, healthy and
supportive environment. In partnership with 24 different local social
service and government agencies, schools, colleges and universities,
and businesses, Dexter oversees the coalition's operations and
strategic growth in order to provide a full continuum of services and
resources to LGBT+ youth throughout Central Florida. The Zebra
Coalition is the only organization in Central Florida that assesses the
needs of and offers a full continuum of services to LGBT+ youth.
Under Dexter's direction, the Zebra Coalition has strengthened its
programming and resources, opened Central Florida's first drop-in
center dedicated to LGBT+ youth, and became a national model for LGBT+
youth continuum of care. The coalition also received accreditation and
licensing under the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation
Facilities (CARF) as well the Department of Children and Families
(DCF). Dexter also helped the coalition obtain its first federal grants
through the White House and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Through Dexter's leadership, the Zebra Coalition, its staff members,
volunteers, member organizations, supporters and board members, have
come together to provide support and hope to Central Florida's LGBT+
youth.
I am happy to honor Dexter Foxworth, during LGBT Pride Month, for his
service to Central Florida's youth.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DR. CORA MARRETT
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dr. Cora Marrett's career
of service to our country--both in government and education. Since
2011, Dr. Marrett has served as deputy director of the National Science
Foundation (NSF), and I have had the pleasure of working with her as
chairman of the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations
subcommittee. I recently learned that she will be retiring next month
after an exceptional career in academia and with NSF.
Dr. Marrett has helped lead NSF as its acting director, deputy
director, acting deputy director and as the assistant director for
Education and Human Resources, where she led efforts on STEM education
research and outreach--a key priority for the CJS subcommittee in
recent years. I particularly appreciate her leadership on efforts
included in appropriations bills at my request to better understand
gaps in K-12 STEM education research and to bolster American
competitiveness in those fields.
Cora has a long history of service at NSF. She previously served as
the first assistant director for the Social, Behavioral and Economic
Sciences directorate from 1992-1996. During that time she earned NSF's
``Distinguished Service Award'' for her leadership. She subsequently
served as senior vice chancellor for academic affairs and provost at
the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and later the senior vice
president for academic affairs for the University of Wisconsin system,
as well as a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Dr. Marrett for her outstanding
leadership and service at NSF and wish her and her family all the best
for her upcoming retirement.
____________________
COMMEMORATING MR. GARNETT KELLY'S 90TH BIRTHDAY
______
HON. JASON T. SMITH
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Mr.
Garnett Kelly's 90th birthday. Throughout his life, Garnett has served
his country and community with the utmost respect and integrity.
Garnett is a veteran of World War II, a retired Missouri State
Representative, and a farmer.
Garnett Kelly nobly served his country in the United States Navy
between 1944 and 1946, during World War II. He then turned his focus to
farming and later to state politics where he ran for Missouri's 143rd
District, and served Douglas County from 1970-1984. While serving in
the Missouri House of Representatives, Garnett served on the House
Committees on Agriculture, Fees and Salaries, Appropriations, and
Education. After his tenure in the Missouri House of Representatives,
Garnett came back to his farm in Douglas County. He has been farming
for over 65 years, running both dairy and beef cattle and still puts up
his own hay.
Garnett has been married to his wife Loretta since 1945, and they
have been blessed with five children, twenty-three grandchildren,
forty-nine great-grandchildren, and two great-great-grandchildren. It
is my privilege to commemorate Mr. Garnett Kelly's 90th birthday, as
well as recognize his numerous achievements before the House of
Representatives.
____________________
HONORING MR. RYAN CEPREGI
______
HON. ROBERT A. BRADY
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr.
Ryan Cepregi for his commendable and brave actions that saved his
friend's life and earned him The Medal of Merit from the Boy Scouts of
America. Mr. Cepregi has acted in a manner that shows great concern for
the well-being of others and will contribute greatly to our community
in the future. We are proud to call Mr. Cepregi a resident of
Pennsylvania's First Congressional District.
Mr. Ryan Cepregi is only fourteen years of age, but this past June he
saved his friend's life. Ryan received a text message from his friend
stating that he had taken all of his depression medication in an
attempt to take his own life. Ryan immediately contacted his friend's
father and paramedics were able to save his life, partially as a result
of Ryan's immediate and mature response. Ryan said, ``I
[[Page 13719]]
was just being a friend. He has so many more years to live his life, he
is too young to die.'' Ryan put the skills he was taught as a Boy Scout
to use in order to save his friend's life. Ryan has been involved in
the Boy Scouts of America since he was a Tiger Cub at the age of 7, and
has been active in Troop 120 for many years now. For his use of these
skills, Ryan is being awarded The Medal of Merit, which is given to a
youth member or adult leader who has performed some outstanding act of
service of a rare or exceptional character that reflects an uncommon
degree of concern for the well-being of others.
It is a privilege to recognize a person whose admirable actions have
already impacted our community greatly and will likely continue to do
so in the future. I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to
join me in commending Mr. Ryan Cepregi for his service and dedication
to Pennsylvania's First Congressional District.
____________________
HONORING TRINA GEORGE
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Trina
George, who is a Director, Leader and Public Servant.
Trina George was appointed on June 29, 2009, by President Barack
Obama to serve as Mississippi's Director of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Rural Development. She has made history by being the
first woman appointed in this position for the State of Mississippi. In
her new role, she is charged with assisting residents of rural
Mississippi with a range of programs such as: Affordable Housing, Water
Systems Upgrades, and Economic Development Efforts. Rural development
also provides grant and loan assistance to local governments and non-
profit organizations for fire and police protection as well as health
clinics, libraries and other facilities for public use. She is an
advocate for rural communities throughout the state to assist with
their growth, development and sustainability.
Prior to this appointment, Mrs. George served for 15 years as a
Special Project Coordinator for Congressman Bennie Thompson where she
resolved community and constituency issues by thinking inside, outside
and around the box. Her hands-on experience in the Congressional Office
served as an ideal prerequisite for her role in rural economic
development and community participation for the State of Mississippi.
Mrs. George served on many civic organizations, including education
and volunteer groups. She is actively involved in the community where
she is: a Board Member for the Heart of the South Girl Scouts Council,
which serves Northern Mississippi and Southern Tennessee; and a Member
of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc, and PI Alpha Alpha Honor Society.
She holds a Bachelor's Degree from Mississippi Valley State University
and a Master's Degree from Mississippi State University. She is
currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Public Policy and Administration at
Walden University. Also, she holds a Professional Certificate in
Management and Leadership from the NeighborWorks Training Institute of
America in Washington, DC.
Mrs. George is an important advocate for rural communities throughout
the state. She administers and manages over 40 programs which include:
housing; business and cooperative programs; community programs; and
community facilities which are designed to improve the quality of life
in rural America. Rural Development is an agency that the Obama
Administration wants to see in the forefront of efforts to promote
renewable energy and conservation of natural resources while ensuring a
safe, sustainable, nutritious food supply through the Agency's
cooperatives for present and future users.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Trina
George, a director, leader and advocate, who is improving the quality
of life for rural America.
____________________
CELEBRATING EDITH LEDERBERG
______
HON. LOIS FRANKEL
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Edith
Lederberg, who turns 85 years old in August. Edith is a vibrant member
of our community, and a true friend and advocate to senior citizens
locally, state-wide, and across the country. Edith has worked for the
Aging and Disability Resource Center for 37 years. She currently serves
as Executive Director, a position she has held since 1986. As Executive
Director, she plans, coordinates, and directs senior programming and
advocates on behalf of seniors at the local, state, and national level.
She also raises financial resources to support programs for Older
Americans residing in Broward County.
Ms. Lederberg has been recognized for her dedication several times
over the course of her successful career, including her selection as a
Media Representative and then as a Regular Delegate to the White House
Conference on Aging. She served as President of the Florida Association
of Area Agencies on Aging, and as Vice Chair of Broward's
Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board for almost 18 years.
She has been elected to the Broward Women's Hall of Fame and the
Broward Senior Hall of Fame.
These are just a few from her long list of accomplishments. Ms.
Lederberg was born in Freeport, New York and she has three children and
four grandchildren. She is a truly exceptional woman and I know I join
with her friends and family in celebrating her birthday. I wish her
good health and continued success in the coming year.
____________________
RECOGNIZING EDMUND COOK
______
HON. NITA M. LOWEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Mr. Edmund Cook
for his many years of service to American Legion Post 506, and to
veterans in Westchester County, New York.
Born in Lithuania in 1945, Edmund Cook was separated from his family
in the closing days of World War II. After being found and fed by
American soldiers, he was put in a ``displaced persons (DP)'' Red Cross
camp for five years until he was adopted by an American family. The
kindness shown to him by those American soldiers would have a lasting
impact on Mr. Cook, and would lead to a lifelong career of helping
veterans.
After receiving a masters degree from Fordham University, Edmund
joined the Veterans Administration (VA) at the Montrose, New York, VA
Hospital facility as a Clinical Social Worker. In 1991, he was
transferred to the White Plains, New York, Veterans Center to help
soldiers suffering from PTSD in the aftermath of the Iraq War. He soon
started treating veterans from all wars, and has worked tirelessly to
ensure they all receive the care they need. He would even go to
homeless shelters to seek out veterans in need of medical treatment,
and would collect clothes to give veterans.
For the past 30 years, Mr. Cook has chaired the Boys State Program
for Ossining Post 506 American Legion. This program offers high school
boys the opportunity to learn how our government works, from the local
and state level to the Federal Government. It is an important learning
experience for young men who might one day seek opportunities in
government work. Mr. Cook has infused his passion for helping others
into this program, and he continues to inspire young men every year.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Edmund Cook of Ossining, NY,
for his lifetime of service to the veterans and youth of my district.
His work has inspired others to help those in need, and he has truly
lived up to the Veterans Administration motto, ``to care for him who
shall have borne the battle.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in
honoring his tremendous accomplishments.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO MRS. MARTHA ANN (GIBBS) MELTON ON THE OCCASION OF
HER 100TH BIRTHDAY
______
HON. DANNY K. DAVIS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity
to congratulate Mrs. Martha Ann (Gibbs) Melton, who was born on August
7, 1914, to Charles and Chanie Gibbs. She is the youngest and only
daughter of three siblings. Her two older brothers, Scott and Jim, have
both made their transitions. After becoming a grandmother, Martha has
been affectionately addressed as Granny by all who know and love her.
She is indeed a very proud grandmother with 32 grandchildren and a host
of great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren.
Martha Ann had a very interesting childhood. Her father, Charles
Gibbs (Poppa) was one of 12 siblings born to Henry and Ann
[[Page 13720]]
(Wright) Gibbs. Grandpa Henry Gibbs was a free slave in Clay County,
West Point, Mississippi. Because he was a man of many trades--such as a
farmer, shoe maker, textile worker, blacksmith, cotton gin operator,
and molasses mill operator--Grandpa Henry's 12 children also followed
in his path. His freedom came with a 225-acre land grant from the
Cottrell Plantation owner, which was eventually inherited by his
children and passed down through generations to living descendants. The
young Poppa Charles Gibbs was a very hardworking farmer and shoemaker.
His 3 children also had to work hard. Although there was always work to
do, the kids did find time to play. Some of Granny's favorite games
were baseball, hop scotch, and jump rope. Her recollection of a normal
day was being up at day break, attending the one room Pooles' school
house, and then working in the cotton fields until sundown where she
was either chopping cotton or picking up 200 pounds of cotton a day
during harvest. She took what she learned from Pooles' school to later
earn a GED. Granny shared one of her favorite pastimes which was
sitting and watching Poppa operate his shoe lasting machines to make
shoes. She was always amazed how the machine would use a needle to
punch and sew shoes. Not only did Poppa make shoes, but he also removed
soles from old shoes and patched the soles to make them look new.
As tradition goes, the expectation is that, as the only daughter in
the household, Granny would have a room with some special frills or
girly touches. Quite the opposite, she remembers having the basics--a
small bed, a trunk and a chifferobe, and she was quite content with her
provisions. In addition, Sundays were special in the Gibbs family.
Everyone got up early and put on their best attire for a day of worship
at Primitive Baptist Church. Granny later became a member of Union Star
Baptist Church (West Point) where she sang in the choir. Granny was
also a member of the Prince Hall Masons, Heroines of Jericho Lounge,
Court #324.
As a young woman, Martha Ann was a mother to 5 children, the late
Chanie (Gibbs) Randle, Sallie (Collins) Sellars, Isaac Melton, Jr.,
Amos Melton, and Clarence Melton. Her husbands from previous marriages
were the late Willie James Collins and the late Isaac Melton, Sr. She
held a variety of jobs while living in West Point, ranging from day
work at various homes to Bryan Bros. Packing Company, Swift and
Company, working as a dry cleaning attendant, and later as a
salesperson for American Burial Insurance Company.
In her senior years, Granny became ill and moved to Chicago to be
cared for by her daughter, Sallie. Her church, Union Star Baptist,
honored her transition with a letter for membership to Greater Garfield
Baptist Church (Chicago) under the pastorship of Reverend George
Henderson, where she serves faithfully and is the senior member of the
Mother's Board. Granny occasionally breaks out in song during service,
and is welcomed by Pastor Henderson. She affirms that her all-time
favorite hymn is ``I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say.'' Even though Granny
has reached this historical milestone, she continues to be one of the
feistiest elders you will ever encounter. She has been there and done
that and knows more than any of us will ever be able to profess . . .
just ask her.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs. Melton as she reaches a
milestone of 100 years and commend her and her family for the great
legacy of history and the contributions they have made to human kind.
____________________
AN APPRECIATION TO AMERICAN SONGWRITERS
______
HON. HOWARD COBLE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that American songwriters are
my sweethearts. Their ability to conjure emotion and experience into a
tune that can be enjoyed by all rivals any talent in the world.
Recently, I sponsored H.R. 4079, the Songwriter Equity Act of 2014,
because of the obvious inequity that exists in the rate structure for
songwriters and performers. It is my hope that this disparity will be
corrected but not solely at the expense, however, of our nation's and
my home state's radio and television broadcast stations.
The art of songwriting depends on a vibrant workplace, which
unfortunately is becoming more and more difficult to find. If we want
to continue to lead the world in music, from a cultural and economic
perspective, future changes to our copyright laws should be aimed at
supporting and helping the American songwriter.
____________________
HONORING LAMBS OF GOD, INC.
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
landmark establishment within the Clinton community that provides one
of the most critical and essential services for all working parents:
Lambs of God, Inc.
Lambs of God, Inc., formerly known as Agape' Childcare, was
established on August 1987 by Jessie and Shirley Burns of Bolton,
Mississippi. Over the past two decades, the establishment has changed
ownership and name twice, but the quality of childcare and nurturing
has continued to grow for over 20 years. In 1998, Victor and Cantrell
Keyes, also of Bolton, Mississippi, became the new owners and changed
the name to Agape Christian Academy. In June 2005, Kenneth and Vickie
Lewis of Clinton, Mississippi became the establishment's present day
owners and renamed the business Lambs of God, Inc.
Over 1,000 children have been served and ministered to through Lambs
of God, Inc.
Founded in reference to John 21:15, the business is currently
licensed to serve 57 children and is dedicated to developing and
nurturing the physical, cognitive, emotional, and social growth in a
safe Christian learning environment.
In addition to providing childcare, the establishment also offers
summer camp, preschool, afterschool, before school drop-off, A'Beka
tutorial and two well-balanced meals and two afternoon snacks. The
overall mission of Lambs of God, Inc. is to interactively engage a
child's educational needs while promoting professionalism in the field
of childcare.
The vision and inspiration for Lambs of God, Inc. manifested via the
encouragement given by Mrs. Daisy Johnson, owner of Kids Are Kids
Learning Center in Brandon, Mississippi. Her insight in the field of
childcare gave Mr. and Mrs. Lewis the inspiration and the tools needed
to encourage and redirect families and single parents. Childcare became
the perfect opportunity to lay a strong spiritual/educational
foundation, build character and exemplify love, all while strengthening
the community and establishing lifelong relationships.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Lambs of
God, Inc. for its past and present dedication to providing impeccable,
dependable childcare services in an effort to help families of all
backgrounds within the Clinton community.
____________________
HONORING MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER FRANCIS L. WAWROSKI, JR., U.S. NAVY
RET.
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the contributions of
the late Master Chief Petty Officer Francis L. Wawroski, Jr., U.S. Navy
Ret. of Laredo, Texas--a well-known veteran, educator, and
philanthropist.
Master Chief Wawroski was a graduate of Southwest Texas State
University. After graduating Master Chief Wawroski served a tour of
duty in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. After being honorably
discharged from the U.S. Army, Master Chief Wawroski enlisted in the
U.S. Naval reserve, where he continued to serve for 32 years including
service during Operation Desert Storm.
Master Chief Wawroski was also a long-term educator; he retired after
33 years of service with the Laredo Independent School District. Master
Chief Wawroski was an honorable teacher, administrator and mentor to
both colleagues and students. Civic involvements were also considered
high priority to Master Chief Wawroski. These civic involvements
included various community organizations, most recently with the Laredo
Veterans Coalition.
Master Chief Wawroski is survived by his wife of 41 years, Francisca
Gamboa Wawroski; their loving children Judith Wawroski-Addison, Valerie
Wawroski-Rodriguez, and Dr. Patricia Wawroski-Mendoza; and his first
granddaughter Olivia Marie Rodriguez. Master Chief Wawroski is also
survived by his brother, MSG John W. Wawroski, U.S. Army Ret.; sister,
Sandra M. Wawroski; and a foster brother, Eugene Perales.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have had the opportunity to recognize
the late Master Chief Petty Officer Francis L. Wawroski, Jr., U.S. Navy
Ret. for his hard work and generosity
[[Page 13721]]
that has truly impacted many lives and our community.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO JOHN ``SHERM'' SHERMAN LEHMAN OF BUFFALO MILLS,
PENNSYLVANIA
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my
constituent John ``Sherm'' Sherman Lehman, a lifelong resident of
Buffalo Mills, Pennsylvania. He is currently 100 years old.
Sherm Lehman was born on September 6, 1913, one of 14 brothers and
sisters. He attended Hyndman High School until the age of 15, when he
began working at the Celanese Corporation in Cumberland, Maryland to
help support his family. He worked there for the next 45 years, seven
months, and 17 days.
Sherm Lehman has always been deeply involved with his family, his
church, and his local community. He married Geraldine Miller on January
25, 1936, and they have been together for 62 years, with three sons and
two daughters who continue to reside in the Bedford, Pennsylvania
region. His faith was particularly important to him, and he continues
to worship at Christ Lutheran Church. Sherm even celebrated his 100th
birthday in 2013 there, joined by many friends and family members. In
addition, Sherm served on the Hyndman-Londonderry School Board in the
1950s, served as church treasurer, and remains an active member in the
local Lions Club.
Sherm was drafted into the U.S. Navy in February 1945, and was
honorably discharged when World War II ended six months later. As he
describes it, ``When the Germans found out Lehman was coming they
decided to surrender right then and there.'' Sherm continued to express
joy and success in athletics, winning over 100 medals in track and
field events in the Bedford County Senior Olympics. He also went on to
compete in the 100 meter dash in the National Senior Olympics held in
St. Louis, Missouri in 1987, when he was 74 years old.
John Sherman Lehman stands as an outstanding example of American
honor and citizenship, and to this day he takes the time to vote in
every election. He worked hard throughout his life, providing for his
family and ensuring that future generations understand the ideals of
genuine humility and love-for-country that you find so frequently in
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to honor Mr. John Sherman
Lehman on the floor of the House of Representatives today. I
congratulate him on a life well-lived.
____________________
TRIBUTE--DOUGLAS RING
______
HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to rise today to recognize
the life of Mr. Douglas Ring, a valuable member of the Pueblo, Colorado
community. Mr. Ring, a beloved husband, father, grandfather and friend,
was a businessman and community servant who faithfully stood by his
community for over four decades.
Mr. Ring moved to Pueblo with his family when he was 14 years old
where he attended Centennial High School, graduating in 1958. As an
avid baker and gourmet chef, Mr. Ring worked in the restaurant business
in multiple capacities, eventually opening the Great American Winery in
1974. Throughout the rest of his life, Mr. Ring fueled his passion for
cooking and baking, bringing as many as 15 to 20 recipes to the
Colorado State Fair each year, and winning an award for his baklava
recipe.
Mr. Ring was not only an award-winning chef and pastry maker, but a
respected public servant. From 1975 to 1989, Mr. Ring served on the
Pueblo City Council during some of Pueblo's hardest economic times. He
worked tirelessly to help the city manage the downsizing of the then
CF&I Steel Mill and the Pueblo Army Depot. During this time, the
unemployment rate throughout Pueblo reached as high as 20 percent,
forcing Mr. Ring to make tough decisions with his colleagues to
determine the fate of his beloved community. As one of his colleagues
on the Pueblo City Council recently said about him, Mr. Ring was a
major influence in keeping the city moving in a positive direction.
In later years, Mr. Ring became a local realtor, working for
Prudential Platinum. Even after retirement, he remained active in the
Pueblo community, serving on multiple volunteer boards and community
projects, and spending time with his wife, children and grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the life of Mr. Douglas
Ring. He lived a life filled with passion for his family, friends,
baking and cooking, and service to the Pueblo community. I stand with
the Pueblo community and the State of Colorado in recognition of his
life and service. He will be missed.
____________________
RECOGNIZING JENNY LIN FOUNDATION CONCERT
______
HON. ERIC SWALWELL
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
the free concert on August 1 organized by the Jenny Lin Foundation.
The Jenny Lin Foundation was founded 20 years ago, in 1994, following
the tragic murder of Jenny Lin of Castro Valley at just 14 years old.
Thanks to her parents, John and Mei-lian, Jenny's talents and spirit
will never be forgotten through the work of this wonderful
organization.
In recognition of Jenny's love of music, the Jenny Lin Foundation
sponsors a free summer music program. It culminates in a free community
concert each year.
Not only have thousands of East Bay students benefited from this
music education, but they have gained leadership skills too. That is
because the Foundation's programs are student led.
The Foundation also supports music education through two scholarships
to help with private music lessons. These are annual awards given to a
Castro Valley Unified School District Music Program participant chosen
as the ``Most Promising Musician'' and a Castro Valley middle school
student for ``Academic and Musical Achievement.''
Another focus of the Jenny Lin Foundation is to help protect our
children. It has done this through fairs to educate parents and
children on how to stay safe, self-defense classes, and art contests.
Thank you to John and Mei-lian, the foundation, and everyone involved
in it for making a tremendous contribution to the East Bay. I want to
wish everyone involved in this year's concert the very best.
It is moving to see that such a positive benefit can come out of such
a terrible crime. May the Jenny Lin Foundation continue to help our
East Bay community for many years to come.
____________________
HONORING MURIEL ELLIS
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs.
Muriel Ellis, who has been blazing through Mississippi's legal system.
Mrs. Ellis, 54, became the first African American clerk of
Mississippi's Supreme Court and Court of Appeals on July 1 this year,
after being the first African American Supreme Court deputy clerk and
chief deputy clerk.
Mrs. Ellis worked her way through the clerk's office for 23 years
after beginning as a legal clerk in 1991. The Callaway High School
alumna, who graduated in 1977, became chief deputy clerk in 2009 after
being named a team leader in 2000 and deputy clerk in 2007.
The Jackson native said she is blessed and honored to accept her new
position. ``I am just going to lead the clerk's office forward,'' she
said. Mrs. Ellis took courses at Phillips Business College and worked
as a ward secretary for St. Dominic Hospital from 1979-1987.
Mrs. Ellis has seen many changes since working in the clerk's office.
Along with Ms. Kathy Gillis, former Mississippi Supreme Court Clerk of
33 years, Mrs. Ellis supervised the office's transition to electronic
filing. Since the office's mandatory e-filing for briefs and motions
began on January 1, 2014, she continues to work on the electronic
transition through implementing emailed orders and clerk's notices, as
well as e-filing transcripts and records from other trial courts.
The clerk became interested in a career in the legal system when she
was serving as an
[[Page 13722]]
alternate juror in the Hinds County Circuit Court. While working in the
billing edits department at the City of Jackson Water Department, she
said she drove past the Supreme Court building all the time on her way
to the Water Department office, which is also located on High Street.
``I never knew what this building was, but I used to say: `That is a
pretty building. I would love to work there someday,''' Mrs. Ellis
said.
Mrs. Ellis has three children: Karen Ellis Evans, Kimberly Ellis and
Leonard Ellis; three grandchildren: Madison Evans, Leonard Ellis, III
and Bryson Williams--and is married to Mr. Leonard Ellis, Sr.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mrs.
Muriel Ellis.
____________________
RECOGNIZING NSF INTERNATIONAL
______
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the good work of NSF
International and to commend them for their 70 years of service to
citizens around the world. NSF International was founded in 1944 as the
National Sanitation Foundation and aimed to set standards of quality
for food and water. Since changing their name to NSF International in
1990 and expanding their influence to other areas, such as
certifications for consumer goods and the environment, they have
contributed greatly to the well being of our citizens and our planet.
NSF International is devoted to ensuring reliable and effective
standards for all types of consumer goods, services and systems. The
organization also provides auditing and risk management tools and
solutions for the businesses and industries they support. They are
truly great members of the business community as well as valued
industry partners.
The sanitation and quality of our products and food present a
monumentally important responsibility. We need to make every effort to
ensure that people around the world receive healthy and safe goods and
services that have a standardized backing. NSF International combines
all of these values and I am proud to support their mission. I would
like to thank NSF International for all their work over the past 70
years and wish them the best of luck in the future as they continue to
work on behalf of people everywhere.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF WYNNTON HILL BAPTIST CHURCH'S 153RD ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and pleasure to
extend my sincere congratulations to the congregation of Wynnton Hill
Baptist Church in Columbus, Georgia as the church's membership and
leadership celebrates a remarkable 153 years. The congregation of
Wynnton Hill Baptist Church will celebrate this noteworthy anniversary
on Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. at the Wynnton Hill Baptist
Church in Columbus, Georgia.
Tracing its roots back to the Civil War era, the church was the first
of any denomination to be built in the Wynnton area of Columbus. In
1961, during a meeting at the home of Mr. Willis and Mrs. Sarah James,
the first members of the church, the plans were established to build a
sanctuary.
The first pastor, Reverend Phillip Owens, assisted in building the
foundation of the church. Land was purchased from the James family to
build a bush arbor which was covered by fresh bushes from a wooded area
every Saturday before the Sunday service. After some time, a wooden
structure was built. Rev. Owens served the church devotedly for 47
years.
In 1911, Reverend James H. Carter was called to lead Wynnton Hill
Baptist Church and he continued to build from Rev. Owens' foundation.
Under Rev. Carter's leadership, the church expanded and the structure
changed from wooden to brick. The first public school in the area was
taught in the basement of the church. Mrs. Selena Cody and Miss Johnnie
Hutchins were the teachers.
One of the most significant moments in the church's history occurred
after a city ordinance was enforced in 1928. The church was condemned
and torn down. However, a sanctuary was erected in 1930 and the church
began to flourish. Throughout the coming decades, an education wing was
installed. In addition, the church was incorporated in 1979.
Unfortunately, turmoil was on the rise again. In 1989, a firebomb
destroyed the education wing, but that did not prevail against the
spirit of the members. The following year, the education wing was
remodeled and rededicated. The construction of the present sanctuary
was completed in 1999 and the loan was paid off in 2003.
During these progressions, Wynnton Hill Baptist Church had eleven
dedicated spiritual leaders that shepherded the flock and led them to a
state of prosperity. Today the church continues to grow and give back
to the community it has served for over 150 years.
The story of Wynnton Hill Baptist Church, which began as a small
group of people worshipping in a bush arbor church 153 years ago and
has grown into an expansive and successful church, is truly an
inspiring one of the dedication and perseverance of a faithful
congregation of people who put all their love and trust in the Lord.
Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute
to Wynnton Hill Baptist Church in Columbus, Georgia for their long
history of coming together through the good and difficult times to
praise and worship our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE GROWING AMERICAN SHIPPING ACT
______
HON. JOHN GARAMENDI
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about
the demise of the U.S. flag merchant marine and U.S. shipbuilding
industry and to offer legislation to help revitalize these industries
that are indispensable to the national security and economic interests
of the United States.
Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, often recognized as the most important
American strategist of the 19th Century, argued persuasively that our
national greatness was inextricably associated with our control of the
sea in order to secure both our commercial and security interests. That
concept is as relevant today as it was in Mahan's time.
Our economic strength and national security today remain tethered to
our ability to control the safety and security of the global supply
chain. What has changed, however, is our vigilance in maintaining our
commercial U.S. maritime industry.
That must change and fortunately I see a way forward. The U.S.
shipbuilding industry and U.S. natural gas market are strategic
industrial and natural resources essential to U.S. national security
interests. In fact, the U.S. maritime industry has been interwoven into
the fabric of our economy and national security since the founding of
our Republic and the establishment of our Continental Navy in 1775.
Several factors explain why it is in the U.S. national interest to
utilize the emerging coastwise and export trades for liquefied natural
gas (LNG) to revitalize the U.S. flag.
First, this newly available and abundant energy source would provide
reliable, long-term markets for U.S. commercial shipbuilding and new
trades for U.S. flag vessel operators. Second, the imminent LNG export
trade might also provide the impetus to attract new capital investment
to expand the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base which has declined in
capacity and international competitiveness over the past forty years.
And third, the LNG export trade could be used productively to
strengthen U.S. strategic interests and alliances with LNG trading
partners, especially Japan, South Korea and India.
For these reasons, today I am introducing, along with my good friend,
the Chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Subcommittee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, legislation to provide a clear
signal to the administration, maritime industry, energy industry, and
our foreign trading partners that we in Congress intend to get serious
about revitalizing our shipbuilding and maritime industries.
The Growing American Shipping Act is straightforward legislation that
would expand existing authority under section 306 of the Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 and under the Deepwater Port
Act (33 U.S.C. 1503(i)) to ensure that the trade in LNG--both the
import and the export of LNG--benefits the U.S. maritime industry.
[[Page 13723]]
This legislation, if enacted, would enhance U.S. national security
and port safety by encouraging the transport of LNG on U.S. flag
vessels. It would help maintain the skilled labor pool and
technological and industrial infrastructure of the U.S. shipbuilding
industry necessary to build and repair both military and commercial
vessels. Furthermore, this legislation would ensure that vessels
carrying LNG to or from the U.S. are crewed by credentialed U.S.
mariners to reduce safety and security risks.
This legislation has received robust support from a host of maritime
stakeholders, including the Maritime Trades Department (AFL-CIO),
Seafarers International Union (AFL-CIO), Transportation Institute,
Shipbuilders Council, Navy League of the United States, American
Maritime Officers, Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (MEBA),
International Association of Masters, Mates and Pilots (MM&P), Maritime
Institute for Research and Industrial Development (MIRAID), Marine
Firemen's Union, Metal Trades Department (AFL-CIO), Sailors' Union of
the Pacific, and American Maritime Congress.
Again, this legislation builds on existing authority under the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 and the Deepwater Port
Act which specifically authorized the Secretary of Transportation to
develop a program to promote the use of U.S. flag vessels in the
importation of LNG to the United States. This legislation simply would
amend each statute to expand the scope of these authorities to apply
also to the LNG export trade.
This legislation is a measured and reasonable step forward to
revitalize our U.S. maritime industries, to support our economic and
national security, and to begin the process of reclaiming our mantle as
a great maritime nation. I urge members to join Chairman Hunter and
myself in this effort.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. STEVEN A. HORSFORD
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain that on rollcall vote
No. 463, held on July 29, 2014, I intended to vote ``no.'' I am opposed
to the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act, and I
inadvertently recorded myself as an ``aye'' when the bill came to a
vote.
____________________
HONORING LILLIE G. HENSON
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
remarkable hero, Lillie G. Henson.
Lillie G. Dean Henson was born to the late Aaron and Lillian Dean on
August 10, 1949 in Sardis, MS, Panola County. She is the ninth of
eleven children, five boys and six girls. There were many challenges
that she faced that seemed to have placed her in the line of the first
born. She was blessed to be born in a Christian home where reading and
studying the Bible were not an option, therefore, her faith in the Lord
was well rooted and grounded.
Faced with many challenges of sickness in her family, Lillie learned
the application of her faith was the only true anchor. Growing up was
very challenging at times. Early in her growing up years her mother was
stricken with a severe heart condition which required lots of rest and
carefully prepared meals.
At the age of fourteen, much of the responsibility of taking care of
the family fell upon Lillie. Cooking breakfast for the family and
preparing a special diet for her ailing mom before going off to school
was quite an experience.
As a little girl growing up, Lillie's dad would ask her to read the
Bible to him, and as a child she remembers reading: ``Honor your father
and your mother that your days may be long upon the earth.'' This
scripture and many others rested in her spirit as she grew into
adulthood. Lillie's passion for the word of God grew greater and
greater.
By the time Lillie was a junior in high school, she began to make
plans for college . . . only to be asked by her ailing mother to stay
home to make sure her younger sister, who was then a junior, finish
high school. Her plans were shattered but she learned to be obedient to
her parents through the studying of the scriptures.
In 1969, Lillie's mother went to be with the Lord, her sister
completed her junior year of high school with perfect attendance and
completed high school as planned.
In 1970, Lillie moved to Chicago with her older siblings. Lillie was
employed at Brachs Candy Company for twenty years. She was among the
first few African Americans to hold a manager's position in the Quality
Control Department.
In 1990, Lillie's dad at the age of eighty-two became ill. Her
husband, Otha Henson, Sr., who was also employed at Brach Candy Company
and is from Kilmichael, MS, decided to move back south to care for
Lillie's dad and baby sister, Rebecca, who was born with Spinal Bifida.
Lillie's dad passed away in 1991 and Rebecca lived ten years after his
death.
Since 1996 to present, Lillie has been employed as Program Manager at
Youth Opportunities Unlimited, a Youth Development Program located in
Lambert, MS.
Lillie continued her education at Northwest Community College,
Senatobia, MS, Rust College, Holly Springs, MS, and in 2012, she earned
a BA in Ministry and in 2013 she received a Masters in Christian
Counseling from Jacksonville Theological Seminary in Jacksonville, FL.
Lillie is happily married, the proud mother of four children, eleven
grandchildren and two great grand boys.
You can find her teaching Sunday school on Sunday mornings at
Pleasant Green M.B. Church, Sardis, MS, also a praise and worship
leader, counseling, and encouraging and nurturing those in need.
Eph. 6:2, ``Honor thy father and mother; which is the first
commandment with promise.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mrs.
Lillie G. Henson for she is definitely the epitome of an unsung hero.
____________________
HONORING THE DEDICATED SERVICE OF FRANK ALSCHULER TO THE UPTOWN
COMMUNITY
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Frank
Alschuler on his 90th birthday, September 10, 2014.
Frank is a lifelong Chicagoan and Cubs fan. He graduated from George
B. Swift Elementary School, the University of Chicago Lab School,
Dartmouth College and Yale University School of Architecture and he
served in the United States Navy.
He and his late wife, Marjorie Traxler, married on July 24, 1960. In
1965, they moved to Junior Terrace in Chicago's Uptown neighborhood
where they raised their two children, Matthew and Mimi.
Frank was a founding board member of C4 (Community) Counseling
Centers of Chicago, formerly known as EUCMHC, Edgewater Uptown
Community Mental Health Center). Recognizing the need to serve the many
low-income residents living with mental health concerns in the Uptown
and Edgewater neighborhoods, the mental health center was opened in
1972. As a licensed architect, Frank volunteered his services to help
the organization every step of the way. Now with five locations and an
additional one under construction, C4 currently provides mental health
services, crisis intervention, and substance use treatment to more than
10,000 at-risk children, adults and families annually. Now, 42 years
later, Frank is still on the board and still helping with space
planning.
In addition to C4, Frank also served on the board of Voice of the
People in Uptown for over 40 years. Voice of the People has worked for
and with low-income individuals and families in Uptown to create
quality affordable housing. Working with early directors Irene
Hutchinson and Anne Dee Harper, Frank helped build a tenant organizing
group into a full-fledged neighborhood housing development
organization. With Frank's expertise on the Board, the Voice went from
managing one 6-flat to developing and managing hundreds of units of
family housing in Uptown.
Frank and his late wife Marjorie instilled in their children and
grandchildren the importance of giving back to the community. I wish
him a happy celebration of a life well-lived, and good health in the
coming years.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO MAYOR SHERMAN JONES AND THE VILLAGE OF BROADVIEW,
ILLINOIS AS IT CELEBRATES ITS ONE HUNDRED (100) YEAR ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. DANNY K. DAVIS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, July 26th,
I had the opportunity to march with the Mayor of Broadview,
[[Page 13724]]
the Honorable Sherman Jones; Mayor of Westchester, the Honorable Sam
Paulia; Cook County Recorder of Deeds, the Honorable Karen Yarborough;
the Honorable Chris Welch, State Representative; the Honorable Edwina
Perkins, Mayor of Maywood; Trustees of Broadview, Attorney Richard
Boykin and Democratic Nominee for District 1 of the Cook County Board,
as well as a host of dignitaries from throughout the western suburbs,
especially Proviso Township.
Proud residents of Broadview were lined outside their beautiful homes
as we made our way to the shopping center where a daylong family
festival was being staged. I understand that Governor Pat Quinn came
later to bring greetings and salute the Mayors and other elected
officials and residents who had gathered.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Village of Broadview on
its 100 years as an organized part of Cook County and Proviso Township
in the great state of Illinois.
____________________
49TH ANNIVERSARY OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
______
HON. JOYCE BEATTY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish Medicare and Medicaid
a very happy 49th Anniversary!
On this day in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Social
Security Act into law, establishing Medicare and Medicaid and the
guarantee that a wide range of health and medical services would be
available to millions of Americans.
A year after declaring a war on poverty in 1954, President Johnson
created two programs that would serve as the backbone of our Great
Society and provide a backstop so that our fellow Americans would never
again be left without a safety net or a helping hand.
These programs matter, not only to their users, but to all citizens
in our great nation.
Medicare matters because it provides comprehensive health coverage to
seniors and gives families peace of mind that their loved ones can
retire with security.
The program has provided seniors and the disabled with the quality
health care, economic security, and the peace of mind they deserve.
Because of Medicare, millions of Americans have been able to age with
respect and dignity, instead of mounting medical debt and uncertainty
regarding treatment.
Mr. Speaker, I know firsthand how important Medicare is to seniors
and families in America.
Nearly 98 percent of older Ohioans were enrolled in Medicare in 2011,
and nationwide more than 50 million seniors and people with
disabilities are covered under Medicare.
Medicaid matters because 1 in 5 Americans and 1 and 3 children
receive health care through Medicaid. Providing preventative care and
lifelong health assistance is not only the right, moral thing to do, it
is also fiscally responsible.
I look forward to continuing to work to strengthen and protect these
programs and to ensure that the promise of health and economic security
will be there for generations to come.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO REV. MARK McCOLLUM AND THE NEW HOME BAPTIST CHURCH
______
HON. DANNY K. DAVIS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Rev. Mark McCollum was
born in Sunflower, Mississippi on June 12, 1934. In 1954 he moved to
Chicago, Illinois. In 1964, Rev. Mark McCollum and a small group of
faithful followers and believers founded the New Home Baptist Church in
February of that year. The church's first location was in the Stone
Temple Baptist Church Annex on Millard and Douglas Boulevard. A year
later on March 19, 1965, Pastor McCollum lost his right arm in an
accident and the church moved several times before locating to 349
South Cicero Avenue. It was always Pastor McCollum's desire to be in a
church building and the New Home Family worked and prayed for forty
years for it to happen. They called those years, the wilderness years,
referring to the 40 years the children of Israel wandered in the
wilderness after leaving Egypt. The Church and its pastor had their
challenges and struggles but as a skilled leader, administrator and
businessperson, the church acquired most of the 300 South Cicero Avenue
block and used it as leverage to purchase the new church location at
4804 W. Polk Street, which is now known as Dr. Mark McCollum Avenue.
While being a great preacher and pastor, Dr. Mark McCollum is also
known as one of the greatest gospel singers in the world, and brings
great joy and inspiration to thousands every week with his voice. He
can be heard on radio every Sunday night on AM 1450 at 9:00 pm where
thousands wait for his theme song, ``I Will Trust In The Lord Until I
Die.''
Finally, the wait was over and for the past ten years the New Home
Congregation has been worshiping at 4804 W. Polk St. in Chicago,
Illinois and saying thanks be to God for all that he has done. As one
who lived at 5252 W. Polk Street for twenty years, I say thank you New
Home, Thank You Dr. Mark McCollum for all that you mean to our
community!
God Bless and Keep you.
____________________
HONORING CLEOTHA SADDLER
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
remarkable hero, Cleotha Saddler.
Cleotha Saddler was born on February 1, 1945 in Illinois to Garfield
Allen and Viola Orr. She grew up in a home with six other relatives
until her father decided he would raise her in Memphis, TN. Cleotha
attended Mississippi Valley State University where she earned multiple
degrees in elementary education. She later married Frank Saddler, Jr.,
settled in Marks, MS, and gave birth to nine children.
Today, Cleotha, also known as ``Cleo'' or ``Lou,'' is the rock of her
family. She continues to care for her children, and take care of her
grandchildren. Over the course of her life, she has contributed to her
community tremendously. Her name has become one so common for helping
others that the desire from others to want to help even her
grandchildren has increased. She is most known in her efforts for
raising money for those in need.
In 2005, she stood at the main intersection in Marks, MS tirelessly
to gather donations from townspeople to send to Louisiana for Hurricane
Katrina victims. In addition to that, she has never been reluctant to
gather donations in that same way for families who cannot afford to pay
for the funerals and burials of their loved ones. She comforts those
families, not just with funds but with endless visits and ``check-in''
calls. She also helps organizations to decorate and/or cook for
different events in the community. She is one that is very supportive
of the school system, in reference to achieving adequate education.
Cleotha is never hesitant to help anyone in any way that she possibly
can.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mrs.
Cleotha Saddler for she is definitely the epitome of an unsung hero.
____________________
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, July 31, 2014 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.